Tony Abbotts year in Hansard from November 2013 to September 2014

Mr Clerk, I move: That the honourable member for Mackellar do take the chair of this House
as Speaker. The member for Mackellar's long years of meritorious service in this House and
in another place well and truly equip her to be an excellent Speaker of this parliament. As all
of us who have known the honourable member well for a long time understand, she is a
formidable character, and I can think of no-one more likely to deal with all of the other
formidable characters in this place without fear or favour. Bronwyn can do what is necessary
to maintain control of what is sometimes an unruly House. This chamber should always be a
place of spirited debate. But it should never be a place where motives are impugned or
characters assassinated. When any of us are tempted to be low, mean or petty, the member for
Mackellar is well equipped to recall us to our duty. This parliament will be a different one
and a better one, I hope. The member for Mackellar loves this parliament. She reveres its
traditions, and she has the capacity to help all of us to be at our best. I commend her
nomination to the House. Madam Speaker, I have ascertained that it will be Her Excellency
the Governor-General's pleasure to receive you in the Members Hall immediately after the
resumption of sittings at 2.30 pm. I have the honour to inform the House that following the
election held on 7 September the Governor-General commissioned me to form a government.
Ministers and parliamentary secretaries were appointed on 18 September. For the information
of honourable members I present a list of the full ministry. The document lists all ministers
and parliamentary secretaries and the offices they hold. It shows those ministers who
comprise the cabinet and provides details of representation arrangements in each chamber
I would also like to inform the House that the honourable member for Berowra has been
appointed Chief Government Whip and that the honourable members for Forrest and Wright
have been appointed government whips. I move: That a committee, consisting of Mr Nikolic,
Ms Henderson and the mover, be appointed to prepare an Address in Reply to the speech
delivered by Her Excellency the Governor-General to both Houses of the Parliament and that
the committee report at the next sitting. I move: That the House express its deep regret at the
death on 13 October 2013 of the Honourable David Scott Thomson MC, a former Minister
and Member of this House for the Division of Leichhardt from 1975 to 1983, place on record
its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service, and tender its profound sympathy
to his family in their bereavement. He was a remarkable man, he was a war hero, he served
this parliament with distinction, and then he served his party, his country and his state in his
post-parliamentary life with distinction. He was, of course, well known to the Deputy Prime
Minister, and with your indulgence I will ask the Deputy Prime Minister to speak on behalf
of the government. I rise to express on behalf of all Australians our deepest sympathies to the
people of the Philippines in the wake of the terrible loss of life and the extraordinary damage
caused by Typhoon Haiyan. This typhoon has affected up to 10 million people. Almost a
million people were pre-emptively evacuated. Many thousands have perished, including, it
seems, one Australian. I have contacted President Aquino to convey our thoughts and prayers
to the Philippines people at this sad time. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs announced
yesterday, Australia is contributing $10 million in emergency assistance, including $3 million
for Australian NGOs undertaking immediate life-saving assistance work, $4 million for the
UN appeal and $1 million for the Australian Red Cross. There is extra for emergency
supplies, including basic health kits. An Australian medical team is expected to be deployed
to the Philippines tomorrow and five Australian disaster experts are on the ground to assess
whether there is more that our country can usefully do. When nature is at its worst, people are
often at their best. Australia stands ready to help our Filipino friends at this very testing time.
About a fortnight ago the Leader of the Opposition and I travelled to Uruzgan province in
Afghanistan to mark the imminent withdrawal of Australian military forces from that
province. As I said in Afghanistan, Australia's longest war is ending not with victory, not
with defeat, but with hope that Afghanistan will be a better country for our presence. We note
the high price that has been paid by our military forces: 40 deaths; 161 very seriously
wounded; and hundreds, perhaps thousands, of the 25,000 who served there carrying the
unseen scars of war for the rest of their lives. We have paid a high price for limited progress
in Uruzgan province. Nevertheless, there has been progress, and perhaps the greatest progress
has been the advancement of the life of the women of the province as a result of our presence.
I can report to the House that there are now some 26 girls schools in Uruzgan province,
which is a 20-fold increase since 2001. Up to 80 per cent of expectant mothers receive at least
some prenatal care. This is an extraordinary change in what until very recently was almost a
feudal society. It is the men and women of the Australian armed forces and the men and
women of the Australian aid effort, uniformed and civilian, who have been largely
responsible for this, working with our Afghan allies. While the Leader of the Opposition and
I were in Uruzgan, we were presented by the Governor of Uruzgan with some artefacts that
he invited us to present to the Australian parliament as a token of gratitude for the work of the
Australian teams, both military and civilian, in the province. There is still a vast distance to
be covered before that province, or indeed most places in Afghanistan, could even begin to
resemble a pluralist democracy. But nevertheless progress has been made. Still there are
some five male students for every female school student in that province. But Malalai High
School, one of the high schools that has opened and flourished with Australian support, is
about to graduate a class of girl students. The governor of the province presented the artefacts
I am holding to the Leader of the Opposition and me in the hope that they would be laid
before the Australian parliament as a token of the gratitude of the people of Uruzgan to the
people of Australia, and of the respect of the people of Uruzgan to the people of Australia for
the sacrifices that have been made by our country on their behalf. With your indulgence,
Madam Speaker, I will present these artefacts to the Clerk. 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. I thank the Leader
of the Opposition for his question, and I can inform himand I can inform this parliament
and the Australian peoplethat 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. 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 centnotwithstanding 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.
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. Yes, we are proposing to remove the
schoolkids bonusbut 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 electionmost 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. 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. 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. 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 CSIROthat 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.
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 occasionsor was it four occasions. 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. 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 parliamentto 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 abilitya person
of his abilitycould 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 - 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. I inform the
House that the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade and Investment will be
absent from question time this week. The Treasurer will answer questions on behalf of the
Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade and Investment. The Deputy Prime
Minister will answer questions on behalf of the Attorney-General and Minister for Defence.
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. On day 1 of the new government we
saved the car industry from Labor's $1.8 billion fringe benefits tax hit. That is what we did.
Today in this parliament we are seeking to save the car industry from the carbon tax, which
has added up to $400 to the cost of a domestically produced new car. Apart from that, we will
implement the policies that we took to the election, and the policies that we took to the
election are designed to ensure that, amongst other things, the car industry has the best
possible chance of surviving into the future. I thank the member for Cowan for his question. I
regret to inform the House that under the former government power prices just about
doubled. They literally doubled over the life of the former government. The carbon tax was
not the only factor in the doubling of prices but it certainly made a bad situation very much
worse. The whole point of the carbon tax was to put up the price of power because power is
responsible for the bulk of Australians' emissions. The whole point of abolishing the carbon
tax is to reduce Australians' power bills. That is the whole point of abolishing the carbon tax,
to reduce Australians' power bills by on average $200 a year per household. This is a very
important benefit that we wish to give to the households of Australia. Abolishing the carbon
tax will reduce power bills by $200 a year as part of the $550 a year cost savings that it will
give to the households of Australia. Let us be absolutely crystal clear: remove the carbon tax
and power prices will fall. As the chairman of the Australian Competition and Consumer
Commission said just the other day, what went up will clearly come down when you take
away the carbon tax. He said: 'Prices went up by nine per cent. When you take it away, you
reverse that. It's really quite straightforward.' That is what Rod Sims said. Members opposite
introduced the carbon tax without a mandate. Now they are actively obstructing the mandate
that the new government most clearly has. Members opposite should learn to take the
electorate seriously. I thank the member opposite for her question. I simply reiterate that the
Australian government deplores the use of torturealways has and always will. I am very
happy to be standing here to support the Assistant Minister for Education who has answered,
very well, these questions. To speak in support of the Assistant Minister for Education, this
government is determined to do whatever we reasonably can to improve our childcare
system. The childcare system has not been comprehensively reviewed for more than 20 years.
We think that the best way We think that the best way to consider the childcare system is to
give it to the Productivity Commission, which has done such good work when it comes to
disabilities, when it comes to aged care and when it comes to paid parental leave. This is the
right body to advise us as to how we can best look at our childcare system to try to ensure
that it best reflects the 24/7 nature of the modern workplace and the diversity of the modern
Australian family. So that is what we propose to do. I can indicate to the House that we will
do a much better job when it comes to child care than the former government did, which
promised to end the double drop-off and which promised 260 childcare centres, and broke
that promise after just 38 of them had been delivered. But what we will not be doing is
breaking our pre-election commitments, and we have no intention to means test. I do thank
the Leader of the Opposition for his question and I am very pleased to say to him that the
government stands by all its policies. We stand by all our policies and the reason why we
stand by all our policies is, while they have not finally worked, they certainly are working.
Illegal arrivals by boat are down by more than 75 per cent in the first two months of this
government as opposed to the last two months of the former government and, frankly,
members opposite are just a little bit embarrassed about the sorry state to which they reduced
our country's border protection. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that the important
thing is how many boats this government has prevented from coming to Australia. That is the
important thing. Illegal arrivals by boat are down by more than 75 per cent on the results
achieved under the former government. I understand that members opposite are ashamed and
embarrassed of their record. Frankly, if I were them, I would be ashamed and embarrassed of
my record. But our record is better than theirsit is much better than theirs. The most
directly relevant thing that I can say to members opposite is that the boats are stopping. That
is the most directly relevant thing that I can say to the opposition. On that note, after 21
questions I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. In the past 24 hours
there have been calls for Australia to detail our intelligence operations and to apologise for
them. The first duty of every government is to protect the country and to advance its national
interests. That is why every government gathers information and why every government
knows that every other government gathers information. There is no greater responsibility for
a Prime Minister than ensuring the safety of Australian citizens and the security of our
borders, and that is why we do collect intelligence. National security requires a consistent
determination to do what is best for Australia. That is why this government will support the
national security decisions of previous ones, as we will expect future governments to respect
ours. Australia should not be expected to apologise for the steps we take to protect our
country now or in the past, any more than other governments should be expected to apologise
for the similar steps that they have taken. Importantly, in Australia's case, we use all our
resources, including information, to help our friends and allies, not to harm them. Similarly,
Australia should not be expected to detail what we do to protect our country any more than
other governments should be expected to detail what they do to protect theirs. Others should
ask of us no more than they are prepared to do themselves. I want to make it absolutely
crystal clear: Australia has deep respect for Indonesia, for its government and for its people. I
regard President Yudhoyono as a good friend of Australiaindeed, as one of the very best
friends that we have anywhere in the world. That is why I sincerely regret any embarrassment
that recent media reports have caused him. But it is in everyone's interests, Indonesia's no less
than Australia's, that cool heads prevail and that our relationship grows closer, not more
distant. I pledge myself to build the strongest possible relationship with Indonesia. After all,
due to its size, proximity and potential to be an emerging democratic superpower of Asia, it is
the most important single relationship that we have. Madam Speaker, I wish to note that this
is the 10th anniversary of White Ribbon Day here in Australia. White Ribbon Day is an
opportunity for all of us to recommit ourselves to the struggle against violence directed
towards women. I would love to be able to say that violence against women was a thing of
the past, but to suggest that it was would be to mislead this parliament. Regrettably, on
average once a week a woman in Australia is a fatal casualty of domestic violence. Most
regrettably, one woman in three has experienced physical violence, invariably at the hands of
men. So this is an appropriate occasion to rededicate ourselves to this important task, to
rededicate ourselves to letting the young men of our country, in particular, know that a strong
man never practises violence. In particular, a strong man never practises violence against the
vulnerable. In particular, a strong man is never responsible for violence against women. It is
important that we all do what we can to ensure that this message gets out. It is important to do
what we can to protect the women of Australia. In my electorate, my wife and I have been
responsible for helping to support the Manly Women's Shelter, for which the Pollie Pedal has
raised some $300,000 over the last two years. But what we can do individually we can also
help to do collectively, and I am pleased to be able to say, on the 10th anniversary of White
Ribbon Day in this country, that the government today announced the pledging of an
additional $1 million over the next four years to the work of White Ribbon Day, particularly
in promoting amongst communities where this message is particularly urgent the importance
of respecting the dignity and the persons of women. As the father of three daughters, I am
determined to do everything I can as a citizen and as a Prime Minister to ensure that all the
women of Australia, and indeed all the women of the world, receive appropriate respect from
their menfolk and never suffer violence at their hands. I inform the House that the Assistant
Minister for Defence is hosting the Singaporean Minister for Defence in Queensland and will
be absent from question time today. The Deputy Prime Minister will answer questions on his
behalf and on behalf of the Minister for Veterans Affairs. I thank the member for Kennedy
for his question. It was a wide-ranging question and I am not certain that I entirely follow
every element of it. I am certainly not going to support every aspect of the former
government's foreign policy in respect of Indonesia. Obviously, I deplore the Oceanic
Viking stand-off. I deplore the live cattle ban that the former government applied misguidedly
to Indonesia. Nevertheless, I am certainly not going to be critical of the former government's
conduct in respect of intelligence. I do not believe that Australia should be expected to
apologise for reasonable intelligence-gathering operations, just as I do not expect other
countries or other governments to apologise for their reasonable intelligence-gathering
operations. I am really thrilled to get questions on this topic. And I am very pleased to say to
the Leader of the Opposition we stand by all our policies. We stand by all of them because
they are working. The boats have not entirely stopped but they are stopping. They are down
almost 80 per cent in the first two months of this government compared with the last two
months of the former government. That is good news for Australia, it is good news for the
safety of life at sea, and it is good news for the strength of our relationship with Indonesia.
The only people for whom it is not good news are members opposite, who are ashamed and
embarrassed about their appalling record. There is a very clear difference between the
government and the opposition on this subject. We were absolutely honest and up-front with
people before the election. We wanted to reduce the size of the Public Service by 12,000.
Members opposite were just dishonest. It is as simple as that. They were simply dishonest.
They were as dishonest about the Public Service before this election as they were dishonest
about the carbon tax before the last election. This is why no-one can trust anything that Labor
says. My commitment to the Leader of the Opposition is that we will fully honour our
election commitment. That is what we will do. We will fully honour our election
commitments. I know that members opposite are flabbergasted at that, absolutely
flabbergasted, because they have never honoured any election commitment. On that note,
Madam Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper This is a serious
matter and it is a serious question from the Leader of the Opposition. As I said yesterday, I
deeply and sincerely regret the embarrassment that media reports have caused to President
Yudhoyono who is a very good friend of Australiaperhaps one of the very best friends that
Australia has anywhere in the world. I do understand how personally hurtful these
allegations, these reports, have been for him and his family. I do note that there have been
allegations and even admissions in the past on this subject. People did not overreact then and
I certainly do not propose to overreact now. My intention, notwithstanding the difficulties of
these days, is to do everything I reasonably can to help to build and strengthen the
relationship with Indonesia which is so important for both our countries. I thank the member
for Eden-Monaro for his question and I congratulate him on his excellent maiden speech
yesterday. The carbon tax certainly is hurting businesses and costing jobs right around
Australia, particularly in the small businesses of which the member spoke so eloquently
yesterday. Over the past year I have visited at least 80 businesses right around our country
that are being hurt by the carbon tax, including quite a few in his electorate of Eden-Monaro,
such as ACT Steelworks, a small business which is going to be thousands of dollars a year
worse off because of the carbon tax. In every single one of those businesses right around the
country, the workers of Australia have had a very simple message: axe the taxaxe the tax
which is making their jobs less secure and hurting their prospects of future employment. So
the good news is that the government has been elected to do just that: to axe the tax. The bad
news is that members opposite are still in denial, which raises a question: just who are the
real friends of the workers of this country? Is it the party who wants to take taxes off them
and improve their job security or is it the party that thinks that what the workers of Australia
need is just more taxes? Under members opposite, unemployment queues lengthened by
200,000, because this was a government that just did not get it when it came to the economy.
Under the former coalition government we had two million new jobs created, and that is
precisely the record that this government is determined to emulate. It is very clear exactly
what the situation is here: the former government left a mess; the new government has been
elected to fix it. We are fixing up the mess, and it is high time that members opposite got out
of the way of the repair job that this country so desperately needs. We offer consular
assistance to all of our citizens in trouble abroad, but what never helps our people in trouble
abroad is public comment on their cases. I do thank the member for Denison for his question.
It is a very important subject. On the freight equalisation scheme, let me remind the member
that the Fraser government created it, the Howard government improved it and the current
government will retain it and improve it. To that end, we are shortly going to announce a
joint Productivity Commission-ACCC inquiry into improving the freight arrangements
between Tasmania and the mainland and the wider world. But the member is absolutely right:
there have been considerable brakes on development in Tasmania. One brake on development
in Tasmania was the Labor-Green government in Canberra, now gone. The other brake on
development in Tasmania is the Labor-Green government in Hobart which, hopefully, will be
gone after March of next year. But there have been very serious economic issues in
Tasmania. I regret to say that Tasmania has our nation's highest unemployment, it has our
lowest wages and it has our lowest rate of educational attainment, and this is why the
government has a plan for Tasmania. The centrepiece of the plan for Tasmania is $400
million to upgrade the Midland Highway, $38 million to upgrade the airport at Hobartan
initiative that I know had the strong support of the member for Denisonand $24 million
dollars to create a world-class Antarctic research centre in Hobart. We are doing what is
needed to restore the Tasmanian economy, because Tasmania needs to be an economy as well
as just a national park. That is what Tasmania needs, and the people of Tasmania understand
that. That is why there was such a massive swing at the recent election, to give uswith a 13
per cent swinga new member for Lyons, and with swings of almost the same magnitude
new members for Bass and for Braddon. I say to the member for Denison: you work together
with these three great new members and the four of you will do a very good job by the great
state of Tasmania. The best thing that we can do for the families of Australia is to precisely
honour the commitments that we made to them at the election. They know our country is in a
mess. They know that Labor has created a mess. That is why they changed the government
and now, having got our country into a mess, members opposite are obstructing the clean-up.
Shame on them, Madam Speaker. The best thing we can do for the people of Australia is get
rid of the carbon tax, and members opposite should not be standing in the way of that. Let
me say it again for the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition and members opposite and
people right around the country: we are going to implement the commitments that we made
to the Australian people. Unlike members opposite, we were absolutely up-front with them
before the election. We were absolutely honest and up-front about the various programs that
we were going to axe and about the various programs that we were going to continue. We
were absolutely honest and up-front with the Australian people before the election. They
voted for us knowing that it wasn't all going to be beer and skittles. It wasn't all going to be
handouts. It certainly wasn't going to be all debt and deficit, which is what they had come to
expect from members opposite. What we are not going to do is continue cash splashes with
borrowed money. That is the Labor way; it is not the coalition's way and, frankly, it is not
what the Australian people deserve. We will honour our commitments. If members opposite
were fair dinkum about doing the right thing by the families of Australia, they would allow us
to get on with repealing the carbon tax and giving the households of Australia $550 a year
extra. by leaveA short time ago President Yudhoyono made a statement in Jakarta. I have
to say that I was encouraged by the President's remarks about the strength of the relationship
between Australia and Indonesia, although obviously there are very serious issues which do
need to be worked through in the near future between us. Again, I want to express here in this
chamber my deep and sincere regret about the embarrassment to the president and to
Indonesia that has been caused by recent media reporting. The President indicated that he
would shortly be writing to me. I would like to reassure the House that I will be responding to
the President's letter swiftly, fully and courteously. As always, I am absolutely committed to
building the closest possible relationship with Indonesia because that is overwhelmingly in
the interests of both our countries. I apologise. Madam Speaker, I thought it would assist if I
were to inform the House and members opposite that this morning I received the letter from
President Yudhoyono that he promised last night. I want to assure the House that the
government will respond swiftly, fully and courteously to the president's letter. As always,
my intention is to do everything I reasonably can to strengthen this relationship which is so
important to both our countries. I want Australia to remain Indonesia's trusted partner now
and in the future. They were tacky comments and they have been withdrawn and apologised
for. I am very happy to get that question and I am very happy to say to the Leader of the
Opposition and members opposite that we stand by all our election commitments. I know that
surprises members opposite because they never stand by any of theirs. I know they have
made repeated pre-election claims only to dishonour them post election. But I want to put
their minds at ease: we stand by all our pre-election commitments and we will deliver on all
our pre-election commitments. I inform the House that the Minister for Trade and Investment
will be absent from question time this week as he is participating in the 9th Ministerial
Conference of the World Trade Organization, in Bali. He is then co-chairing the 38th Cairns
Group Ministerial Meeting. The Minister for Foreign Affairs will answer questions on his
behalf. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. The best guarantee we can give
is that we are not like members opposite, who make solemn pledges before an election and
break them afterwards. The problem with the Leader of the Opposition is that he is not
capable of changing his question time strategy quickly. I want to make it absolutely crystal
clear that this government is cleaning up Labor's mess, the mess that the Leader of the
Opposition left by cutting $1.2 billion from school funding in the pre-election fiscal outlook
statement. So we are cleaning up Labor's mess and we are keeping our commitments
Schools will get $2.8 billion more under this government over the four-year period. That is
$1.2 billion more than they were left with under this shambolic former education minister.
I thank the member for Bonner for his question. I want to assure him and all members that
this government is cleaning up the mess we inherited and we are keeping our commitments.
Wherever members look there are problems that were given to us by the former government,
whether it is the gross debt skyrocketing past $400 billion; the deficits stretching out beyond
where the eye can see, because of the fiscal profligacy of the former government; whether it
is the $25 billion ripped out of defence, leaving us with the lowest level of defence spending
as a percentage of GDP since 1938; whether it is the $1.2 billion ripped out of schools by the
Leader of the Opposition; whether it is the almost $100 billion that was being misspent on the
National Broadband Network white elephant; whether it be the complete failure to put any
funding in for border protection after 1 January; the failure to provide for chemotherapy
infusions after 1 January; or whether it is the fact that the ACCC has been running at a loss
for three years. Everywhere you look the former government has left a mess. If it were so
fantastic, why did they politically execute two prime ministers. If they are so proud of
themselves, why were the Sussex Street death squads deployed, not once but twice, to
assassinate their own leaders, led, of course, by the current Leader of the Opposition. I say
this: if former Prime Ministers Rudd and Gillard could not trust this opposition leader, the
Australian people certainly cannot. We are keeping our commitments. The most fundamental
commitment of all we will deliver is to repeal the carbon tax. Repealing the carbon tax will
leave every Australian household $550 a year better off. What has the Leader of the
Opposition got against a $550 Christmas present for every Australian household. Every time
Australians get an electricity bill they know that it is $200 higher than it should be, because
of that smug Bill over there. He obviously had what he thought was a fantastic question-time
strategy and he is incapable of adjusting it in the light of the facts as they stand. The only
people who have cut funding from education in this House are the members opposite. In last
year's MYEFO In last year's MYEFO they cut $3.8 billion out of education and in this year's
PEFO. Members opposite cut $3.8 billion out of education in last year's MYEFO; they cut
$1.6 billion out of public hospitals in last year's MYEFO and in the PEFO that we got before
the election, no one. The Leader of the Opposition himself signed off on a $1.2 billion cut in
school funding. I hear members opposite bellowing and carrying on. We had the shadow
Treasurer and we had the member for Adelaide admit in the media, over the last couple of
days, that that is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition did. He ripped $1.2 billion off the
vulnerable school students and schools of Western Australia, Queensland and the Northern
Territory. We are putting it back. We are not just keeping our commitments, we are more
than keeping our commitments. Our guarantee is that we will spend $1.2 billion more over
the forward estimates than was envisaged by the Leader of the Opposition. I am sure
members opposite will be interested in the statement of the Premier of New South Wales on
this matter. He said, 'Mr Abbott should be commended for restoring $1.2 billion of education
funding which was deceitfully removed by the Labor government in its dying days.' He went
on: 'Tony Abbott's handling of this issue is a refreshing change to the way Labor engaged
with the states.' New to the question and, I suspect, outside the standing orders. As I have
made absolutely crystal clear, the $1.2 billion that the Leader of the Opposition ripped out of
school funding just prior to the election is being fully restored by the coalition, because the
difference between us and members opposite is that under us there is a system which is
national and fairnational, fair and that we will fully fund to the tune of $2.8 billion. That
commitment we will fully fund, unlike the Leader of the Opposition. I wish to make three
points in response to the member. First, Australia will act to protect our national interest and
to protect our citizens. We always have under governments of both persuasions; and, as far as
I am concerned, we always will. We will act to protect our national security, and we will act
to protect our national security using agencies such as ASIO and ASIS. The second point I
want to make is that our security agencies operate under very strict safeguards. They operate
under the scrutiny and the supervision of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence
and Security and under the scrutiny and the supervision of the Inspector General of
Intelligence and Security. These are strong and effective safeguards. The final point I wish to
make is that it has not been the practice of any government of either persuasion to comment
on operational matters. We are actually doing better, because the money that the Leader of
the Opposition ripped out we are fully putting back, so we are more than keeping our
commitments. We will always keep our commitments. In this case, we are doing better than
simply keeping our commitments. The minister's statement prior to the election was
absolutely accurate and entirely reflects the position of the government. What we see again is
more shameless effrontery from members opposite. Let us be clear about what they are doing.
Members opposite are complaining because we are putting back in the money they ripped
out. They are unhappy about that. The truth is that the people of Australia can trust us in a
way they could never trust old 'Billion Dollar Bill' over there$1.2 billion ripped out of
school funding. To assist the House, I am happy to withdraw. In fact Madam Speaker, of
course I should not have used that phrase to describe the Leader of the Opposition, because it
was $1.2 billion, not just $1 billion, that he ripped out of school funding. We will change the
Australian Education Act passed by the former government to end the Canberra command
and control system that was put in place by members opposite. This government will run a
consultative and collegial system. We will end the blame game and we will work
cooperatively with the states, and I believe that the states will honour their commitments to
spend more money on schools. I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
hese questions were no good yesterday, and they are even worse today. We were on a unity
ticket with the Labor Party when the Labor Party was promising $2.8 billion over the forward
estimates. What happened was that just a few weeks before election day the member opposite
ripped $1.2 billion out. They ripped $1.2 billion out and now they are complaining because
we are putting back the money they ripped out. So, members opposite broke the unity ticket.
They broke the unity ticket. They abandoned the dream team when they deceitfully and
disingenuously ripped $1.2 billion out of school funding. There was no difference between
the coalition and the Labor Party until the Labor Party cut $1.2 billion out, and now there is a
differencea very big difference. They want the $1.2 billion out and we are putting the $1.2
billion back in. I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that I am responsible for what
the Commonwealth does; the states are responsible for what the states do. I will also remind
I will also remind the Leader of the Opposition that the only state government that has ripped
money out of school funding is the South Australian Labor state government, which has
ripped $200 million out of school funding under the agreement that the Leader of the
Opposition negotiated. The Leader of the Opposition just cannot help himself. He is
constantly interjecting across the table. He should look at the Adelaide ABC interview from
this morning, where the South Australian Labor education minister admitted that she is
ripping $200 million out of school funding. I table the transcript of the ABC interview. What
we are doing is honouring our commitments to the Australian people at the election. I can
understand why members opposite are so upset. You could not trust Labor, but you can trust
this coalition. I do thank the member for Denison for his question. It was good of the member
for Denison, given the passion and the sincerity that he brings to this issue, to rephrase it in
ways which are a little less aggressive towards members opposite. The member for Denison
knows what it is like to deal with people on this side of the parliament and he knows what it
is like to deal with people on the other side of the parliament. The thing that you can be
confident of with us is that we will keep our commitments, unlike members opposite, who
broke their commitment to the member for Denison. We will exactly keep the commitment
that we made before the election when it comes to gambling. Firstly, we support voluntary
precommitment. Secondly, we support more counselling for problem gamblers. Thirdly, we
will implement stronger restrictions on online gambling. he student resource standard is well
known. he only con was Labor's pre-election con to take $1.2 billion out of school funding.
That was the con, on top of the $3.8 billion it had earlier taken out of education funding and
the $1.6 billion that it had earlier taken out of hospital funding. That is the con, but that is
what we expect from members opposite after their great carbon tax con before the 2010
election. If I may conclude my answer: unlike members opposite, this government completely
keeps its commitments. I can guarantee that we will be spending $1.2 billion more than
members opposite were going to spend and I can guarantee that over the next four years the
answer is yes. It is terrific to get a question from the shadow minister for clawback! She was
always on about that in the last parliament. We are not going to claw back the $1.2 billion
that Labor clawed back before the election. Assuming the shadow minister is serious, let me
say that we will fully deliver the National Disability Insurance Scheme because we want to
do the right thing by the people of Australia who have a disability. On schools, those loadings
will be fully delivered over the coming four years. We are delivering the money that will
enable the loading to be delivered, unlike members opposite who took the money away. They
clawed it backthat is what they did. So the answer is yes. I thank the member for
Macarthur for his excellent question and I can inform him that, every day since the election,
this government has been cleaning up Labor's mess by keeping our commitments. We are
seeking to repeal the carbon tax because that is exactly what the people voted fora repeal of
the carbon taxand because repealing the carbon tax will help every household in this
country to be $550 a year better off. We are repealing the mining tax because that is what the
people of Australia voted for and because repealing the mining tax will boost investment, it
will boost jobs and it will be a $13 billion boost to the budget bottom line as well. We are
attempting to reinstitute temporary protection visas because, again, that is what the people of
Australia voted for and because reinstituting temporary protection visas will help clean up
Labor's border protection mess. Never let it be forgotten that, under the members opposite,
we had 55,000 illegal arrivals by boat, we had an $11 billion border protection budget blow-
out and, tragically, we had more than a thousand deaths at sea. So we are doing what the
people voted for. But it does not matter what the people of Australia voted for; the members
opposite are voting against it. They are voting against the carbon tax repeal. They are voting
against the mining tax repeal. They are voting against temporary protection visas. But now
they are even voting against measures that the former government announcededucation
measures that the former government announced. Not only are they trying to stop this
government from keeping our commitments; they are trying to stop this government from
keeping their own commitments. That is the craziness of the current Leader of the
Opposition. Today he is out there attacking the government because school education
performance declined between 2009 and 2012, as if that is our fault. As if that is our fault! So
not only is the Leader of the Opposition in denial about the change of government; he is in
denial that he was ever in government! He just does not get it. Don't mind what he says.
When it comes to a vote, this Leader of the Opposition always votes for higher taxes and
more boats. Bad as the Greens are, it was not the Greens who gave us the five biggest deficits
in Australian history. It was the members opposite who gave as the five biggest deficits in
Australia's history. And, yes, I agree that the Greens have been economic fringe dwellers.
That just means members opposite are worse than the Greens when it comes to economic
vandalism. thank the member for Fairfax for his question and I congratulate him on his recent
election to this place. I hope that he and all members of his group can make a very
constructive contribution to the deliberations of this parliament. On the question the member
has asked. I remind the member for Fairfax, his fellow Independents and the minor party
members up there on the crossbenches that it has never been the practice of any government
in this country to comment on the specifics of operational intelligence matters. I also make
the point that no-one's phone can be tappedno-one's conversations can be listened into
without a specific warrant. Our intelligence services, both here and abroad, operate under the
very strictest of safeguards. Firstly, there is the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Security
and Intelligence and, secondly, there is the Inspector-General of Security and Intelligence. So
I can assure the member for Fairfax that he can speak in peace, so to speak, without any fear
that anything untoward is going on. thank the member opposite for her question. I am very
concerned about what this report shows about declining academic standards between 2009
and 2012, whenguess who?members opposite were in government. Who was in
government between 2009 and 2012. Members opposite, led by their leader, are bellowing,
'No excuses!' I do not intend to offer excuses for Labor's bad performance. They offer
excuses; I will not. I must tell the Leader of the Opposition that academic standards declined
seriously when he was the education minister, when the former government was in power,
despite Academic standards declined when the Leader of the Opposition was Minister for
Education despite Commonwealth real spending on schools going up by 10 per cent in that
period. They spent more money and got worse resultsthat is the truth. We will put back the
$1.2 billion that they ripped out We will put that money back, but it is not all about money. It
is also about higher standards and, unlike members opposite, we will work with the states to
bring about greater principal autonomy, greater school autonomy, greater parental
involvement and higher standards. The only group that you cannot trust are members of the
Australian Labor Party. There was nothing equitable about ripping $1.2 billion out of schools
in Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory. What was fair and reasonable
about having a system of school funding that was neither fair nor national? The people of
Australia trust this government to keep its commitments to clean up Labor's mess, and that is
exactly what we are doing. It would depend upon the levels of disadvantage of students at
that school. t is a very important committee, and I would expect it to be reconstituted by the
end of the week. I inform the House that the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for
Trade and Investment will be absent from question time today. The Treasurer will answer
questions on behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade and
Investment, and the Deputy Prime Minister will answer questions on behalf on the Attorney-
General and the Minister for Defence. I am pleased to inform the House that the Minister for
Trade and Investment has successfully concluded negotiations for a free trade agreement
between Australia and the Republic of Korea. The Republic of Korea is Australia's third
largest export market. Under this agreement, tariffs will be eliminated on Australia's major
exports to Korea, and there will be significant new market openings in services and
investment. Tariffs will be eliminated on items such as beef, wheat, dairy, sugar, wine,
seafood, grapes, cherries and mangoes. Beef tariffs, I am pleased to say, will be completely
phased out over 15 years, which will restore Australia's competitive position in this key
market. Australian automotive suppliers will benefit from the immediate removal of tariffs, as
will the wine industry. The free trade agreement will provide new market opportunities for
Australian services in education, telecommunications, financial accounting and the law. The
concluded negotiations will now go to cabinet for final consideration and to the Joint
Standing Committee on Treaties for consideration. Conclusion of this free trade agreement
will see the delivery of a key election commitment. Conclusion of this agreement will be
good news for our exporters, good news for our farmers, good news for jobs, good news for
growth and good news for Australia. I do acknowledge that the negotiations for this free trade
agreement were commenced in 2009 under the former government. I congratulate the
Minister for Trade and Investment for bringing them to what looks very much like a
successful conclusion. Our commitments will be kept; but obviously, in the administration of
tax law, various things happen, including draft tax office rulings. I thank the member for
Braddon for his question and I can assure him that we are cleaning up Labor's mess by
keeping our commitments for the benefit of families and small business in particular. I can
inform him that, on day one of the new government's life, we saved the car industry from
Labor's fringe benefits tax hit, and we saved nurses, teachers and tradies from Labor's hit on
their self-education expenses. We have announced that most of the former government's 100
announced-but-not-enacted tax changes will not go ahead, because that will lower taxes and
reduce paperwork. We have closed 21 non-statutory bodies as a downpayment on our
commitment to reduce business red-tape costs by $1 billion a year. The carbon tax repeal
legislation has passed through the House of Representatives, as has the mining tax repeal
legislation, and there are bills before this parliament to re-establish the Australian Building
and Construction Commission, which will be a strong cop on the beat in a tough industry.
The Commission of Audit is well underway, and the son-of-Wallis inquiry into the financial
services sector is about to start. Yesterday I released draft terms of reference for the first big
review of competition policy since the Hilmer review two decades back. Handled properly,
competition policy reform is an important microeconomic advance and the Hilmer reforms
added some 2 per cent to Australia's gross domestic product. As well, big infrastructure
projects like WestConnex in Sydney, the East West Link in Melbourne, the Gateway
Upgrade Project in Brisbane, the north-south road in Adelaide, the Perth Gateway and the
Pacific Highway and the Bruce Highway upgrades are being accelerated. We are dealing with
Labor's debt legacy. I congratulate the Treasurer for his successful negotiations. He could not
get responsibility out of the Labor Party but he did get responsibility out of the Greens. What
a miracle worker this Treasurer is. And we are fixing the National Broadband Network,
which was billions over budget and years behind schedule. We are playing our part to
improve schools, which have gone backwards academically over the last five years despite
Labor spending 10 per cent more in real terms. We are doing the job we were elected to do
for the benefit of Australia's families and small businesses. he Leader of the Opposition has
simply got his facts wrong. Our fundamental commitment was to clean up Labor's messand
I tell you what: when it comes to cleaning up the mess, even the Greens are more responsible
than the Labor Party. The Labor Party now makes even the fringe dwellers look good. The
Leader of the Opposition is right in one sensewe have relied on the Greens to pass one
particular piece of legislation. Members opposite relied on the Greens to survive in
government for three long years. The hypocrisy and double standards of members opposite
are extraordinary. We have come to an arrangement with the Greens on this particular subject
because it was impossible to come to a sensible arrangement with the Labor Party, and when
it comes to economic responsibility the current Labor Party is worse than the Greens.
The government appreciates that these are not easy times for many Australian manufacturers.
We appreciate that some iconic businesses such as Qantas are under significant competitive
pressure. We appreciate that, and obviously we grieve for every worker whose job has been
lost. We grieve for them, and we appreciate just how difficult this is for them and for their
families. The best thing that we, as a government, can do for the workers of Australia
generallyand particularly for the workers whose businesses are in troubleis do our best
to create a strong and prosperous economy. I do not say that that is easy, and I do not say that
there is any one measure which is some kind of magic wand. But there are things which good
governments can do purposefully, carefully and methodically which will improve things. We
have to get taxes down. We have to get regulation down. We have to have predictability and
consistency in decision making. That is what this government is determined to provide. We
have made a very good start and it would be even better if members opposite would not
constantly try to oppose the policies that we took to the election. he Leader of the Opposition,
who never shuts up, is sitting in that chair there saying, 'I know how you feel.' Well, there is
this difference. When the coalition were in opposition When the coalition were in
opposition, we fought to prevent a government from breaking its commitments. This
opposition is fighting to prevent a government from keeping its commitments. That is the
difference. That was money that was never delivered by the former government. lainly,
whoever hands out the questions to members opposite does not have the Leader of the
Opposition's best interests at heart, because it was the Leader of the Opposition who first
asked for this subject to be reconsidered; it was the Leader of the Opposition who first put
this subject on the table. The double standards and the hypocrisy of this opposition and this
Leader of the Opposition know no bounds. The difference with the coalition is that, when we
were in opposition, we fought to make a government keep its commitments. That opposition
over there is fighting to break government commitments. That is the difference. We are
always prepared to look at integrity measures in our tax system, but we will absolutely
honour the commitments that we have made to the Australian people. I am delighted to be
getting so many questions from the opposition today because it certainly makes for a very
swift and efficient question time, doesn't it, Madam Speaker? It makes for a very swift and
efficient question time. I think there will be a record number of questions answered today.
Our fundamental commitment was to stop the boats. That was our fundamental
commitment. While I would not want to pretend to this parliament that the boats have entirely
stopped, they certainly are stopping. Aren't members opposite so embarrassed that their
shameful record on border protection is rapidly becoming a thing of the past under this
government? This government are cleaning up the border protection disaster and absolute
mess that we inherited. Never let it be forgotten the record of members opposite55,000
illegal arrivals by boat, $11 billion in border protection blow-outs and, tragically, 1,000
deaths at sea. We stand by all our commitments. We stand by all our policies. Above all else,
we stand by the commitment to stop the boats. I thank the Treasurer for his questionI
mean the shadow Treasurer: he was the Treasurer for much of the time in question. In fact,
the foreign investment application in question lay on his desk for months. He says, 'It should
have been approved.' He had months to do it and he did not. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Let
me make it absolutely crystal clear: of 131 significant foreign investment applications, 130
have been approved. By any standard, Australia is open for business. The Minister for the
Environment has in the last eight weeks given environmental approval for projects worth
$160 billion. By any standard, this country is under new management, it is open for business
and the only people who are trying to shut it down are members opposite. There has been no
reduction in car industry funding. There is the same car funding available today as there has
been. Let me refer members opposite to a statement by the former Prime Minister, Ms
Gillard. She said: It gives me great pleasure to be able to say to the House that we have
worked together with Holden and we have secured Holden to manufacture cars in Australia
for the next decade. Holden will be manufacturing two new-generation motor vehicles here in
Australia for the next decade. I simply make this point: how can it be the job of this
government to save Holden when the former government said it had already been done. The
former government committed an additional $275 million to Holden. Unfortunately, it was
not enough. I have no desire to play politics on this, but if it was so easy to save Holden why
was the former government not able to deliver on its commitment? If it was so easy to save
Ford, what happened under the former government? If it was so easy to save the motor
industry, what happened to Mitsubishi under the former government? What we are going to
do is put in place the economic fundamentals that will give the manufacturers of this country
the best possible chance to survive and to flourish. We will reduce taxes, we will reduce
regulation and we will add certainty to government decision making. Unfortunately, the
Labor Party is against all of those things. All of us in this House, on this side no less than on
the other side, are devastated that Holden has gone. We are all united in our disappointment
and anguish at the demise in 2017 of our oldest, and for much of its history our largest, motor
manufacturerwe are all devastated. But if Holden was so easy to saveand I do not want
to play politics herewhy didn't members opposite save it? Let's face it: they had six years to
do so. And they are asking us to do, in less than three months, what they were incapable of
doing in six years. t should not be necessary for us to save Holden, because, according to
members opposite, when they were in government, they had already saved it. And if the $275
million more that members opposite tipped in in March last year was not sufficient to save
Holden, what on earth do members opposite expect us to have done? To have doubled the
money? Seriously: what exactly do they expect us to have done? How much money does the
Leader of the Opposition think taxpayers should have put in? For how long should taxpayers
have put in that extra money? We made it absolutely crystal clear that we were prepared to
continue to offer Holden a generous level of support, and we deeply regret that that has not
been enough. So, the challenge now is to take appropriate steps to build on our nation's
enduring economic strengths to try to ensure that our economy is as flexible and as low-cost
as possible. That is why we are cutting the carbon tax. That is why we are abolishing the
mining tax. That is why we are cutting regulation. And we just wish members opposite would
get out of our way and let these sensible measures go ahead. Holden certainly does not blame
this governmentit does not blame any governmentfor the predicament in which it finds
itself. And given that Holden is not blaming anyone, I do not think the Leader of the
Opposition should either. do thank the member for Kennedy for his question. I do appreciate
the diligence with which he works for the industries in his area of North Queensland in
particular. It is the diligence which is shared by members on all sides of this House. All of us
want to ensure that the industries in our electorates and the workers who we know and respect
have the best possible future. We all accept that, and I certainly would not, for a second,
attack the sincerity, the goodwill, the fair mindedness and the decency of the member for
Kennedy. Nor do I attack the fair mindedness and the decencyand the good intentions, at
leastof everyone in this House. But I do have to say to the member for Kennedy that for a
long time now on both sides of politics we have accepted a floating dollar, and the member
for Kennedy is right that a floating dollar went down in the middle of the 1990s. A floating
dollar has gone up in more recent times to a level that did make it extremely difficult for
many of our manufacturers to compete. But I am pleased to say that what goes up can come
down, and the floating dollar is now down to about 90c, a level which makes it much easier
for our manufacturers and for our exporters. I support the floating dollar just as, it seems, the
member for Kennedy supported the floating dollar, at least when it was low in the mid-1990s.
Just as well that the Reserve Bank has been, in effect, recapitalised to the tune of $8 billion
because that enables the Reserve Bank to intervene prudently and appropriately in the market
to try to ensure that the Australian dollar is at the best possible level. absolutely accept that
the Leader of the Opposition is upset, disappointed, frustrated and angry. We are all upset to
see Holden go. But there is one side of this parliament which is trying to help the motor
industry, and there is another side which is playing politics. I say to the Leader of the
Opposition that outrage is all very well for a union leader but it is not good enough for an
alternative Prime Minister of this country. The Leader of the Opposition says that this would
not have happened under Labor. But it did. Under Labor Prime Minister Gillard committed
$275 billion to Holden and said Holden's future was secured for 10 years. It was not secured
and the money did not work. I say to the Leader of the Opposition and members opposite that
we have tried throwing money at the motor industry but it just does not work. What we need
to do if we are going to help the motor industry and the other manufacturing industries of this
country is get the fundamentals right. We need to get taxes down, we need to get regulation
down and we need to ensure that the great workers of Australia are unshackled and are able
to be not just amongst the best paid workers in the world but amongst the most productive
workers in the world. And that is what will happen under this government. I hate to disturb
the Leader of the Opposition with the facts, but the facts are that since the start of 2008 a
manufacturing job has been lost every 19 minutes. That is what happened when members
opposite were in power. That is what happened when members opposite were throwing $275
million at Holdento no avail. What we need to do is approach this problem in a calm,
considered and constructive wayand that is exactly what this government is doing. We
started our campaign to help the motor industry by abolishing Labor's $1.8 billion fringe
benefits tax hit on them. We are continuing our campaign to help the motor industry by
abolishing the carbon tax, which adds $400 to the cost of every car produced in Australia,
which damages domestic manufacturing and disadvantages it compared to foreign imports.
So there is one side which is doing what it can to help, and there is another side which is
simply playing politics with this issue. Frankly, the Leader of the Opposition should be
bigger than that. Until three months ago the Leader of the Opposition was a senior minister in
a government which could not save Mitsubishi, which could not save Ford and which did not
save Holdeneven though they said they had saved Holden and even though they had spent
$275 million extra trying to do it. Members opposite were completely shameless. I refer the
House to a letter from the member for Wakefield, Mr Champion: I have secured guaranteed
support for Holden ensuring production until 2022. Why is it our job to save Holden when
he said it was already saved, and when he invested $275 million which simply did not do the
job? I accept that this is a difficult time for manufacturing. I accept that this is a particularly
devastating time for people employed by Holdenas it was earlier in the year for people
employed by Ford. But I have faith in those workers, I have faith in our country and I have
faith in the employers of this country. I am confident that, when the right policies are put in
place, there will be jobs for those workersbecause they are good people and they have a
future in a strong and successful manufacturing economy. The difficulty the Leader of the
Opposition has is that he is arguing a case which not even Holden itself is arguing. He is
arguing that, somehow, the problems of Holden in Australia are absolutely unique, and he is
arguing that the problems of Holden are somehow uniquely caused by this government, a
government that has been in place for less than three months. It is nothing to do with the
government that was in place for six years and did not save Mitsubishi and did not save Ford
and did not save Holden. It is all the fault of this government. I commend Mike Devereux for
pointing out that Holden, in this country, has been hit by a perfect stormhigh costs, high
dollar and small markets. It has been hit by a perfect storm and, of course, Holden worldwide
is in the middle of a restructure. I have faith in the workers of this country. I have faith in the
companies of this country. I refuse to accept, as members opposite accept, as the Leader of
the Opposition does, that the only way the workers of this country can be competitive and
successful is with a massive ongoing government subsidy. I think the workers and the
businesses of this country are better than that. We will do what we can to ensure that the
workers of this country, the businesses of this country, have a strong, profitable, viable and
competitive future. We will do what we can to ensure that Holden and Ford workers, when
they are no longer with those companies in 2016 and 2017, get the best possible economy in
which to move. We will do our best to ensure that they are moving from one job to another
job, that they are moving from a good job to a better job, that they are moving from a
business that required subsidy to a business that does not require subsidy. That is what we
will do, and we will make available the kind of funding. which governments in the past have
made available in areas that have been hit by this kind of restructuring. We will make that
money available to try to ensure that Adelaide and Geelong and western Melbourne have the
kind of dynamic, viable, ongoing businesses into which these skilled, hard-working and
adaptable workers can move. There are industries where we are competitivein
manufacturing for the mining industry, in niche manufacturing and in R&D. All of these
things we can compete inin tourism, in agriculture and in mining. We can compete in all of
those industries. The loss of BHP was a much more dramatic problem for Newcastle than the
loss of Holden will be for western Melbourne and for Adelaide. Because government made
sensible investments, because people did not give up hope and because we did not have the
gloom and doom being preached by the Leader of the Opposition, those workers found a
future and that city found a future, just as Adelaide and outer metropolitan Melbourne will
find a future, and can have a future under a government which respects workers and will do
the right thing by them. The best thing we can do for the workers of this country is to ensure
that taxes are low, that regulation is low and that productivity is high. That is what we are
doing. Unfortunately, every single thing that we are doing to help the manufacturing workers
of this country is being blocked by members opposite. Stop trying to put shackles on the
workers of this country, give them a chance and back the policies of this government. By
leaveI move: That this House place on record its appreciation of the long and meritorious
service to the Parliament by the Clerk of the House, Mr B. C. Wright, and extends to him and
his wife and family every wish for a healthy and happy retirement. Forty-one years of service
is an extraordinary record. In a world where nothing lasts, one thing has lasted for 41 years,
and that is Bernard Wright's service to this parliament. It has been longobviously. It has
been meritoriousof course. And it has been motivated by a love of this institutiona love
that I would say is unmatched by any person currently serving in this place. I have known
Bernard Wright for 24 of those 41 years, since turning up back in 1990 as a staffer. I can
remember discussing with Bernard and his fellow clerks various parliamentary tactics which
oppositions might use in the face of a rampant government, and Bernard's advice was good.
His advice was just as frank and fearless with me as, I am sure, in other times and in other
places, it has been frank and fearless with members opposite. But what has motivated
Bernard and what has been characteristic of Bernard at all timesapart from his utter
impartiality and total dedication to the welfare of this parliamentis his legal skill, his
profound understanding of the standing orders, his appreciation of how the standing orders
could be changed and improved at any time and, above all else, his great love of this
institution. We all say we love the parliament, and I suspect if we were not in this parliament
most of us would miss it. But the fact is, we all too often love this parliament as, I regret to
say, a vehicle for ourselves. But Bernard and other occupants of his office love this
parliament as a forum for democracy and as the great council of our nation. We are so
indebted to the Clerk's Office and to the various people who have held that office as the true
guardiansthe true keepers of the spirit and the ethos and the valuesof this great
institution. Bernard, you have been utterly fastidious, utterly dedicated and utterly faithful to
your task. You have been a very model of a public servant, and you have been a great patriot.
So, as the 28th Prime Minister, I salute the 15th Clerk. The fact that there have been 28 prime
ministers but only 15 clerks shows the longevity of clerks in office, and it shows the
dedication of those who have held that office. While I am on my feet, I probably should make
some of the customary acknowledgements which we do at this time of the year. As well as
thanking Bernard and the other clerks and all of the others who make this House operatethe
Hansard staff, the attendants, the drivers, the cleaners and everyone who makes our life in
this building possibleI would thank my own staff. They are indomitably led by Peta
Credlin, someone who has had a little more publicity lately then she would like and who is
undoubtedly the fiercest political warrior that it has ever been my privilege to work with. I
thank my colleagues, so ably led by the Deputy Prime Minister, my own deputy leader, my
frontbench and my backbench. This has been a big year for everyone in this parliament but it
has been a particularly big year for members of the coalition. What can we say about 2013? It
marks the withdrawal of Australian troops in Uruzgan province after almost a decade. Our
troops have done a magnificent job but they have paid a high price, and we hope that their
years of service and sacrifice will be honoured by a province and a country which respects
the values that we tried to bring to that province and which honours the sacrifice and the
service that Australian troops and others brought to that province. We have had floods in
Queensland. We have had fires in New South Wales. But, so often in this country, nature at
its worst brings out Australians at their best. I am very conscious of the fact that this is the
quarter century, the 25th anniversary, of this new Parliament House. I acknowledge the fact
that, along with you, Madam Speaker, three others currently in this building were in the
former building and were here as members of parliament on the day this building opened: the
member for Lingiari, who has served diligently in this House; the member for Berowra, the
Father of the House and distinguished Chief Government Whip, who has served in so many
capacities, always with honour and always with distinction; and, of course, Senator Boswell,
the Father of the Senate. I suppose inevitably, for us, the big thing this year was the election
and the change of government. I note that there have only been seven changes of government
federally since 1945. I also note that each change of government has been accompanied by
high hopes on the part of the people that it will turn out to have been change for the better. I
am determined to ensure that the change of government that took place earlier this year is
indeed change for the better and I am determined to ensure that it is a very long time indeed
before this country again has three Prime Ministers in one yearnot a great record, three
Prime Ministers in one year. One thing that obviously has not changed for the better is the
departure of our Clerk. I know he will find a valiant, a diligent and a capable successor,
because that is what happens in this place. But the fact is that Bernard Wright has been a
servant of this parliament without peer, without equal. We will miss him, we honour him and
we wish him all the best for the future. Madam Speaker, I rise to support your observations
about David Elder, our incoming Clerk. We have just listened to the fine things so rightly
said about the outgoing Clerk, and obviously David has big shoes to fill. But I have
absolutely no doubt, David, that you will fill them and fill them well. I have absolutely no
doubt that you will grow into the role to which you have just been promoted. Every Clerk of
the House of Representatives has turned out to be a fine custodian of its traditions. In my time
I have known Lyn Barlin and Ian Harris well, as well as Bernard Wright, and I am pleased to
have had the chance to get to know you, David, reasonably well in the two decades or so I
have been associated with the House. You have been here in one capacity or another since
1981. You know this place, you know its people, you know its tempers, its moods, its
rhythms. Short only of the Father of the House himself are you familiar with this chamber. I
suppose the best thing I can say about David Elder is that he is very much in the image and
likeness of Bernard Wright, and that is why I am confident he will serve this chamber with
great distinction. I move: That the House record its deep regret at the death on 5 January 2014
of the Hon. Arthur Thomas Gietzelt AO, former Senator for New South Wales from 1971 to
1989, place on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service, and tender
its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement. He was a long-serving and notable
member of this parliament. He served in the Second World War with the Royal Australian
Engineers in New Guinea. He was elected to the Senate in 1971 and, along with Senator Peter
Durack, was at one stage the Father of the Senate. Arthur Gietzelt was a minister for four
years in the Hawke government. He was a lion of the Labor Partyor at least he always
asserted that he was a lion of the Labor Party and of no other party. Arthur Gietzelt was made
an Officer of the Order of Australia for his service to the Australian parliament and to local
government. He served his country; he served his people, and on behalf of the government I
offer condolences to his wife and to his family. On indulgence, I rise to acknowledge the
passing of Ariel Sharon, former Prime Minister of Israel. Ariel Sharon was one of the
architects of modern Israel. He was one of the founding fathers of the state of Israel. He was a
soldier who fought during Israel's major historic wars before going on to become a political
leader. At times a hawk, at times a dove, he reshaped the political landscape of Israel with his
decision to pull out of the Gaza Strip in 2005. As a reflection of Australia's close relationship
with Israel, Foreign Minister Bishop attended Mr Sharon's funeral to express the sympathies
of the Australian government and the Australian people in person. I welcome the question
from the Leader of the Opposition and I fully share the dismay of members opposite, of
members on all sides of this House, at the announcement that Toyota made yesterday. Every
single one of us is devastated by this announcement, just as we were devastated by the
announcement in December that Holden would cease manufacturing, just as we were
devastated by the announcement early last year, under a different government, that Ford
would cease manufacturing and just as we were devastated by the announcement back in
2008again under a different governmentthat Mitsubishi would cease manufacturing. It is
not my intention to play the blame game. I will leave any of that to others. I am confident that
the decent, honest workers and the decent, honest businesses of this country can, with
assistance from state and federal governments, build a good future. That is our challenge: to
get the fundamentals right so that the decent, honest workers and the decent, honest
businesses of this country can flourish. And that is exactly what this government is doing. I
do thank the member for Bennelong for his question. I accept that there is, to be sure, a
shadow over this parliament today cast by the announcement by Toyota yesterday that
manufacturing operations will cease in 2017. But that announcement, devastating though it is,
should not obscure the fundamental strengths of our economy. Last week, Coles, for instance,
announced a $300 million investment in Victoria to create some 3,000 jobs, mostly in
regional areas. Perhaps the largest manufacturing employer in this country is Boeing, an
aircraft component manufacturer which is flourishing even though we do not manufacture
aircraft here in Australia. Then there are companies like San Remo, a South Australian,
family based, food manufacturer supplying some 60 per cent of Australia's pasta
requirementsand it is even exporting spaghetti to Italy. I do not for a second minimise the
impact of Toyota's shutdown following on the shutdown announcement of Holden late last
year and Ford much earlier last year under the former government. But I do want to assure all
members of this House and the Australian people that this government will respond
intelligently and in a timely fashion to this latest announcement, and we will do so in full
partnership with the Victorian government. In particular, we look forward to partnering with
the Victorian government to build economic infrastructure in the great state of Victoria
building, indeed, on our commitment to fund and finish the East West Link, which is
estimated to create some 3 thousand jobs during its construction phase. That is what the
people of Victoria need if they are to face the future with confidence. We need to get the
fundamentals right. Government does not create prosperity; profitable business creates
prosperity. Governments do not create jobs; profitable business creates jobs. That is why we
need to get taxes down, we need to get red tape own and we need to get productivity up. That
is the way to increase jobs and prosperity in this country. If I would make a respectful
suggestion to members opposite: pass the carbon tax repeal legislation and pass the
restoration of the Australian Building and Construction Commission bill. That way, we will
get a fair go for the honest workers and the honest businesses of this country. Members of
this government, the Treasurer and the industry minister, have been in regular discussions
with Toyota. I met with the chief of Toyota Australia in December last year and I assured him
that assistance would be available to Toyota on the same basis as it had been available in
times past. I gave him that assurance. I told him that, as far as this government was
concerned, we wanted manufacturing to continue in this country. I did meet with both Mr
Max Yasuda and more senior officers of Toyota yesterday and I did ask them if there was
anything that we in government could do to cause this decision to be reconsidered? I regret to
announce this to the House, but they said that they had carefully considered the economics of
manufacturing in Australia, the costs of manufacturing in Australia, the conditions of motor
manufacturing in Australia and their decision was final. The Labor Party is desperate to play
the blame game in this parliament. I think the Australian people deserve better than that.
What the Australian people expect of us in this place is a consistent, serious attempt to get the
fundamentals right so that the honest workers and the honest businesses of this country can
create the prosperity that the Australian people want, and that is exactly what this government
will do. As I have just said in answer to the Leader of the Opposition's previous question, I
met with the head of Toyota Australia in December last year personally to reassure him that,
as far as this government was concerned, we wanted Toyota to continue manufacturing in
Australia. We wanted to assure Toyota that assistance would be available on much the same
basis in the future that it had been made available in the past. I understand that the opposition
wishes to sheet this home entirely to the government even though this plainly is something
that has been taking place over quite some years now. I know that mere statistics are not of
much consolation to people who are facing the closure of their business. But it is a fact that
since 2007 motor production in this country has declined by a third. It is a fact that since
2007 motor employment has declined by a quarter. We all deeply regret the devastating
announcement that Toyota made yesterday. We all deeply lament this. But our challenge as a
government, our challenge as a parliament, is not to preserve every single business
indefinitely. Our challenge is to create the conditions under which people, if necessary, can
transition from good jobs to even better jobs. And I say to members opposite, whose sincerity
I do not doubt: is it going to be easier to get a good job with a carbon tax or without a carbon
tax? Is it going to be easier to get a good job with a mining tax or without a mining tax? Is it
going to be easier to get a good job with businesses at times being strangled by green tape or
without that? Is it going to be easier to get a good job with the Australian Building and
Construction Commission restored or without it? So these are the questions before this
parliament, and I think that the honest workers of this country know who their real friends
are. I thank the member for Fairfax for his question and I can certainly understand some of
his anxieties that were expressed in his question. Obviously all of us have been dismayed by
the fact that some 1,000 ballot papers appear to have been lost for the Western Australian
Senate election. All of us are dismayed and dumbfounded as to how this could possibly have
occurred. But there is, as we know, a case before the High Court, sitting as the Court of
Disputed Returns, dealing with, amongst other things, the way the AEC conducted the Senate
count and the Senate ballot in Western Australia. There is also a report due from the Joint
Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, and I think I would like to wait for that case to be
concluded and that report to be delivered before I further comment on the Australian
Electoral Commission. I do not begrudge any Australian worker his or her wage. I want the
Australian worker to be better paid all the time I want the Australian workers' pay to go up
and up and up, but I do make this very important point: if the workers of Australia are to be
the best paid workers in the world, we have to be the most productive workers in the world as
welland that's the problem. I very much regret the fact that when Toyota just a few months
ago sought to talk to their workers about improving productivity in their factory they were
denied that opportunity because of the operation of our system. I do not the blame the
workers for that. But, you know, there is a certain former union official sitting opposite
there are quite a few former union officials sitting opposite and I have to ask: why weren't the
workers of Toyota able to sit down with the managers of Toyota to try to organise to save
their jobs and to save their business? Because the Leader of the Opposition's union mates,
using the Leader of the Opposition's workplace laws, frustrated that effort, and I deeply regret
that. I am happy to assure the Leader of the Opposition that I made no such statement. I made
no such statement in the party room or anywhere else. I made no such statement because it is
not the case. There were a whole range of factors behind Toyota's decision. Those factors
were enumerated to me at different times, including last night, and the sad truth is that the
cost of producing cars in this country was simply too high for Toyota to continue. It was
simply too high for Toyota to continue. I can understand why the Leader of the Opposition
wants to sheet all of this home to a government which has been in power for less than six
months, as opposed to a government that was in power for six years, but the fact is that
130,000 manufacturing jobs disappeared under members opposite. Motor industry production
declined by a third; motor industry employment declined by a quarter; Ford announced their
departure; and Mitsubishi did departunder members opposite. Let us not dwell on the past.
Let us not play the blame game, which the Leader of the Opposition is so desperate to do. Let
us ask ourselves this question: what should this parliament do to make it easier for jobs to be
created in this country? What should this parliament do to try to ensure that businesses can
flourish in this country? And let us ask the question Are jobs better protected with a carbon
tax or without one? Are jobs better created and protected with a mining tax or without one?
Are jobs better protected without an Australian Building and Construction Commission or
with one? I say again: I think the workers of Australia know who their real friends in this
parliament are. What the company assured me last nightand I am sure that, if the Leader of
the Opposition had met with Toyota last night in this building, he would have had the same
assurancesis that the jobs are not going tomorrow. They are not going next week or next
month or even next year. These jobs will finish in 2017. I deeply, deeply regret that, but the
important thing is to create the conditions in our economy where those workers can move
from good jobs to better jobs, and that is exactly what this government will do. As I said, we
are going to get the fundamentals right. We are going to get rid of the carbon tax. We are
going to get rid of the mining tax. We are going to restore the Australian Building and
Construction Commission, which created $6 billion worth of productivity improvement in
this sector. We will support the East West Link, which will create 3,500 jobs in its
construction phase. So I ask the Leader of the Opposition what is his position on East West
Link. Does the Leader of the Opposition support East West Link? If he supports it, he
supports 3,500 jobs. If he does not, he is against job creation Again I say to the Leader of the
Opposition and to members opposite, and indeed to all Australians, that I want the workers of
this country to be amongst the best paid workers in the world. If we are to be the best paid
workers in the world we need to be amongst the most productive workers in the world. I
welcome the efforts that the new management at SPC Ardmona have made to restructure
their business, and I congratulate the member for Murray for her support for the workers and
management at SPC Ardmona in Victoria. I do. What they have done since new management
were installed early last year is that new product lines have been developed, a very good and
innovative thing. Since new management were installed early last year new markets have
been developed at home and abroad, a very good thing, and I welcome that. I also say that
they have made a start to ensure that the workplace is as well managed as it could be, and I
welcome that. One thing this government is not going to do, though, is simply hand over $25
million in borrowed money to a highly profitable company that made $215 million in after-
tax profit last year. We are just not going to do it. I say to the Leader of the Opposition,
surely he is not saying that the taxpayers of Australia should have borrowed $25 million to
have given it to a company that made $215 million after tax in just six months. That would
have been real business welfare and this government does not support that. Well, they are
totally different circumstances. One One, if I may say so, was a request for business welfare;
the other, if I may say so, was a local tourism infrastructure grant. I ask that further questions
be placed on the Notice Paper. by leaveIt is an honouran honour of which I am deeply
consciousto be delivering this Closing the Gap statement for the first time as Prime
Minister of our country. When Prime Minister Paul Keating made his famous Redfern speech
back in 1992, I was an opposition staffer. My job was to disagree with everything he said and
while I could quibble with aspects of that speech I could not disagree with its central point
that our failures towards Australia's first people were a stain on our soul. That was a
watershed moment for me as for others. Many of us have been on a long journey; I cannot
say that I have always been where I am now. The further this journey has gone the more, for
me, Aboriginal policy has become personal rather than just political. It has become a personal
mission to help my fellow Australians to open their hearts as much as to change their minds
on Aboriginal policy. We are a great countryI firmly believe the best on earthbut we will
never be all that we should be until we do better in this. There is no country on earth where
people are made more welcome. There is no country on earth whose people have more innate
generosity to others. Yet for two centurieswith, of course, fragrant exceptionsAustralians
had collectively failed to show to Aboriginal people the personal generosity and warmth of
welcome that we have habitually extended to the stranger in our midst. And even as things
began a generation or two back, our tendency was to work 'for' Aboriginal people rather than
'with' them. We objectified Aboriginal issues rather than personalised them. We saw
problems to be solved rather than people to be engaged with. If that hardness of heart was
ever really to melt, I thought that change had to include me because you cannot expect of
others what you will not demand of yourself. So as a backbencher I spent a few days every
year in Central Australia and always included a dinner with Charlie Perkins. As a minister I
tried to spend a few days every year in remote Aboriginal communities especially in Cape
York and later in the APY Lands for which my portfolios had particular responsibilities. But
after 14 years in the parliament I found that I had visited literally dozens of Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander places but not spent more than 12 hours in any one of them. So as
shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs, I asked Noel Pearson if he would help me to spend
some serious time in individual communities where I could be useful rather than just another
seagull, as Aboriginal people so often called officious visitors. I spent three weeks in 2008 as
a teacher's aide in Coen, 10 days in 2009 as a truancy helper in Aurukun, four days in 2011
doing bush carpentry near Hope Vale and another four days in 2012 helping to renovate the
Aurukun school library. Later this year, as Prime Minister, I will spend a week in East
Arnhem Land, along with enough officials to make it, if only for a few days, the focus of our
national government. After 226 years of intermittent interest at most, why shouldn't
Aboriginal people finally have a prime minister's undivided attention for seven days! None of
this makes me more worthy or less fallible than any of my predecessors, but it does
demonstrate that this government is serious about Aboriginal policy, no less serious than it is
about stopping the boats, fixing the budget or building the roads of the 21st century. I pay
tribute to former Prime Minister John Howard for first proposing to recognise Indigenous
people in our Constitution. I pay tribute to former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd for the historic
national apology. I commend former Prime Minister Julia Gillard for continuing these annual
Closing the Gap statements to focus the parliament's attention on issues that might otherwise
be neglected or glossed over. I thank Kirstie Parker and Mick Gooda and members of the
Closing the Gap steering committee. I welcome the presence today of Warren Mundine and
other members of the Prime Minister's Indigenous Advisory Council. I welcome the presence
of Andrew Forrest and others working on Indigenous employment. I especially welcome Fred
Chaney, a former minister for Aboriginal affairs and mentor to me, whom I have often
described as a distinguished elder and who is now officially recognised as Senior Australian
of the Year. I acknowledge the Australian of the Year, Adam Goodes, who has personally
demonstrated, when bitter offence could have been taken, the 'better angels of our natures'. I
welcome the first Indigenous member of the House of Representatives, Ken Wyatt, and the
first Indigenous woman member of this parliament, Senator Nova Peris, and I look forward to
the day when the parliamentary representation gap is finally closed. Most of all, I welcome
everyone the length and breadth of this great land who wants tomorrow to be better than
today. I can report that our country is on track to achieve some of the Closing the Gap targets.
The target to halve the gap in child mortality within a decade is on track to be met. We are
already close to meeting the target to have 95 per cent of remote children enrolled for
preschool and we should soon know what percentage are actually attending as well as just
enrolled. The target to halve the gap in year-12 attainment by 2020 is also on track to be met.
That is the good news. The bad news is that there is almost no progress in closing the life
expectancy gap between Aboriginal and other Australians, which is still about a decade.
There has been very little improvement towards halving the gap in reading, writing and
numeracy. And Indigenous employment, I deeply regret to say, has, if anything, slipped
backwards over the past few years. So we are not on track to achieve the more important and
the more meaningful targets because it is hard to be literate and numerate without attending
school, it is hard to find work without a basic education and it is hard to live well without a
job. We are all passionate to close the gap, but we may, I fear, be doomed to fail until we
achieve the most basic target of all: the expectation that every child will attend school every
day. Generally speaking, the more remote the school, the more excuses are made for poor
attendance. Last year in metropolitan areas only 81 per cent of Indigenous year-9 students
met the national minimum standards for reading, but in very remote areas just 31 per cent of
Indigenous students reached the same minimum standard. Yet it is being demonstrated in
places like Aurukun that a strong education in traditional culture is actually helped by a good
education in English. Right around our country it should be possible to be proudly Aboriginal
and a full participant in modern Australia. That does not just mean access to a good education
in cities, towns and remote settlements; it means actually going to school. So I propose to add
a new target to our existing Closing the Gap targetsnamely, to end the gap between
Indigenous and non-Indigenous school attendance within five yearsand I hope I am here
long enough to be judged on its achievement. We will know that this gap has been all but
closed when schools achieve 90 per cent plus attendance regardless of their percentage of
Aboriginal students. This was the strong consensus of my Indigenous Advisory Council's first
meeting: that no-one ever received a good education by not going to school. Every day, in
every school, the roll is taken. Every school knows its attendance rates. Every education
department knows the attendance rate for every school. And the lower the attendance rate, the
more likely it is that a school has problems. The lower the attendance rate, the more likely it
is that a school is failing its students. It is the duty of every teacher and every education
department to try to ensure that every child attends school unless there is a very good reason,
because one of the worst forms of neglect is failing to give children the education they need
for a decent life. That is why every state and territory has anti-truancy laws. That is why the
former government in this place, to its credit, tried to quarantine welfare payments for
families whose children were not school. That is why, at my first COAG meeting, every state
and territory agreed with the Commonwealth on the need to publish attendance data for every
school. And that is why, at 40 remote schools, the Commonwealth is already funding new
anti-truancy measures that on day one of the 2014 school year in some communities seem to
have boosted attendance from under 60 per cent to over 90 per cent. Our job is to break the
tyranny of low expectations. That is why Indigenous school attendance data will be part of
the next Closing the Gap report and all subsequent reports under this government. This
parliament will be brought up to date on the relative success or failure of Aboriginal
education, because a good education is fundamental to a good start in life. Future Closing the
Gap reports should also include data on work program participation and data on communities
without a police presence. These reports, after all, should be less about what government is
doing and more about how people are living. We will know that Aboriginal people are living
better when children go to school, when adults go to work and when the ordinary law of the
land is respected and enforced. The first Aboriginal member of this parliament, Senator
Neville Bonner, once warned his colleagues that history would judge us all. We should not
have to wait for the judgement of history, and thanks to these Closing the Gap statements we
do not have to. A fair go for Aboriginal people is far too important to be put off to the
judgement of history. We have to provide it now, or as soon as we reasonably can. I am
confident of this: amidst all the mistakes, amidst all the disappointments and amidst all the
uncertain starts we have made, the one failure that we have mostly avoided is lack of
goodwill. That is the one failure we have mostly avoided, and Australians are now as proud
of our Indigenous heritage as we are of all our other traditions. The challenge is to turn good
intentions into better outcomes. I am confident that, in these days at least, for every one step
backwards we are also taking two steps forward. To give just one example, on every
ministerial visit to the APY Lands I used to complain bitterly that there were just eight police
for 3,000 people spread over an area the size of Scotland, and that none of these police lived
in any of the places where they were needed. Six years later, although I have to admit these
are hardly model communities, every substantial settlement has a permanent police presence
thanks to the good work of the South Australian Labor government, because this was an
objective beyond politics. As Fred Chaney has just said, reflecting on a lifetime of work with
Aboriginal people, there is so much left to do. But in this area these really are the best of
times. There is probably no aspect of public policy on which there is more unity of purpose
and readiness to give others the benefit of the doubt. On this subject at least, our parliament is
at its best. Our duty is to make the most of this precious moment. I table the Closing the Gap
statement. I should not blame the Leader of the Opposition for the construction that he put on
the statement I made at the Garma Festival last year, because some people did put that
construction on it, but what I actually said. What I actually said was that the first remote
community that I would visit and stay in as Prime Minister would be a community in East
Arnhem Land, and that is exactly what I am going to do. I will spend a week in East Arnhem
Land later in the year. It will be the first remote Indigenous community that I visit in this way
as Prime Minister. I am very much looking forward to it. I am very, very much looking
forward to it because, amongst many other things, Galarrwuy Yunupingu has been one of the
fathers of Indigenous advancement in this country, and I was particularly honoured that he
was so keen, up at the Garma Festival, that East Arnhem Land should be the first Indigenous
community that I volunteer in as Prime Minister. Is for the refinery at Gove, like the Leader
of the Opposition, I deeply regret the decision that Rio Tinto have made to close that refinery.
They have made that decision because the refinery is uneconomic. They have made a
commitment that the Indigenous workers will all be found work in the mine that will remain
open and operational. My understanding is that they are hoping to provide alternative
employment to all of their other workers at the refinery. Without wishing to be too partisan
about this, but given that the Leader of the Opposition has chosen to raise it in this way: if the
Leader of the Opposition were as concerned as I believe he is, he might have a word to his
senators about passing the carbon tax repeal legislation. I thank the member for Brisbane for
her question. I can point out to her and the House that, while the government has only been in
office for five months, a good start has been made. We inherited from the former government
unemployment that had gone up by 200,000 over six years. We inherited from the former
government a situation where their loss of control of the borders had led to more than 50,000
illegal arrivals by boat. And of course, under the former government, debt was skyrocketing
towards $667 billion. I can report to the member for Brisbane that the new government is
stopping the boats. We are fixing the budget. And we are building a future where every
Australian can expect a fair go and every Australian will be encouraged to have a go. That is
the kind of future that we are building. We have sensible savings before the Senate$15
billion worth of savings for which we sought a mandate at the election, including $5 billion
worth of savings for which Labor sought a mandate at the election, so you would think,
would you not, that members opposite would facilitate the passage of those savings. We have
the carbon tax repeal legislation, the mining tax repeal legislation and the Australian Building
and Construction Commission restoration legislation similarly before the Senate. All of these
things were put before the people at the election, and we have a mandate for them. As part of
being open for business, the Minister for the Environment has given approval to new projects
worth a potential $400 billion, and I thank the minister for his work. As part of being open for
business, the Minister for Trade has successfully negotiated a free trade agreement with
Korea, which will be very good news for Australian agriculture as well as being good news
for Australian consumers. We said we would stop the boats, and it has now been 55 days
without an illegal boat arrival on our shores. That gives the Australian people great
confidence that border security can be re-established. But part of building a safe and secure
Australia is closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous outcomes. As I reported
to the House today, there is still a long way to go but great progress has been made. I would
like to be an infrastructure Prime Minister but I would also like to be known as the Prime
Minister for Indigenous affairs. Let me inform the member that my first week in a remote
community as Prime Minister will be in East Arnhem Land. My first week in a remote
community as Prime Minister will be in East Arnhem Land, and I suggest that the member
should quote the sentence or two that came before the sentence that he quoted to this
parliament. For the benefit of members opposite, let me repeat: my first week in a remote
community as Prime Minister will be in East Arnhem Land. I am looking forward to going. I
am looking forward to meeting with the traditional owners and with other Indigenous leaders
led by Galarrwuy Yunupingu. It will happen later in the year and I look forward to meeting
while I am up there anyone who feels that the federal government can be doing more to help.
What I intend to do is as far as is humanly possible be a Prime Minister for all Australians. I
can understand why the people in Nhulunbuy are unhappy, why people involved in the Gove
refinery are feeling disappointed. But I have spoken on a number of occasions with Rio Tinto
about this and, as I said, the assurance I have had is that the Indigenous workers at the
refinery will be offered new employment in the mine and that as far as is humanly possible
every worker at the refinery will be offered redeployment within the Rio Tinto business.
None of us like to see jobs lost. We all deeply regret the fact that sometimes jobs are lost. I do
not wish to say this in a party political sense but it is hard to avoid it, given the suggestion we
have just had from the Leader of the Opposition that somehow every unfortunate thing that
has happened in the first five months of the coalition government's life is the coalition's fault.
Was it the coalition that put the carbon tax on energy intensive industries? Was it the
coalition that put the mining tax on the resources sector? Was it the coalition that wrapped up
so many of our industries in environmental green tape? Was it the coalition that abolished the
Australian Building and Construction Commission? Was it the coalition that was responsible
for the loss of at least 33,000 jobs in 2012not just according to ABS statistics; these were
the job loss announcements made by businesses when the Leader of the Opposition was the
Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Really and truly, the hypocrisy of
members opposite is astounding. I say again to the Leader of the Opposition: all of us in this
place, including the Leader of the Opposition, want to create jobs. Let me pose the question
again to members opposite: is it easier to create jobs with a carbon tax or without one? Is it
easier to create jobs with a mining tax or without one? Is it easier to create jobs without an
Australian building and construction commission or with one? I am absolutely confident that
the workers of this country know who are their best friends in this parliament. I rise to
solemnly inform the House in the presence of family and our military chiefs that the 100th
Victoria Cross has been awarded to an Australian. This award is to the late Corporal Cameron
Baird, already an iconic figure in our army, who had earlier received the Medal for Gallantry.
As the citation reads, his Victoria Cross is 'for most conspicuous acts of valour, extreme
devotion to duty and ultimate self-sacrifice at Ghawchak village in Uruzgan province,
Afghanistan, as a commando team leader'. Corporal Baird was born in Burnie, Tasmania. As
a youngster, he captained the Victorian primary school AFL team. He joined the army aged
18 and was posted to what is now the 2nd Commando Regiment. He served in East Timor,
Iraq and Afghanistan. He was on his fifth Special Forces tour when he was killed in the
action for which he has been awarded the Victoria Cross. On 22 June last year, in the first
phase of the engagement, Corporal Baird and his team came under heavy fire on three
separate occasions from well-prepared enemy positions. In the initial encounter, six enemy
combatants were killed and weapons caches were captured. In subsequent encounters,
Corporal Baird charged enemy positions and neutralised them with grenade and rifle fire. By
drawing fire on himself repeatedly, he enabled other members of his team to regain the
initiative. In the second phase of the engagement, Corporal Baird then led an assault on an
enemy held compound. On three separate occasions, under heavy fire, he forced the door of a
building. Twice he was forced to withdraw, to reload and then to clear his rifle. For the third
time, he entered the building, again drawing fire away from his comrades, who were able to
secure the objective. Tragically, he was killed in this final assault. Words can hardly do
justice to the chaos, confusion and courage that were evident that day. A comrade who was
with him testifies: 'I have witnessed many acts of leadership and courage under enemy fire
during my operational service. Corporal Baird's initiative, fearless tenacity and dedication to
duty in the face of the enemy were exemplary and an absolute inspiration to the entire team. I
was witness to the ultimate sacrifice.' Another comrade also with him that day testifies: I
have no doubt that by absolutely disregarding his own safety numerous times in order to
assault a heavily armed and fortified enemy position Corporal Baird's courage and resolve
proved the tipping point. His repeated attempts to attack that room with six insurgents inside
was the bravest event that I have ever seen in my experience on two tours as a commando.
Others must now speak for him because he can no longer speak for himself. Corporal Baird
was the 40th Australian soldier killed in Afghanistan and, please God, the last. We mourn
them all. We grieve with their families. Today we grieve with Cameron Baird's parents, Doug
and Kaye, his brother Brendan and his nephews Riley and Max. You have lost a son, a
brother, an uncle. Our country has lost a citizen, a soldier, a hero. We are all the poorer for
his passing but the richer for his living. For all of us this is a bittersweet daybitter because
a fine man is gone and cannot be brought back; sweet because he died for his mates, doing
what he lived for. What makes some men warriors and others peacemakers is a mystery. A
fragrant few can be both. It is good to have them, because warriors and peacemakers will be
needed in Afghanistan and wherever else our armed forces might go in the years to come. I
salute Corporal Cameron Baird VC, MG. We all salute him and his almost equally
remarkable comrades. In this place we do not face danger, so we can hardly claim him as our
brother, but we do acclaim him as our hero. We can hardly imagine what the likes of
Corporal Baird and his comrades go through but we stand in awe of their extraordinary
courage, the extraordinary courage of these amazing men who serve our country and keep us
safe. I wish to note that today marks six years since the historic national apology given by
then Prime Minister Rudd and supported by then opposition leader Brendan Nelson here in
this parliament. It was a historic day in our national life. It was a day when ancient wrongs
and ancient injustices were recognised and acknowledged. The marvellous thing about that
day was that an apology was given and, as I read the mood of Indigenous Australia that day,
the apology was accepted. I say to the Indigenous people of our country: your grace and
forgiveness has been a mark of character. In calling to mind and remembering the national
apology, it is important to note that this is not the first fault-free generation in history and
certainly this generation is not morally superior to its predecessors. I am confident that future
generations will learn from our mistakes just as we have learned from the mistakes of our
predecessors. Nevertheless, on this day it is important to acknowledge that historic day just
six years ago, to place on record our appreciation of what Kevin Rudd and Brendan Nelson
did that day and to resolve yet again to turn goodwill into real improvements in the lives of
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Like every other member of this House, I am
conscious of the ABS statistics released earlier today and I very much regret the fact that
unemployment is edging up. This is bad news. None of us like it. All of us must do what we
can to prevent it. I do make two points, though. The first point is that, in the last economic
statement released by members opposite when they were in government, unemployment was
projected to rise to 6 per cent in the first half of this calendar year. So what has happened is
that unemployment has done what members opposite said it would do under their own
policies. Unemployment has done what the Labor Party said it would do under Labor's
policy. Members opposite can hardly blame this government for the consequences of their
own policies. Members opposite created the problem and we on this side of the parliament
are fixing it. That is what we are doing. Every single policy, every single measure that this
government has put in place since the election, is designed to make it easier for businesses to
create jobs. Whether it is taking off the carbon tax, whether it is taking off the mining tax,
whether it is restoring the Australian Building and Construction Commission, whether it is
giving environmental approval to $400 billion worth of new projects, or whether it is actually
concluding negotiations for a free trade agreement with Koreaevery single measure that we
have put in place is designed to create jobs. That is why the workers of Australia know who
their real friends in this parliament are. I thank the member for Lindsay for her question and I
welcome her commitment to getting on with job creation, particularly in Western Sydney.
We have a plan for Western Sydney. We have a plan for Australia. It means stopping the
boats. It means fixing the budget. It means building the future. It means creating an Australia
where everyone can expect a fair go and everyone is encouraged to have a go. That is the
kind of Australia that this government is creating. We have only had five months. We have
made a good start, but we did inherit a mess: 50,000-plus illegal arrivals by boat under the
border protection disasters of members opposite; a Commonwealth debt skyrocketing toward
$667 billion because of the policies of members opposite; under members opposite
unemployment queues were 200,000 people longer when they finished than when they
started. Two hundred thousand extra unemployed Australians were the legacy of members
opposite after six years in government. There was Mitsubishi, which closed down under
them. There was Ford, which announced it was departing under them. They created the
problem; this government is fixing it. Members opposite created the problem; this
government is fixing it. We have $20 billion worth of savings before the Senate because
governments, like businesses and households, have to live within their means. That is $15
billion worth of savings that we took to the election plus $5 billion worth of savings that
members opposite took to the election, and they are opposing all of it, even the savings that
they took to the election. We have legislation before the Senate to abolish the carbon tax and
to abolish the mining tax. Abolishing the carbon tax alone will add almost $1 trillion to our
GDP over the next few decades. We will restore the ABCC. That will add $6 billion in
productivity improvements every year in that industry. There are $400 billion worth of
environmental approvals thanks to the new minister. There is a Korean free-trade agreement
negotiated thanks to the Minister for Trade. And there is WestConnex, funded to the tune of
$1 billion under this government. Everything we are doing is designed to make it easier to
create jobs. That is what we mean when we say Australia is under new management and open
for business. Like the Leader of the Opposition, I am dismayed that unemployment went up
last month. But this can hardly come as a shock to the Leader of the Opposition because the
Leader of the Opposition was a senior memberthe minister for employmentof a
government which forecast that under its policies unemployment would hit 6 per cent at
about this time. How can the Leader of the Opposition protest against a development which
he forecast would happen under his policies? The Leader of the Opposition says where is our
plan. Our plan is to get rid of the carbon tax; his plan is to keep the carbon tax. Our plan is to
get rid of the mining tax; his plan is to keep the mining tax. Our plan is to restore the
Australian Building and Construction Commission; his plan is to keep running a protection
racket for a protection racket. I do not say that the 200,000 increase in unemployment under
the former government was all the former government's fault. I do not say that the 80,000
increase in unemployment when the member opposite was the employment minister was all
his fault. I do not say that the 130,000 jobs that disappeared in the manufacturing industry
when members opposite were in power was all their fault. What I do say is that they made a
bad situation worse with their taxes and their regulations and that is why we are getting rid of
them. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question, but I make this fundamental point
in response: how can the Leader of the Opposition complain when unemployment does what
Labor said unemployment would do under Labor's own policies? I say to the Leader of the
Opposition and to Labor members: you created the problem, this government is fixing the
problem and you should stop obstructing the fix. That is what should happen. The Leader of
the Opposition has asked me about a business in Western Australia which has gone into
receivership and where jobs will be shed. This is a tragedy for the workers of that business
absolutely no doubt about that. But I ask this question of the Leader of the Opposition: is it
going to be easier for mining businesses to flourish with a mining tax or without a mining
tax? Is it going to be easier for mining businesses to flourish with a carbon tax or without a
carbon tax? The truth is that the carbon tax and the mining tax are anti-Western Australian
taxes. They are both daggers aimed at the heart of the Western Australian economy. The
government wants to repeal them. The Leader of the Opposition wants to stop this. He says,
because he cannot shut up. That he asked about Forge. He says, because he cannot keep quiet,
'What about Forge?' Well, the best thing we can do for the businesses that the workers of
Forge depend on for their jobs is to unshackle them by repealing the carbon tax and repealing
the mining tax. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: if you are serious and fair dinkum about
this, get out of the way and let the cure be put in place. thank the member for his question,
and I presume that he and the Leader of the Opposition are on a unity ticket on this, as they
are on so many other things. The Greens oppose the East West Link. The Leader of the
Opposition likewise opposes the East West Link. I have two pieces of information for the
member and, indeed, for his collaborator the Leader of the Opposition. I assume that the
Leader of the Opposition has been given a document from the Victorian government, the
published business case, stating that there will be $1.40 of value for every $1 invested in the
East West Link. The other point I make to the Leader of the Opposition, who is so concerned,
and to the member who asked the question: if the Leader of the Opposition is as concerned
about jobs as he claims, and as I believe deep down he is, he will support a project that will
create almost 3,500 jobs in its construction phase. He will support that. I am quite happy for
support for the East West Link in this parliament to be a litmus test. Who is in favour of jobs
in Victoria? Those who support the East West Link are in favour of jobs in Victoria. Those
who are not, like the Leader of the Opposition and the member who asked the question, are
against Victorian jobs. If the Leader of the Opposition didn't hog so many of the questions
maybe some of his fellow frontbenchers would get some practice at asking a question! One
was a grant for tourism infrastructure; it had nothing to do with the business as such. The
other was a request for $25 million from the taxpayer from a company whose parent had
made $215 million in after-tax profit in the last six months. One was local tourism
infrastructure. The other was business welfare, from a company with a better balance sheet
than the Commonwealth of Australia. I am delighted that we have seen some announcements
from SPC Ardmona todayI really am. I want to thank all the people in this House, all the
frontbenchers, everyone in this House on this side of the parliament, including the local
member, who have been wishing well this great institution. We said SPC Ardmona had a
good future, and it does. We said that it did not need $25 million from the Commonwealth,
and it does not. I stand by the answer I have given. We stand by all of our election
commitments. I thank the member for his question. This matter has been raised on a number
of occasions in the Senate, and I would refer the member to the answers that have been given
in the Senate. I take the question that has been asked of me on notice and if there is anything
to come back to him on I will. I am sure that the member opposite is raising these matters
because he is concerned to ensure that the ministerial guidelines have been fully complied
with. I am concerned to ensure that the ministerial guidelines have been fully complied with
as well. I will take the question on notice and if there is anything more to say I will say it. My
understanding, which I say in response to the member opposite, is that the system in question,
the star arrangement in question, was not ready to go and that is why it was not proceeded
with. Of course I stand by all the commitments that this government made prior to the
election. If there is one lesson that members opposite should have learnt from the experience
of the previous term of parliament it is that you cannot say one thing before an election and
do the opposite afterwards. Let us never, ever forget the former Prime Minister's statement
prior to the 2010 election: 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' What
did we get? After the election, in order to save her job, she broke her commitment to the
Australian people. In order to win the support of the Greens member of this parliament, in
order to stay in government, she broke a solemn pledge. Unlike members opposite, if this
government says something, it means it. We will keep our commitments. It is interesting, is it
not, that members opposite are trying to stop us from keeping our commitments, but we will,
one way or another, keep our commitments. It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition
has talked about cuts to health and cuts to education. The only government that, in recent
times, has cut health and cut education is the government in which he was a senior minister.
The former minister for health is saying it is not true. The former minister for health cut $1.6
billion out of public hospitals. The Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook 2012-13 cut $1.6
billion out of public hospitals. What kind of parallel universe are members opposite living in?
Conrovia comes to health policy; Conrovia comes to education policy. The former minister,
now Leader of the Opposition, cut $3.9 billion out of education. He is shaking his head. He
has a terrible case of amnesia. Dr Gillespie, please attend to this man! The Australian people
want a government that is competent and trustworthy. The test of a trustworthy government
is: does it keep its commitments? And we will. I inform the House that the Minister for Trade
and Investment will be absent from question time this week while he participates in the
ministerial discussions as part of the trans-Pacific partnership negotiations in Singapore. The
Minister for Foreign Affairs will answer questions on his behalf. I do deeply regret the job
losses at the various businesses that the Leader of the Opposition has mentioned. I deeply
regret them. Our plan to create jobs and to boost prosperity starts with scrapping the carbon
tax. It starts with scrapping the carbon tax; it continues with scrapping the mining tax. It goes
on with restoring the Australian Building and Construction Commission. It goes on with
reducing red and green tape. This is what we need in this country if we are to create the
jobsthe secure and sustainable jobsof the future. That is our plan. What is the Leader of
the Opposition's plan? The Leader of the Opposition has consistently opposed everything
everythingthat this government has tried to do to create jobs. The Leader of the
Opposition's plan is to keep the carbon tax: a $9 billion hit on jobs. The Leader of the
Opposition's plan is to keep the mining taxagain, an anti-Western-Australian tax. The
Leader of the Opposition's plan is to oppose the restoration of the Australian Building and
Construction Commission, because the problem with this Leader of the Opposition is that he
cannot transcend his background as a union official. I thank the member for her question. The
government's plan to build a strong and prosperous economy does start with scrapping the
carbon tax. Scrapping the carbon tax will be good for jobs, it will be good for businesses and
it will be good for families' cost of living, because the carbon tax is a $9 billion a year hit on
jobs. It is not surprising, given the fact that this is a $9 billion a year hit on jobs, that
unemployment is 110,000 people higher now than it was in July 2012, when the carbon tax
was introduced. The carbon tax, even on the former government's own figures, is a giant
handbrake on our economy. Members opposite know, because their figures said so, that our
economy by mid century will be $1 trillion smallera cumulative $1 trillion smallerwith
the carbon tax than without it. It is as though Australia were to close down for a year because
of members opposite and their carbon tax. Every single Australian's gross national income
per head will be $5,000 a year less with a carbon tax than without one. That is a $5,000 a year
hit on every Australian's income that this opposition wants to maintain in perpetuity.
Scrapping the carbon tax right now would make every single Australian household, on
average, $550 a year better off. That is $550 a year better off, thanks to scrapping the carbon
tax. Scrapping the carbon tax will give industries like the aluminium industry a fighting
chance not just to survive but to flourish. The Labor Party's own figures show that, by mid-
century, under a carbon tax aluminium production will be down by more than 60 per cent. So,
every time an aluminium plant closes or scales down, it is just the carbon tax doing its job. I
am pleased that the Leader of the Opposition is now visiting workplaces where jobs are at
risk; I am very pleased that he is doing that. But if he wants to help those workers rather than
just use them, he will get out of the way and he will let the carbon tax repeal legislation go
through. I think the workers of this country do not want talk; they want action. That is what
they want. My job as Prime Minister is to fight in this parliament for the policies that will
help those workers and that will enable those businesses to have a fighting chance of
surviving and flourishingand that is what I am doing every day. As Prime Minister I am
doing what I can in this parliament to remove the taxes and the regulation and the industrial
lawlessness which are damaging the job prospects of these decent Australian workers. That is
what I am doing, and I will do that as long as there is breath in my body.
thank the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Development for her
question. I do remind her and the House of the scale of the fiscal challenge that members
opposite have left us. Under the policies of the former government, we would get $123
billion in cumulative deficits over the forward estimates period; and, under the policies of
members opposite, debt was skyrocketing towards $667 billion with $123 billion in
accumulated deficit. So there is a big challenge, and we will address it in ways consistent
with our pre-election commitments. Yes. The short answer is that certain requirements were
put on the staffer in question. My understanding is that he failed to adhere to those
requirements. When it became obvious, the staffer in question resigned and the matter is now
at an end. For the benefit of the shadow minister opposite, the gentleman in question was
required to divest himself of an interest in his wife's business. My understanding is that he
was dilatory in doing that. When that became apparent, he resigned. That is as it should be. I
would simply make this point: when people on this side of the parliament fail to act by the
highest standards of propriety and decency, they go. It is as simple as that. They go, and he is
gone. I appreciate that members opposite are desperate to find some moral fault with
members on this side of the House. I appreciate the embarrassment, in certain important
respects, of members opposite when it comes to ethical standards just at this present time. But
let me make this point: the minister in question has not breached the standards. She has not
breached the standards. She gave what she thought was correct information to the Senate at
the time and, as soon as she was aware that the information was incorrect, it was, in fact,
corrected for the Senate. As for the former staffer, he was required to divest himself of a
shareholding. He was dilatory in doing so. As soon as that became apparent, he resigned. The
matter is at an end. The right thing has been done by all. Again, I understand that the shadow
minister in question is attempting to impugn the ethical standards of this government.
I back the ethical standards of this government absolutely, to the hilt, against the ethical
standards that those opposite showed when they were in government. I do. If the Leader of
the Opposition wants to show a little bit of repentance for the standards of members opposite,
he might say something about the former member for Dobell. On Health Star Rating, my
understanding is that the departmental website was put up before the system was ready to go.
That is my understanding. That is the answer that the minister provided to the Senate. Let me
make this absolutely crystal clear. The minister has done the right thing, and the former
staffer did the right thing by resigning. This is a government which takes ethical standards
seriously. This is a government that will always act with decency and integrity. The staffer in
question was dilatory in complying with an undertaking that he had given. He has now done
the right thing and he has resigned. The matter is at an end. Thank you. I appreciate the
question from the Leader of the Opposition, because obviously Qantas is an iconic Australian
business and all of us want to ensure that Qantas flourishes forever. It is a great Australian
airline. It is a great Australian icon. We want it to flourish. For that to happen, two things are
necessary: first, it needs to be able to compete on a level playing field with its rivals; and,
second, it needs to put its own house in order. Qantas is doing its best to put its own house in
order, and this government will do what it can to ensure that Qantas has a level playing field
on which to compete, because that is the best thing that we can do for Qantas. I have to say to
members opposite that, if they are fair dinkum about wanting Qantas to flourish, one thing
they can do is scrap the carbon tax. $106 million a year in just the last year; that is Qantas's
carbon tax bill. We want to help Qantas. And we can start helping Qantas by helping the
carbon tax. I thank the member for Macquarie for her question. I can inform her that this
government has a strong, clear and consistent plan for Australia. We are stopping the boats;
we are fixing the budget; and we are building the future, a future where every Australian can
expect a fair go and every Australian is encouraged to have a go. We have a plan. We will
build a strong and prosperous economy for a safe and secure Australia. A prosperous
economy is obviously an economy that creates jobs. And, if you want to create jobs, you have
to cut taxes. I will say that again for the benefit of the members opposite: if you want to
create jobs, you have to cut taxes. The carbon tax is a tax on jobs; it is a tax on every
Australian family's cost of living; and the mining tax is a tax on investment and also a tax on
jobs. As I have been saying repeatedly for years now, the carbon tax is a $9 billion a year hit
on jobs, as well as being a $550 a year hit on every household's cost of living. They are
terrible taxes. The carbon tax will reduce the aluminium industry by over 60 per cent; it will
reduce the steel industry by 20 per cent. That is what the Leader of the Opposition wants to
do, it seems. But I think that members opposite are having second thoughts about the high-
taxing agenda of the Leader of the Opposition. We had the member for Fremantle stand up in
caucus today and say 'get rid of the mining tax'. Well, she is right. Good on the member for
Fremantle. She is speaking up for Western Australia. Is the Leader of the Opposition
listening? This government will do whatever is needed to stop the carbon tax. We have
legislation before the parliament, and just this week the relevant minister introduced a
determination to stop the carbon tax auction, to stop the auction of permits. He is a very
influential man, because it seems that members opposite agree with him. They are actually
dismantling the mechanism to collect the carbon tax. Bill, make up your mind. Go the whole
hog; stop the strike in the Senate and scrap this job-destroying tax. We want Qantas to be able
to compete on a level playing field. We want Qantas to be able to compete in a low-tax, low-
cost environment. We want Qantas to be able to manage the business in the best interests of
customers, of shareholders and of workers. That is what we want. We want Qantas to survive.
We want Qantas to flourish. We want it to maximise employment. That is what we want and
the best thing that members opposite can do, if they are fair dinkum about helping Qantas, is
scrap the carbon tax. It is a $106 million hit on Qantas. It is a $106 million hit on the jobs of
Qantas workersYou know what the workers of Qantas and the workers right around
Australia want? They do not want a tourist; they want a leader. They do not want someone
who just feels their pain; they want someone who works for them. This government is
working for the workers of Australia by scrapping the taxes that are hurting their jobs
I am pleased that the Leader of the Opposition is interested in the speech, because it was a
good speech, and if he was to study it closely he would learn something. No such measures
were proposed in the speech. The Leader of the Opposition should be honest with this
parliament. What I did say was that over time, in the longer term, the rate of growth of
expenditure has to be restrained. Of course, it has to be restrained. You know why? Because
of the fiscal mess that members opposite left. Thanks to members opposite, over the next four
years this country is facing prospective deficits totalling $123 billion. It is facing cumulative
debt of $667 billion. That is the burden that members opposite have left on future generations
of Australians. We will repair the budget, but we will do so in ways which are entirely
consistent with our election commitments. We will entirely keep our pre-election
commitments. I have no knowledge of the claim that you have made. I will look into it and, if
there is more to be said, I will say it. I think that the average Australian GP does a very good
job, often under difficult circumstances, and we want to support general practice. I have had a
bit of experience in this area of health. I have to say that the general practitioners of this
country are absolutely the backbone of our system, because, apart from the individual himself
or herself, the one person in the whole of the system who invests the time, energy and effort
in managing an individual's health is that person's GP. I have nothing but admiration and
respect for the GPs of Australia and we will do what we can to make their job easier, not
harder. The only people who really made life hard for the GPs of Australia in recent times,
funnily enough, were members opposite. Let us not forget that the former minister for health,
sitting over there as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, looking a little bit embarrassed, is
the person who let the MYEFO at the end of 2012 cut $1.6 billion out of health. Shame,
shame, shame! It is good to get a question from the member for Perth. I apologise because I
actually misled the House earlier, inadvertently, when I referred to the member for Fremantle
wanting to get rid of the mining tax. I suspect she does want to get rid of the mining tax, but
only the member for Perth was brave enough today to say to the caucus, 'The mining tax is an
anti-Western Australian tax and it should be repealed.' She is right. I am pleased that the
member for Perth is against harmful taxes. So am I, and there is no such tax planned
I want to do the right thing by the women of Australia. That is what I want to do. I want the
women of Australia to have a fair go to have a career and to have a family. That is what a fair
dinkum, paid parental leave scheme is about. It is giving women of Australia the fair go that
they have been denied for too long. It is a historic reform and it will happen under this
coalition government. That is what will happen. As everyone knows, the coalition's fair
dinkum Paid Parental Leave Scheme will be fully funded and headroom will be made for it
through a 1.5 per cent company tax cut. I do thank the Leader of the Opposition for his
question because he is effectively inviting me to state my full confidence in the Minister for
Immigration and Border Protection, and I am very happy to state my full confidence in the
minister. What we need in this particular job is a minister who is strong and decent. We know
that this minister is strong because we have now gone almost 70 days without an illegal
people smugglingThank you. So we have got a Minister for Immigration and Border
Protection who has, through his policy, through his strength, ensured that, for almost 70 days,
there has been no illegal people-smuggling venture arrive in this country. I think in the last
3 years there have been five ministers for immigration. Four have failed; one has
succeeded: the current Minister for Immigration and Border Protection.We all deeply regret
the events in and around the Manus camp last week. We deeply regret that. What we are
determined to do and what the minister is now doing is ensuring that we have the full facts
that the matter is fully investigated so that everything that is necessary to ensure that this
camp is properly run can be done. The interesting thing is: despite a very, very serious riota
serious riot involving, we think, some hundreds of peopleby the next morning the camp
was operating; people were being fed, clothed and housed. That is as it should be. We deeply
regretof course we dothe fact that Mr Reza Berati lost his life. We will do everything we
can to ensure that never again does anyone lose his or her life because of illegal people
smuggling. That is why it is so important to stop the boats and, thanks to this minister, the
boats are stopping. I wish to add briefly to an answer that I gave earlier. I was asked a
question by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition about a $10 million cancer program in
Western Australia. I have looked into this and the program in question was a Labor Party
election commitment. The pledge that we made pre-election was that we would honour our
commitments; we would not honour Labor ones. That was a Labor election commitment.
Yes. I thank the member for Maranoa for his question. I think all members of the house for
the concern that they have shown about our fellow Australians, particularly in Western
Queensland and western New South Wales, who are suffering from crippling drought. I was
pleased to be with the Minister for Agriculture about 10 days ago in the member for
Maranoa's electorate. I was also in the member for Parkes's electorate and the member for
Farrer's electorate to look at the predicament and to hear first hand what people are
experiencing. I should point out to the House that a once-in-20-year droughtlet alone a
once-in-a-century drought, which is what some people are experiencing is much more akin
to a natural disaster than it is to an ordinary variation in the business cycle. I want to assure
country Australians, I want to assure all Australians, that this government intends to stand by
people in need. We intend to stand by people in good times and in bad. The package of
measures which the minister and myself announced earlier today is, I believe, fair, fiscally
responsible and builds on existing programs. That is why it is able to be implemented
reasonably quickly. There are five elements to the package which the minister and I
announced. The first is greater access to income support for drought affected people who
have no income and who cannot sell, cannot leave and cannot borrow on the strength of their
properties; greater access to concessional loans for drought-hit farmers; more assistance to
state governments dealing with feral animals; more assistance to state governments to deal
with water infrastructure projects; and more assistance to community groups who are dealing
with people in personal crisis. I think the Australian people get it when it comes to drought.
They understand that our cities cannot live without a countryside to support them. That is
why I am sure that Australians will welcome the package of measures that the minister and I
announced today. Obviously, what we really need is rain. I hope and pray for rain. The
government, regrettably, cannot work miracles, but we will do what we reasonably can to
stand with people in trouble. My message to country people is: we will not let you down. The
short answer is: neither. I know that there is likely to be a series of questions today from
members opposite on this subject, but I can assure members opposite that on this particular
issue there is Labor smoke but there is no coalition firethere is smoke without fire. I wish
to make two essential points. The first is that every action that this good minister has taken is
eminently defensible, and within a couple of days of issues being raised the staff member in
question did the right thing and he resigned. Happily, Madam Speaker, both. I want to make
it absolutely crystal clear that there has been no breach of the conflict of interest rules. Again,
happily, both of us are. I simply say to the member for Ballarat that she will no doubt
continue to ask questions on this subject but, really, certainly since the resignation of the
gentleman in question, there is just nothing there. This is not so much a storm in a teacup; it
is not even a zephyr in a thimble; it is nothing because the conflict-of-interest rules have been
observed. I thank the member opposite for her question. The premise of the question is
simply wrong. It is simply wrong. People are entitled to disagree with the position of the
government, but the position of the government was determined by the government and by
the minister. It is eminently defensible. I do appreciate that the Leader of the Opposition is a
little embarrassed by the conduct of Senator Conroy. If the Leader of the Opposition is
embarrassed by Senator Conroy's conduct, he should have a word in Senator Conroy's ear and
say that it would be good for his dignity and that of the parliament if he simply apologised to
General Campbell. Obviously anticipating this issue, members opposite have decided that
this is some kind of a riposte for the Leader of the Opposition's unwillingness to pull into line
his shadow minister for defence. The trouble with this question is that it is falseutterly,
absolutely and completely false. It is typical, I regret to say, of this opposition. They never let
the facts get in the way of a good smear. That is typical of this opposition The truth is that the
conditions of service of personnel in the Middle East have changed. Haven't members
opposite realised that we are no longer in combat in Afghanistan? Haven't they recognised
that we have concluded our combat mission in Afghanistan? Haven't they realised that? Well,
we have. We have concluded our combat mission in Afghanistan Has the Leader of the
Opposition forgotten that he and I both went to Tarin Kot to solemnly observe that our
combat mission had ended? Because the conditions of service have changed, the relevant
allowances have changed. That decision was made quite properly by the service chiefs in
response to the changed conditions of service in Afghanistan. I can see the member for
Hunter, Joel Fitzgibbon, sitting there squirming in embarrassment at this grubby tactic on the
part of the opposition. You should be embarrassed by Senator Conroy's behaviour I am sorry,
what was that? The best way to deal with this issue is for the Leader of the Opposition to ask
Senator Conroy to apologise. There is a very simple answer; the answer is no. Madam
Speaker, the minister has not breached the conflict of interest rules. In order to avoid any
perception of potential conflict of interest, the staffer in question resigned. The minister is
doing a fine job. Every single decision that has been made by her in that portfolio is
eminently defensible and I back her to the hilt. I can confirm that my office would have been
listening to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection on Tuesday afternoon when
he said that it was unclear exactly where many of the things that had taken place on that
fateful evening had in fact taken place. I will gladly check the record, and, if there is anything
to tell the parliament, I will come back and tell the parliament. But, again, exactly what is the
evil here? Exactly what is the grievous error? Exactly what is the monument of
maladministration that members opposite are trying to uncover? As soon as the minister was
aware of a problem on the Monday night he went public, on the Tuesday morning. By the
time he got to Canberra on the Tuesday afternoon he was. Maybe it was midday. Maybe it
was one o'clock. Maybe it was two o'clock. It was as soon as he was clear. What does it really
matter if he delayed 15 minutes, half an hour or an hour? What does it really matter? The
truth is that, as soon as he reasonably could be, after clarifying the position, he was
completely up-front with the Australian public and the Australian people. This minister has a
very difficult job, restoring border security with the legacy that this government inheriteda
massively difficult job. I want to say that I deeply admire and respect the strength and the
integrity that he has brought to this job. While I can understand that members opposite would
be a little embarrassed at the way the boats are stopping now, surely they at least ought to be
men and women enough to give credit where it is due. This minister is stopping the boats.
That is what counts. Madam Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice
Paper. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. It is a very serious topic. This is
a difficult and anxious day for the workers at Qantasa very difficult and anxious day for
themand it is a very troubling day for everyone who is following this news. I absolutely
accept that. I do point out that there are services available to people who lose their jobs,
including those at Qantas. I also point out that the fundamental job of government is to ensure
that our economy is as strong as possible, and that means getting the fundamentals right. That
means trying to ensure that taxes are as low as possible, that regulation is as low as possible,
that the ordinary law of the land operates. The last thing I am going to do today is to play
politics or to try to make capital out of what is a very difficult day. But I am going to provide,
as much as I can, hope and confidence to our country. I am going to state my conviction that
the management of Qantas are doing their best to ensure that Qantas is stronger in the future
than it has been in the recent past, and I am not going to get into the business of being critical
of a company and a management which are doing their best to secure the future. I want to
remind the House that back in 2012, when Qantas announced that 500 jobs were to be lost,
the then minister for workplace relations very truly and very correctly pointed out: 'These
workers are highly trained and highly skilled. I am sure any prospective employer will get a
bargain with these workers.' The minister for employment was right then. I grieve with the
workers who are facing an uncertain future. But, just as the minister for employment in that
government at that time was right then, I am right when I say that there will be better days
ahead in a stronger economy when workers can get the jobs they need. I thank the member
for Robertson for her question. Again, I reiterate that it is a hard day for the workers at
Qantas and it is a hard day for everyone who is following this. But on hard days especially it
is important to tell the truth, and the truth is that there are services available to people in this
country who lose their jobs, and particularly when we are talking about a company like
Qantas people's entitlements are absolutely safe. But another important truth is that
governments do not save businesses. What saves businesses is the management and the staff
working together to make the future better than the past. It is not government's job to run
businesses; it is government's job to get the fundamentals right. As this government
understands in the marrow of its bones, it is not government that creates jobs; it is profitable
businesses that create jobs. It is not government that creates wealth; it is profitable businesses
that create wealth. Government's job is to make it easier for those businesses to flourish. Our
plan for a stronger economy with more jobs starts with abolishing the carbon tax, because
let's not forget that the carbon tax is a $9 billion a year tax on jobs and it is a $106 million a
year tax on Qantas. It continues with scrapping the mining tax, which has done so much to
reduce investment in our country. It goes on with cutting red tape. We are committed to a $1
billion red tape cost saving for the businesses of Australia. We are also committed to trying to
ensure that the rule of law operates in all of our workplaces through restoring the Australian
Building and Construction Commission, and that in a previous incarnation was responsible
for $6 billion worth of productivity improvements. We will create a million new jobs within
five years. We will create two million new jobs within a decade. The challenge of
government is not to guarantee every single existing job; the challenge of government is to
ensure that there are new and better jobs available to the workers of Australia when they want
them and when they need them. As the Leader of the Opposition well knows and has just
said, this government have been in regular contact with Qantas. As you would expect, we
have been in regular contact with Qantas. There are a number of things that Qantas would
like. This government will do what we can for Qantas consistent with responsible economic
management. We are determined to do what we can for Qantas consistent with responsible
economic management. That essentially means that we should ensure that Qantas can
compete on a level playing field. We want to ensure that Qantas is not competing against its
rivals with a ball and chain around its leg. That is what we are trying to ensure. As for the
other measure that the Leader of the Opposition has sought assurances on, the difficulty is
this: what we do for one business, in fairness, we have to make available to all businesses.
But I accept that Qantas wants a level playing field, and the government are determined to
ensure that it gets an appropriate level playing field. In that sense at least, Qantas does need
this government's help. But it also needs the parliament's help. In fact, it needs the
opposition's help too. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: join with me in helping Qantas
by scrapping the carbon tax and repealing the I do thank the member for Kennedy for his
question and I acknowledge his deep commitment to the ethanol industry, which is shared by
a number of members in this House, particularly the member for Dawson, who is sitting very
close to the member for Kennedy. I wish to make two fundamental points in response to the
member for Kennedy. First, this is a government which is determined to keep faith with
businesses which have made investment decisions honestly and fairly on the basis of
government policy. Second, this is a government which will do its best to ensure as far as is
humanly possible a level playing field between the domestically produced and the imported
product. We will do our best to ensure that there is a level playing field. As for the policies of
the United States and Brazil which the member for Kennedy refers to, I will gladly have a
look at those policies and see whether they are instructive for us, but I do have to point out to
him and to all members that, in the end, the policy that we adopt in this country, as far as this
government is concerned, will be based very much on Australia's national interests. This is a
very serious subject and it deserves to be taken extremely seriously by this parliament. This
government is determined to ensure that, as far as reasonably possible, there is a level playing
field for competition and that Qantas is not competing against its fierce rivals with a ball and
chain around its legs. That is what we are determined to ensure. We know that Qantas would
like some further additional assistance. The difficulty with that request is this. Why should
the government do for one what it is not prepared to do for all? That is the issue. We are
determined to help Qantas. We will help Qantas by establishing a level playing field and we
will help Qantas by cutting its costs. and we will help Qantas by saving it some $270 million
in carbon tax costs over two years. That is what we want to do to help Qantas. The
government is prepared to help Qantas in these important ways but, for the government to
help Qantas, we need the help of the opposition. We need the help of the opposition to sort
out the Qantas Sale Act. We need the help of the opposition this side of July to sort out the
carbon tax. I ask members opposite: are they prepared to help? On a day when 5,000 jobs
have been lost at Qantas, I am a little surprised that the opposition are back on this subject.
And I am surprised that the member for Grayndler is not equally surprised after the point of
order he has just taken. There was an eventit was such a secret that half the press gallery
were at it. It occurred in the election campaign last year. At that event, I announced the
coalition's support for $16 million worth of tourism infrastructure in Tasmania. Maybe the
member opposite could say whether she supports that $16 million. At the event that was so
secret that half the press gallery were at it, at the announcement of the grant that was so
sinister that it was supported by the people of Tasmania, the role of that gentleman in
question, as I understand it, is that he was the economist for the company. I just wish to make
two points in response to the member's question. On a day when 5,000 jobs have been lost at
Qantas, you would think members opposite would be supporting a job-creating project in
Tasmania. I say to the member opposite: if she is serious about this, what is her view? Was
this a good proposal or was this a bad proposal? The second point I make to the member for
Ballarat is that this was a decision taken by the coalition in opposition. It was submitted to the
people at the election, and the people supported it. I am happy to do my best with all this, but
I think I should point out to the House that this really does go to the judgement of the
opposition. On a day when 5,000 jobs have been lost at Qantas, this is the best the opposition
can do to flog this particular dead horse, and dead horse it is This $16 million grant towards
tourism infrastructure in Tasmania was designed to boost employment and help the
Tasmanian economy. This suggestion that there was something improper about this grant I
deeply reject. I deeply reject it. There was absolutely nothing improper about this. It was so
secret that it was taken to the election! t was so secret it was announced before half of the
press gallery! It will benefit jobs and workers in Tasmania and I call on the opposition to
support it. I do thank the member for Grayndler for his question. I point out that the $16
million was a tourism infrastructure grant. It was an election commitment. We made it in the
context of an election. We made it openly and publicly. It was so secret that it was witnessed
by half the press gallery. It was so sinister that it was approved by the people of Australia at
an election. And let me remind the member for Grayndler and all those other rather noisy
members opposite: the member for Franklin described the project as 'a great project that gets
our support'. Well, get behind it. It is a good project and it will create jobs. Every single
person in this House is concerned about the predicament that those 5,000 workers find
themselves in. But the whole point of government is not to guarantee every single jobno
government can do that. The point of being in office is not to run a chequebook government.
The point of being in government is to get the fundamentals right, and that is what this
government is trying to do. We want to get taxes down, we want to get to regulation down,
we want to get productivity up I am fighting to ensure that Qantas gets a fair go. I am
fighting to ensure that Qantas is not shackled by a $106 million carbon tax bill one year and a
$168 million carbon tax bill the next year. I am fighting to ensure that as far as is humanly
possible Qantas is operating on a level playing field, and the last thing that I want to do on a
difficult and anxious day for Qantas is to make political capital out of the difficulty that this
business finds itself in. That is the last thing I want to do. I absolutely accept that Qantas
would like the government's help. The help I am offering is to level the playing field and save
Qantas from costs which it should not face. I invite the Leader of the Opposition to join with
me and to give this great Australian icon the legislative help that it needs. That is what we
should all be doing in this parliament todaygiving this great Australian icon the legislative
help that it needs. It is a difficult and anxious day for Qantas; there is no doubt about that. But
our duty in this parliament is to ensure that Qantas is stronger tomorrow than it was
yesterday, and that is what I am determined to do. Well, no, I will not. Let me say of the
Commission of Audit. I am happy to elaborate. I am very happy to elaborate and to say why
we will not. It might surprise members opposite, but this is a policy that I deeply believe in.
This is a policy that I announced on International Women's Day in 2010. This is a policy that
the coalition took to the 2010 election. This is a policy which the coalition expounded and
defended throughout the last term of parliament. This is a policy which we took to the
election. And, I have to say, this is a policy which the Australian public well and truly
understood when they voted in last year's election. This is a policy whose time has come. It is
a policy that will deliver an historic reform for the women of Australia. I think that one day
members opposite will be a little embarrassed at the stance that they have taken on this
policy. I believe that the women of Australia should have a real choice to combine family
with career. They should have a real choice to combine family with career, and that is exactly
what this policy gives them. This is an historic change. This is a mighty social and economic
advance for the women of Australia. It is good for women, it is good for families and it is
very good for our economy, because if we can get the participation rate up we will get our
productivity up, we will get our prosperity up and it will be good for everyone. I absolutely
stand by this policy. The situation in the Ukraine is fluid and it is threatening. It is something
that all Australians are rightly concerned about and that people right around the world are
rightly concerned about. I can inform the House that this morning the Russian ambassador
was called into the department of foreign affairs to be told in no uncertain terms what
Australia thinks about this aggression against an independent country. I can inform the House
that a visit to Russia by the Minister for Trade and Investment will not go ahead and I can
further inform the House that a visit to Australia by the Russian national security adviser
likewise will not go ahead. Unprovoked aggression should have no place in our world. Russia
should back off; it should withdraw its forces from the Ukraine. The people of the Ukraine
ought to be able to determine their future themselves. That is what should happen. I thank the
member for Brisbane for her question. I assure her that, as far as the government is
concerned, there should be no talking down of a great Australian airline. Qantas is a great
Australian airline. It is an airline with a great past and an airline which should have a great
future. Australians love to travel. We love to travel domestically; we love to travel
internationally. The market for Australian travel should increase as the years go by. This
means there is absolutely no reason, whatsoever, why Qantas and all other Australian airlines
should not have a great future, except for the shackles that legislation has placed not just on
Qantas but on all Australian airlines. I refer particularly to the carbon taxthe tax that
members opposite said was never going to happen; the tax that members opposite said had
been terminated in the middle of last year. That tax is so terminated that last financial year
Qantas paid $106 million in carbon tax; Virgin paid almost $50 million in carbon tax and
even Rex paid more than $2 million in carbon tax. The best thing that this parliament can do
for the airline industry right now is axe the tax. I will quote Virgin CEO John Borghetti, who
is someone who knows a bit about airlines. He works for Virgin but he has worked for
Qantas. He said: the best assistance the government and the opposition can provide is the
removal of the carbon tax, which has cost this industry hundreds of millions of dollars. To
that end, I just say we applaud the government's position on this. There is something that this
parliament can do today. There are bills in the Senate right now that are specifically directed
not at the overall repeal of the carbon tax but at repealing the carbon tax on airlines. I know
that the Leader of the Opposition likes the carbon tax, generally, but if he wants to help the
airline industry he should let us pass those bills that will take the carbon tax off the airlines. I
am happy to work with the Leader of the Opposition to free the airline industry from the
carbon tax today. I would like to free everyone from the carbon tax, but let us work together
on just this one thingthat is, to look after the jobs at Qantas by taking the carbon tax off the
workers there. Of course I agree with the Treasurer! There is never a moment when I do not
agree with the Treasurer. I tell you what, does the Leader of the Opposition agree with his
shadow minister that the government is the major shareholder in Qantas? Does the Leader of
the Opposition agree with his shadow minister that the Commonwealth has a majority share
in Qantas? This is not something that the shadow minister said in 1994; he said it today.
I am happy to keep going adam Speaker, I was asked about disagreements between party
leaders and their frontbenchers, and here is a classic casea classic case of a senior
frontbencher who has not realised that two decades have gone by since the Labor Party sold
Qantas lock, stock and barrel into the private sector. He is still living in the good old days of
state-owned airlines. We are not Unlike members opposite, who are completely clueless
when it comes to the facts of the aviation industry in this country, we will make sure as far as
we humanly can that we give all the airlines of this country the support they need to keep
going, and the best support we can do is to take the carbon tax off thema $100 million a
year hit on the workers of Qantas. The Leader of the Opposition supports it but we oppose it
and we will free the workers of Qantas from this $100 million a year tax on their jobs.
We are more than happy, as the Treasurer has abundantly made clear, to take the shackles off
Qantas. That is what we want to do. We want to get rid of the carbon tax, which is a $100
million-plus hit on Qantas jobs, and we do want to remove from Qantas the shackles placed
upon it by the Qantas Sale Act. Again I say to Leader of the Opposition: if he is fair dinkum
about wanting to help the workers at Qantas, if he is fair dinkum about wanting to do the
right thing by Qantasmake Qantas more competitive and more efficient in these difficult
dayshe should work with the government to decouple the bills in the Senate so that this
very day we can free all of the airlines of this country from the carbon tax. The only thing
stopping that is the Leader of the Opposition. What members opposite essentially want the
government to do is provide to one airline what we would not provide to all. What this
government wants to do is ensure that all airlines are given the level playing field that they
deserve. Unlike members opposite who believe in chequebook government and playing
favourites amongst businesses, we do not. We want to give all airlines a fair go, and that
includes Qantas. I have two points in response to the Leader of the Opposition: first of all, he
should stop verballing the Treasurer and, secondly, he should stop talking down Qantas. That
is what he should do. He should stop talking down Qantas. If he is serious about helping
Qantas today, this very day he should join with the government and lift the carbon tax from
Qantas and all other airlines. We wish to free the workers of Qantas from a $100 billion hit
on their jobs. We want to do it today. We want to do it today, and I say to the Leader of the
Opposition: he should stop huffing and puffing. Just for once he should be useful. Just for
once he should leave the union card at home and he should get out of the way, let the carbon
tax repeal legislation go through the Senate and take this $100 million tax off Qantas
workers. I do want Qantas to call Australia home, and I do want Qantas to flourish into the
future. But the best thing we can do to help Qantas to call Australia home, not just now but
forever is to remove the shackles which are holding Qantas back. The Leader of the
Opposition is complaining on behalf of Qantas. I want to work on behalf of Qantas. I want
this parliament to work on behalf of Qantas by, this very day, repealing the carbon tax and
taking that $100 million hit off Qantas and off Qantas workers. The basic problem for Qantas
is that the party opposite that sold Qantas are not prepared to free Qantas. That is what should
happen. Qantas should be free to compete, to survive and to flourish. That is what this
government wants to do. One thing I am not going to do is stand at this dispatch box and do
what members opposite have done for the last week or so. I am not going to talk Qantas
down; I am going to allow Qantas to compete on a level playing field with every other airline
in this country, because I have confidence in the workers of Qantas and I have confidence in
the staff of Qantas. Unshackle Qantas and they can continue to be one of the world's great
airlines. Regardless of which portfolio the money comes from, it is a great investment. How
do I know? Because the shadow minister sitting opposite, the member who has asked the
question, said that it is 'a great project, that gets our support'. Senator Urquhart, ALP Senator
for Tasmania and Deputy Opposition Whip, said, 'Of course I welcome this announcement. I
welcome investment in the Claremont site.' But listen to this: the Premier of Tasmania, who
the Leader of the Opposition was with just this weekend, said 'I welcome this potential
investment in Cadbury. It is fantastic.' o, I will not, but I think that the shadow minister
should stop making herself unpopular with her colleagues. She should support this
investment, which the Premier of Tasmania described as 'fantastic'. This is what the Premier
of Tasmania described as a fantastic investment and it should be supported. I do accept that
members opposite are supremely embarrassed about their record in government. That is what
I accept. The record of members opposite, quite apart from the 55,000 illegal arrivals by boat,
was 200,000 more unemployed people and debt skyrocketing towards $667 billion. We were
elected to fix this and fix this we will. We will fix it. We are marching to the rescue of this
nation from the wreckage that we inherited from members opposite. It suits them now to
pretend that it was the best government that this country has ever seen. But the fact is the
record of members opposite is of 50,000 illegal arrivals by boat, 200,000 extra unemployed
people and debt skyrocketing towards $667 billion. We will fix it. I thank the Leader of the
Opposition for his question. I can inform him that Qantas will still be subject to the Air
Navigation Act. The Air Navigation Act provides that to be a designated national carrier an
airline has to be 51 per cent Australian owned; the chairperson has to be Australian; the
majority of the board has to be Australian; and the principal base of operations has to be
Australia. The point I want to make in addition, though, is that by continuing to want to have
Qantas shackled by part 3 of the sale act, what the Leader of the Opposition is effectively
doing is giving Virgin a better deal than Qantas. I am all in favour of Virgin. I think it is a
fine airline, but why should Virgin be given an advantage in running its business that Qantas
does not? As long as the Leader of the Opposition persists in his opposition to what the
government is proposing, he is giving Virgin a better deal than Qantas. Why would any
Australian want to see the big flying kangaroo disadvantaged? As long as the Leader of the
Opposition persists in his current positionand we know he does change his mind quite
oftenhe is giving Virgin a better deal than Qantas and that is just not right. I thank the
member for Banks for his question. I appreciate that the member for Banks has lots of Qantas
staff living in his electorate and he wants to give them every chance to keep their jobs and to
be a continuing part of one of the world's great airlines. Qantas is one of the world's great
airlines, and this government wants to see Qantas continue as one of the world's great
airlines, and the best way to ensure this happens is to take the shackles away. That is why the
first thing that the government is going to do for Qantas is to repeal part 3 of the Qantas Sale
Act, which puts a whole lot of restrictions on Qantas which do not apply to Virgin. What this
government wants to see is both big Australian airlines competing on the same playing field.
The fair thing is to have both big Australian airlines competing on the same playing field. I
have great faith in the staff and management of Qantas to compete. But we have got to take
the shackles off. We have got to allow them to compete on the same playing field under the
same conditions as their competitors, and that is what this government wants to do. The other
thing we want to do is make it easier for all Australian airlines to compete, to employ and to
expand. We want all Australian airlines to flourish, and to do that we are going to repeal the
carbon tax. The carbon tax is a tax on Australian airlines which other countries simply do not
face. All of Qantas and Virgin's competitors do not face the carbon tax, so we are going to
take it away. The carbon tax is a $106-million hit on Qantas jobs; it is a $48-million hit on
Virgin jobs; it is a $2 million hit on Rex jobs; and it should be gone Let me just remind
members opposite that two decades ago under a Labor government this parliament sold
Qantas. It was a gutsy call by the then Labor government, but that was a gutsy Labor
government. It was a gutsy Labor Party in those days. What we now need to do, having sold
Qantas, is to give it its freedom, and that is what this government proposes. To those who are
frightened about what might happen, to those who are fearful of the future, to those who think
that any change in the Qantas Sale Act is some kind of a disaster, I say: look at Virgin. Virgin
is employing Australians. It is serving Australians. It is, in every meaningful respect, an
Australian airline. Why does this Leader of the Opposition think that Virgin should be given
a commercial, competitive advantage that is denied to Qantas. Why does the Leader of the
Opposition think that Virgin should get a better deal than Qantas? I think that both Australian
airlines should get the same fair deal. The people who work for Virgin are Australians; they
are employed in Australia. The aircraft that Virgin flies are based in Australia; they are
serviced in Australia. And what is good for Virgin is good for Qantas. Let's have the same
rules governing both airlines. I do thank the member for Denison for his question, because
the answer is: yes, I do agree with Will Hodgman. He will be a great Premier of Tasmania
should the electors of that great state give him the opportunity in a couple of weeks' time. He
will be a great Premier of Tasmania if he gets the support of the people at the election, and he
deserves the support of the people. As for the so-called supertrawler, the supertrawler is
banned from Australian waters. It was the Manager of Opposition Business, formerly the
relevant minister, who let the supertrawler in in the first place. He then thought better of it. It
was banned with the support of members on this side of the House. It was banned; it will stay
banned. They asked for it; we thought about it; and we rejected it. They asked for it; we
thought about it; and we rejected it. Let me, if I may, outline for the Leader of the
Opposition's benefit what his position has done. His refusal to contemplate taking the
shackles off Qantas means that Virgin is in a stronger position than Qantas. As I said, I am all
in favour of doing the right thing by Virgin, but let's do the right thing by Qantas too. Let's do
the right thing by Qantas too. Yes. Qantas asked us to consider a number of initiatives. We
investigated them. We are going to free Qantas from the shackles of the Qantas Sale Act. We
are not going to give them the debt guarantee that they sought because we do not believe in
playing favourites between private companies. We believe in giving all private businesses the
same fair deal. on the same level playing field, and, once upon a time, so did Labor members.
But I am afraid this is a very shrunken Labor Party and a very shrunken Leader of the
Opposition. I have concluded my answer. A previous Labor Party that was a great reforming
government in its own way was prepared to sell Qantas. A previous Labor transport
spokesman, someone who was a lion of Labor, a person of great respect in this chamber, was
prepared to change Labor's attitude towards the Qantas Sale Act, and I believe even now
members opposite have it in them to rise to the challenge of reform. Now, I know that at the
moment the Leader of the Opposition is good at complaining and hopeless at leading, he is
good at criticising but he is hopeless at governing, but I think he is big enough to rise above
this. What we are proposing to members opposite, and this is why I believe there is every
chance that what we are proposing will pass the Senate, is to allow Qantas to operate under
exactly the same rules that Virgin operates under. Let us look at Virgin. Virgin has gone from
zero Australian employees to almost 10,000. That is not bad. Virgin has gone from nothing to
being a great Australian airline. Virgin actually started off 100 per cent foreign owned. It is
still majority foreign owned but Virgin employs Australians, it flies Australians and it
services its planes in Australia. What is so bad about that, and why wouldn't a sensible Labor
Partya Labor Party animated by the same patriotism that the Hawke government was
animated by, a Labor Party that spawned people like Martin Fergusona decent Labor man;
a sensible Labor leaderwake up to itself and allow Qantas to do what Virgin does? To stop
giving Virgin an unfair advantage vis-a-vis Qantas I want a level playing field. I want two
great Australian airlines. I want Qantas to be able to compete. I want Virgin to be able to
compete. I want them to be able to compete on the same level playing field, and if members
opposite thought about it for five seconds, if they stopped playing these silly populist games,
that is exactly what they would want. I am looking at a document that I understand Qantas
released last week, and it says: 'Since financial year '09, Qantas has faced an increasingly
challenging environment. Yields are down; the fuel price is up.' And then it says: 'Domestic
carbon tax unrecovered of $106 million in financial year 2012-13.' So Qantas know that one
of the problems that they have got is a $106 million a year hit. Does anyone seriously believe
that, at a time like this, Qantas wants to pay $106 million in carbon tax? Here is a company
which has just reported a $252 million loss for just a half-year, and this genius opposite
thinks they want to keep paying $106 million in carbon tax. This idea that Qantas somehow
loves the carbon tax, even though the carbon tax adds $106 million to its costs, even though
the carbon tax is contributing to a $252 million half-yearly loss, is just crackers.
It is just crackers, Madam Speaker. Tell them they're dreaming. That's what they're doing:
they're dreaming. They're dreaming. We are going to give Qantas and Virgin the same level
playing field to compete upon and we are going to get rid of the carbon tax on all of them.
That will save Qantas $106 million a year. It will save Virgin $48 million a year. It will save
Rex $2 million a year. And they will be very, very grateful. Their jobs will be safer and
their companies will be more secure. This government, like all governments, respects the
confidentiality of this process and it is not in the business of revealing personal information
about people. Absolutely not. This is just a nasty smear from the Leader of the Opposition. I
am aware that Qantas today put out a statement. Just so that members of this House should
know what the situation is, Qantas has today put out a statement to say: We have said that the
price on carbon is a cost to our business that we have not been able to recover through fare
increases So there we have it: the carbon tax is a drag on Qantas that it does not need. It is
a $106 million hit on jobs at Qantas. We will get rid of the carbon tax, but the Leader of the
Opposition wants to leave this $106 million a year hit on Qantas in place. I thank the member
for Eden-Monaro for his question and I acknowledge the work he has done over the years to
strengthen our economy, including his work at the Australian Chamber of Commerce and
Industry. The national accounts figures have been released. I can report to the House that in
the December quarter GDP grew a little above the expected rate, at 0.8 per cent. In this
quarter, household consumption is also up by 0.8 per cent and export volumes are up by a
strong 2.4 per cent. As the Treasurer said earlier today, there are positive signs emerging in
the economy. As well as these encouraging national accounts, total private building approvals
increased strongly in January by 6.6 per cent, taking approvals to the highest level since
2002. The ANZ job advertisement series rose sharply in February, by 5.1 per cent, and the
National Australia Bank Monthly Business Survey also showed a rise in confidence. It is now
above the long-run average. There are lots of challenges, but this government has a plan that
will make it easier for the people and the businesses of Australia to rise to them in the future.
Our plan means getting taxes down, it means getting red and green tape down, it means
getting productivity up and it means building the infrastructure that this country needs,
because infrastructure, particularly roads, is the muscles and sinews of our economy. We will
scrap the carbon tax, which this House should surely know by now is a $9 billion a year hit
on jobs. We will scrap the mining tax, which is a brake on investment in this country. We
will give businesses a $1 billion a year red and green tape cost reduction. I am so pleased to
remind the House that, thanks to the good work of the Minister for the Environment, some
$400 billion worth of new projects have been given environmental approval since last year's
election. So this is a country which is open for business. This is a country which is well and
truly under new management, and that should give the people and the businesses of our
country much more confidence in the weeks and months ahead. Typically, it was more in the
nature of a smear than a statement. But I can tell the Leader of the Opposition that there has
been no contact whatsoever between me and my office and Qantas along the lines that the
Leader of the Opposition suggests. Just for the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition, it is
worth reminding him of what members opposite used to think when they were in
government. We had a very interesting report in The Australian Financial Review by none
other than Kevin Rudd's former chief of staff, who said: The ALP should remember the
constraints the Act imposes on a company playing in an international services market. The
former chief of staff to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd goes on in this morning's The Australian
Financial Review: Remember is the operative word. The ALP had amendments to deal with
this ready to legislate in 2009. So members opposite know that the Qantas Sale Act is a
problem. They had amendments ready to go, and then they lost their nerve. But not only did
the former chief of staff to the former Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, publish in The Australian
Financial Review this morning; he was also on Radio National this morning, and he said
something very interesting: 'We had the then minister, Anthony Albanese'that is the
member for Grayndler, I believe'who prepared changes to the sale act.' There we are: the
gentleman interjecting. He himself prepared changes to the Qantas Sale Act, so he knows in
his heart that Qantas needs to be freed from these shackles. And the former chief of staff to
the then Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, went on to say, 'We had the total support of the
opposition,' and that is exactly right because we have always thought that Qantas needed its
freedom to compete. I do not want to see Qantas getting any special advantages. I just do not
want Virgin to have the special advantage which it currently does because it is not
constrained in the way that Qantas is. So please, Madam Speaker, let us have no more weak
hypocrisy from this incompetent opposition. I know that members opposite are now
embarrassed because they have had this revelation from deep within the heart of the Rudd
government that the Rudd government, the former government, wanted to lift the restrictions
on Qantas. Let me repeat for the benefit of members opposite. This is the former chief of staff
to the former Prime Minister: 'We had the then minister'If members opposite are now
trying to say that they are prepared to get rid of the 25 per cent and 35 per cent restrictions,
come on, come on across! Come on across. If you are prepared to get rid of the 25 per cent
and 35 per cent restrictions, please vote with us, because that is what the sale act does We
want to do what Labor planned to do. We want to do what Labor planned to do and we have
it on the authority of Kevin Rudd's former chief of staff that that is what Labor wanted to do.
They were gutless then, and now that a government has been good enough to put it on the
table they should support it. I do welcome that question from the member for Fairfax. I am
absolutely delighted to hear that the member for Fairfax and his eponymous party propose to
vote on 1 July in the Senate to abolish the carbon tax and the mining tax. That is very good
news for Australia. I do thank the member for Barker for his question and I appreciate his
concern to ensure that businesses in South Australia are given a fair go. The truth is, the
carbon tax is an anti South Australian tax. It is an anti Australian tax, but it is certainly an anti
South Australian tax because the list of South Australian businesses that are going to be
damaged, and are being damaged, by the carbon tax is a rollcall of South Australian blue
chips. There is the Nyrsta smelter at Port Pirie which is being hit $7.4 million a year by the
carbon tax. There is the Pelican Point Power Station, with a $28 million a year hit from the
carbon tax. But it just gets worse. Adelaide Brighton Cement has a $62 million a year hit
from the carbon tax. And there is Santos, perhaps South Australia's best-known company, a
very important part of our economy, with a $76 million hit because of the carbon tax. The
only people who want the carbon tax to stay are the Greens, and it is high time for the Labor
Party to side with the people and not with the Greens and repeal this carbon tax. We have
heard from the Treasurer already today the statement by Australia's four big business groups,
the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Council, the Minerals Council and the Australian
Industry Group, who say: Australia's carbon tax is one of the highest in the world and is
making our key industries less competitive every day it stays in place. For small business
especially, this has been a major burden that has reduced profitability, suppressed
employment and added to already difficult conditions. The government knows this. Business
knows this. The people know this. The Leader of the Opposition and the Greens seem to have
wax in their ears on this, but I regret to say, Madam Speaker, the carbon tax has a friend in
South Australia and that is Premier Weatherill. He seems to be happy to have the people of
South Australia continue to pay $550 a household more than they should. In fact Premier
Weatherill said last year that the carbon tax is a 'fact of life' that he was actually looking
forward to. He said, 'I am looking forward to a carbon constrained future.' Well, I want South
Australia to be unconstrained. I do not believe in unnecessary constraints on the South
Australian economy. Let us have a low-taxing government here in Canberra and let us have a
low-taxing government in Adelaide too. The best thing that we can do for Qantas, the best
thing that we can do for workers all around Australia, is to get the fundamentals of our
economy rightto get taxes down, to get regulation down, to get productivity up and to get
the infrastructure that our country needs built as quickly as possible. That is what this
government is seeking to do and we are being opposed at every point by members opposite.
The Leader of the Opposition can stand up and complain but he cannot lead. He can stand up
and criticise but we know that he could not govern. When there was a proposalthat the
government is proposing is for the same set of rules and regulations to govern Qantas as
govern Virgin. Virgin has gone from zero to almost 10,000 Australian employees. Virgin is
carrying millions of Australians a week. That is what it is doing. Virgin is servicing planes in
Australia. It is creating jobs in Australia. Virgin is growing and Qantas is shrinking and that
is why we want Qantas to be under the same rules that Virgin is under. That is what we want.
Isn't that the best thing we can do for Qantas? What the Leader of the Opposition wants us to
do, effectively, is to bail out a private company. That is what he wants. He wants us to get out
the chequebook and write a cheque, just as members opposite have done so often. Let me
remind the Leader of the Opposition what the former chief of staff to the former Prime
Minister said: Its puzzling when a party claiming to be progressive wants to compound out-
dated interventionism with a market distorting loan guarantee specific to Qantas. This is a
step down the Argentine road. That is what the Leader of the Opposition wants us to do. I am
not giving the Leader of the Opposition the answer that he wants, because decent Labor
people know that the Leader of the Opposition is dead wrong. Let me continue with what the
former chief of staff to the former Labor Prime Minister said: the Qantas Sale Act should
go and the ALP should not stand in the way. We want Qantas to operate under the same
rules that Virgin does. Virgin employs almost 10,000 people here in Australia. Virgin is
flying millions of Australians around Australia every week. Virgin is servicing planes in
Australia. If you want to operate an airline in Australia, you have got to have staff in
Australia. If you want to operate an airline in Australia, you have got to have planes serviced
in Australia. The problem with this Leader of the Opposition is that not only is he verballing
the Deputy Prime Minister, not only is he defaming Qantas, not only is he running down
Virgin I said this is a man who is running down Virgin and he is. He is running down Virgin,
talking down Qantas and, frankly, it is conduct unbecoming of an alternative
I am doing my best to understand the position of members opposite. What members opposite
seem to be saying is that we, the then opposition, the coalition, should have supported a
proposal to remove the 25 per cent and 35 per cent restrictions in 2009. That I think is the
position of the Labor Party that we should have supported in 2009. Well, let me put this to
members opposite: if we were wrong then, they are wrong now. That is the absolute logic of
their position. If members opposite believe that the 25 per cent and 35 per cent rules should
go, well, support the government. Let us get rid of the Qantas Sale Act because the 25 per
cent and 35 per cent rules are the very heart of the Qantas Sale Act that we want to repeal. I
am all in favour of Qantas surviving and flourishing. I just want it to operate under the same
rules that Virgin does. I beg of members opposite, who I think are genuinely concerned for
jobs: do not discriminate against Qantas by continuing to subject Qantas to the rules that
Virgin does not have to run under. If it is right for Virgin, it is right for Qantas. That is what
this government wants the parliament to support. As I think members all around this chamber
would know, there has been a period of some difficulty in our relationship with Indonesia. I
deeply regret that. I want to ensure members on both sides of this chamber that, as far as this
government is concerned, we want the strongest possible relationship with Indonesia. We
want the trusted partnership to be resumed at the earliest possible moment. The Minister for
Foreign Affairs is in the closest possible contact with officials in Jakarta, and I am confident
that the memorandum of understanding that the shadow member refers to will be signed as
quickly as possible. Certainly there will not be delays on the part of this government.
I can inform the shadow minister opposite that ministers who behave inappropriately will be
punished. But no-one has done anything wrong in the case that this shadow minister is so
preoccupied with. Not a single person has done anything wrong in this caseno-one;
nothing. No-one has done anything wrong. Nothing wrong has been done. Not only is there
no fire; there is not even any smoke. Frankly, Labor should find a different tree to bark up. Of
course the future of Qantas is absolutely vital, and that is why it is important that the
parliament consider and deal with the bill that the government put before the parliament
today to liberate Qantas from the shackles that it currently operates under. I say to members
opposite: Labor was good enough to free Qantas from government ownership; now it has got
to be good enough to liberate it from the restrictions under which it operates. Labor was good
enough all those years ago to sell Qantas; now it has to be good enough to liberate Qantas.
All the government is asking is for Qantas to get the same deal that Virgin gets. That is all we
are asking. That is all we want. If it is good enough for Virgin, why isn't it good enough for
Qantas too? Let me remind the Leader of the Opposition that Virgin employs almost 10,000
Australians. It flies almost 20 million Australians every year. It operates some 140 planes
here in Australia. It services planes in Australia. And you know, Madam Speaker, Virgin is
growing. Why doesn't the Leader of the Opposition want to give the same deal to Qantas that
he is prepared to accept for Virgin? I am here participating in a debate over Qantas. I have
done little else in question time over the last five days. I say to the opposition: it is one thing
to participate in a debate. What about participating in a rescue? That is what I ask. What
about participating in a rescue by giving Qantas the same fair deal that Virgin enjoys? I thank
the member for Moore for his question. While obviously there is a long way to go, there are
significant positive signs. Yesterday the statistician showed that growth was slightly above
market expectations. Confidence is up, export volumes are up strongly and housing starts are
up strongly. The news today is that retail sales were up 1.2 per cent in January. That is a very
strong result that gives us the strongest year-to-year retail figures in almost five years. But
there is so much more to do and it is the task of government to get the fundamentals right.
That means getting taxes down, getting red tape down, getting productivity up and building
the infrastructure that our businesses need, because if we can do all that there will be more
jobs and more prosperity for all Australians, including the people of Moore. It all starts with
repealing the carbon tax, and it is worth reminding the House of what the leaders of the four
biggest business groups in Australia said yesterday: Australias carbon tax is one of the
highest in the world. This is the important statement: It is making our key industries less
competitive every day it stays in place. Every day it stays in place, it is making our key
industries less competitive. They go on: For small business especially, this has been a major
burden that has reduced profitability, suppressed employment and added to already difficult
conditions. But it is not just about the carbon tax. It is also about trade. Our plan is about free
trade, because trade means jobs and free trade means more jobs. I congratulate the Minister
for Trade and Investment on successfully concluding negotiations for a free trade agreement
with Korea. I welcome the statement yesterday from China's Premier Li that negotiations for
a China-Australia free trade agreement will be acceleratedmore good news on the trade
front. But today the House of Representatives has taken a big step towards liberating Qantas
from the shackles under which it operates, towards establishing a genuinely level playing
field for Qantas, towards enabling Qantas to compete with its rivals on a fair basis. All this
demonstrates that this is a government which is serious about supporting businesses and the
workers of our country. I absolutely accept that Qantas has a fine safety record, perhaps the
best safety record in the world. Obviously I am very grateful to the workers who are
responsible for that. I am proud of them, as I am proud of Qantas. But Virgin is a safe airline
as well. Is the Leader of the Opposition suggesting to this House that Qantas is safe and other
airlines are not? What is the Leader of the Opposition suggesting here? Is he suggesting that
the Qantas Sale Act is somehow responsible for Qantas's safety? Is that what the Leader of
the Opposition is suggesting? The Leader of the Opposition is trying to suggest that it is the
Qantas Sale Act that is responsible for the Qantas safety record. The Leader of the Opposition
is trying to suggest that without the restrictions that exist under the Qantas Sale Act an airline
cannot be safe. This is a most reckless and irresponsible suggestion from the Leader of the
Opposition. Qantas is safe. I am proud of Qantas. I am proud of the workers. Virgin is safe. I
am equally In this country we are blessed with two outstanding airlines: Qantas and Virgin.
They both have outstanding safety recordsand Rex, also a great airline with a great safety
record. The point I wish to make is that Qantas's safety record does not depend upon the
Qantas Sale Act, and it is reckless of the Leader of the Opposition to suggest that it does.
he fundamental truth is that we want to liberate Qantas from the shackles on its operation. We
want to ensure that Qantas and Virgin are both competing on the same level playing field. We
have had a lot of questions on all sorts of points from members opposite. The fundamental
point is this: we want to give Qantas a fair go and members opposite do not. That is all we
want. We want to give Qantas the same fair go that other airlines have. The former minister
for transport stood up and asked earlier today what has changed between now and 2009,
when Labor wanted to remove the 25 per cent and 35 per cent rules. I will answer honestly.
He has asked what has changed since 2009. Let me answer with complete candour. Members
opposite have got worse, and members on this side have got better. That is the truth. We have
improved our understanding. We have gone forward; they have gone backwards. The once
great Labor Party, which had the strength, the courage and the insight to sell Qantas back in
the early 1990s, has gone backwards. That is the truth. This is a worse Labor Party. This is a
Labor Party which hasturned its back on reform and turned its back on leadership. What
we are seeing today is a Labor Party which has turned its back on Qantas, and we will never
do that. That is why we support this act. It is a good question and it is tragic. It is absolutely
tragic for any worker to get the news that his or her job is redundant. There is no doubt about
that. It is absolutely tragic. There are two things that governments can do for workers in a
situation like that. First of all, we can ensure that there are strong and effective employment
services that can help people in those very difficult circumstances, and I am confident that we
do have strong and effective employment services to help. The second thing we can do is try
to ensure that the economy is strong so that if one job stops another job can start, and that is
what we are determined to do by cutting taxes, reducing red tape, boosting productivity and
improving our infrastructure. That is the best thing that we can do. The other thing that we
should try to do is ensure that the business that is shedding staff is able to restructure so that it
can become competitive and once more have a strong future, and, in Qantas's case, continue
to be one of the world's great airlines. That is what we are determined to doto ensure that
Qantas will remain one of the world's great airlines. The Leader of the Opposition constantly
bickers across the table. He is bickering across the table now: 'Qantas won't be Australian.' Is
the Leader of the Opposition seriously suggesting that a company like Virgin is somehow un-
Australian? Is that what he is really sayingthat Virgin is somehow un-Australian, even
though it employs almost 10,000 Australians, flies more than 20 million Australians around
the country every yearand services some 140 planes, nearly all in this country? I want
Qantas to have a strong future. That is why I am prepared to establish a level playing field for
Qantas. The Labor Party, back in 2009, wanted to create a level playing field for Qantas but
lost its nerve. This government will not lose its nerve on this subject. We will ensure not just
that Qantas is sold but that Qantas is finally free. That is what we want. We have got plenty
of debating points from the Leader of the Opposition, but what the people of Australia want
and what the workers of Qantas want is a real plan to give their airline a strong future, to
ensure that Qantas remains one of the world's great airlines. There are two elements to our
plan. The first is to repeal part 3 of the Qantas Sale Act, which will give Qantas exactly the
same conditions that their principal rival, Virgin, faces. The other element of our planplan
B, if you likeis to repeal the carbon tax. That is our plan B. Plan A is to repeal part 3 of the
Qantas Sale Act; plan B is to repeal the carbon tax, because the carbon tax has been a $106
million hit on jobs at Qantas in the last financial year and it has been a $58 million hit on jobs
at Qantas in the current half year. That is the truth. So members oppositeand I accept that
they want, in their own way, to help the workers of Qantaswant to help the workers of
Qantas, but they oppose the means of helping them. They will the end, but they do not permit
the means. That is the problem, because the only way to help Qantas right now is to get rid of
the shackles that are holding it back, and that means repealing the sale act and repealing the
carbon tax. That is the very best thing that the Leader of the Opposition could do for the
workers of Qantas right now. I say: let us help Qantas. And I say to the Leader of the
Opposition: just have the position today that you wanted to have in 2009 when you wanted to
remove the 25 per cent and 35 per cent restrictions on Qantas but lost your nerve. Well, this
government will not lose its nerve, and this government will never, never turn its back on
Qantas. We will do what is necessary to ensure that Qantas continues to be one of the world's
great airlines. Talking about trade training centres in schools, the former Labor government
promised some 2,600 and it delivered less than 200. That is what happened. It made an
enormous promise and it simply did not deliver them. I know that the former Labor
government in the election campaign made a whole series of promises, including promises in
this area. We made it very clear that we were not bound by them. It is as simple as that. I
move: That the House record its deep regret at the death on 14 March 2014, of the
Honourable Warwick Raymond Parer AM, former Senator for Queensland from 1984 to
2000, places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service, and tender
its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement. Warwick Parer was born in Papua
New Guinea in 1936. He was educated in Brisbane at the famous Nudgee College before
obtaining a Bachelor of Commerce from the University of Melbourne. He became a member
of the Senate in 1984, and from 1996 until the 1998 election he was the Minister for
Resources and Energy in the Howard government. I have to say that this particular ministry
was a natural fit for someone who had a long history in this sector and who had played a
pivotal role in the development of the Queensland coal industry. But while he had a long
history in that particular industry, he was never one to seek a handout for business or
favourable treatment. As he said in his maiden speech back in 1985: examples of
unwarranted and harmful intrusions by government into the economy are legion. I need only
mention the distortion effects of featherbedding inefficient industries at the expense of more
productive enterprises, of tariff walls and of subsidies to favoured groups. Yet the vested
interests which enslave governments, when engaging in their special pleading, can always
point in their defence to some other groups in receipt of similar artificial advantages. Such
interests need to be exposed to the disciplines as well as the advantages of free markets.
Well that statement of Warwick Parer back in the 1980s certainly resonates to this day. He
was a man of principle who talked straight in his first speech, and that, Madam Speaker, is
how he stayed. He stayed in the Senate for 16 years before retiring in 2000, but following his
retirement he continued to be active in public life. He was the president of the Queensland
Liberal Party from 2006 to 2008, and since 2010 he has been the chair of the Royal Brisbane
and Women's Hospital Foundation. Warwick Parer will be well remembered by many in this
House. He was deeply compassionate and grounded individual who, as a youngster, had been
evacuated from wartime PNG where, tragically, his father was killed in a Japanese airstrike.
He was someone whose life in business, someone whose life in the community grounded him
and gave him a great sense of perspective. In common with so many of his generation, he had
a strong sense of duty and, accordingly, his life was marked by duty and service. Warwick
Parer credited his calm and affable nature, his strong and good character to the stability that
comes from a loving wife and family. Today our thoughts are with Warwick's wife, Kathi,
their four daughters and their three sonsCarol, Martine, Helen, Sonia, Warwick, Justin and
Rowanand their many grandchildren. Madam Speaker, I place on record our
acknowledgement of Warwick Parer's life and service, and our thanks for his lifetime of
service to this parliament, to the community of Queensland and to Australia. All members of
this House, in common with people all around the world, are pondering the fate of flight
MH370, the Malaysia Airlines aircraft which has vanished. I spoke shortly before question
time to Prime Minister Najib Razak of Malaysia. He asked that Australia take responsibility
for the search in the southern vector, which the Malaysian authorities now think was one
possible flight path for this ill-fated aircraft. I agreed that we would do so. I offered the
Malaysian Prime Minister additional maritime surveillance resources, which he gratefully
accepted. Our Chief of the Defence Force has, as I understand it, just been in contact with the
Malaysian chief to discuss how these additional resource would be best deployed. I wish to
assure the House and, through this House, the Australian people that Australia will do its duty
in this matter. We will do our duty to ensure that our search and rescue responsibilities are
maintained and upheld, and we will do our duty to the families of the 230 people on that
aircraft, who are still absolutely devastated by their absence and who are still profoundly
saddened by this as yet unfathomed mystery. I thank the member for her question. I can
assure the member for Perth that the Commission of Audit report will be released. It will be
released when the government has properly considered it, and the government is in the course
of properly considering it as we speak. I point out to the member for Perth that we have
received but the interim report of the Commission of Audit. We expect to receive further
reports from the Commission of Audit in the weeks ahead. But the job of government is not
to bombard people with paper. It is to commission appropriate reports, appropriate
investigations and appropriate studies, to consider them carefully and to release them at the
appropriate time. I do thank the member for Robertson for her question and I do appreciate
her interest in the fact that the Premier of New South Wales, I and the Assistant Minister for
Infrastructure and Regional Development came together yesterday to announce that the
missing link between the M2 at Pennant Hills and the expressway at Hornsby was finally
going to be built. Construction will begin within 12 months at least, possibly by the end of
this year, and within five years this long-overdue part of our national road system will be
completed. This is good news for the member for Robertson. It is good news for the member
for Dobell. It is good news for the member for Bradfield because his electorate will no longer
be consumed by traffic. It is even good news for the member for Paterson because people will
be able to drive from Newcastle to Melbourne without going through a single traffic light.
And, yes, the long-suffering member for Berowra will also appreciate this good news, as will
his constituents. This is a three-lanes-each-way road tunnel which will finally join up this
important part of our national road system. It is a $3 billion project. There will be $405
million contributed by the Commonwealth, with the same amount from the state government.
I want to say to the member for Grayndler that, yes, the money was committed under the
former government. They talked about it; we are delivering it. They talked about it; we are
building it. That is exactly what is happening. This new tunnel will cut out 21 sets of traffic
lights. It will save the average motorist 15 minutes in travel, and it will take 5,000 trucks a
day off Pennant Hills Road. It is good for families because less time spent in traffic jams
means more time at home; it is good for business because less time spent in traffic jams
means more time at work; it is good for the environment because less time spent in traffic
jams means less pollution; and it is good for communities because no longer will these
communities of northern Sydney be divided by the Pennant Hills Road traffic canyon. Traffic
in a tunnel is not traffic which is choking local roads and local communities. But, above all
else, it is good for our economy. We will unclog our economic arteries. That is what the roads
of the 21st century arethey are clear arteries for a strong national economy. That is what
we are doingwe are building a strong and prosperous economy for a safe and secure
Australia. When it comes to promising or delivering, I want to be a deliverer. When it comes
to committing or building, I want to be a builder. That is what this government is; it is a
government that will get things done. There was all this talk from members opposite. The
building starts now and the building starts under this government. We are carefully
considering the Commission of Audit reportas, surely, all members of this parliament
would expect us to. Of course it will be published once the government has carefully
considered its recommendations. This is no great breach of precedent. We have had the
interim report for less than a month. As I recall, the former government sat on the Gonski
report for at least two months before it was released. My recollection is that the Henry tax
review was considered by the former government for some four months before it was
released. We will do justice to the Commission of Audit by carefully considering the report.
The Leader of the Opposition suggested that we are hiding something from the voters of
Western Australia. The one thing that the Leader of the Opposition is hiding is his true
attitude towards the mining tax. The Leader of the Opposition went to Perth last week and
was asked about the mining taxand why shouldn't he be asked about the mining tax; let's
face it, it is an anti Western Australian tax/. In what was an absolutely brilliant interrogation
by David Speers of Sky News the Leader of the Opposition was reduced to bubbling
incoherence, saying that he really does not support the mining tax in Perth. But we know he
supports the mining tax here in Canberra. This is a Leader of the Opposition who supports
one thing in Perth and a different thing in Canberra. A Leader of the Opposition who decides
what he supports depending on what city he is in is not fit to exercise leadership in this
country. How low has a once-great party sunk when some pathetic scare about the
Commission of Audita report to government, not a report by governmentis the best they
can do? This is the best they can do: a pathetic, embarrassing scare campaign which shows
that members opposite have no answers for our future. The Labor Party might have a past to
be proud of, a past that boasted great prime ministers, like Bob Hawke, and great reformers,
like Paul Keating. They must be embarrassed at what has happened to a once great political
party. If members opposite are serious about doing the right thing by Western Australians,
they should let us get the carbon tax repeal legislation through the Senate. They should let us
get the mining tax repeal legislation through the Senate. The Leader of the Opposition over in
Perth tries to give people the impression that he does not support the mining tax; here in
Canberra, he will not abolish it. I cannot and will not say that he is a hypocrite. I know that he
has what is described as situational principlesthat is what he has got! Someone whose
political principles are situational is not fit to be a national leader. I thank the Leader of the
Opposition for his question. I am deeply surprised that the Leader of the Opposition
somehow believes that something unconscionable has occurred because a Senate order has
been made and, as yet, has not been complied with. I am surprised because the Leader of the
Opposition was a minister in a government, in the 43rd Parliament, that failed to comply with
over 40 Senate orders for the production of documents, including the following key Treasury
related orders. If this is a fault on our part, the fault on their part is 40 times greater. This
Leader of the Opposition does not just have situational principles, he has temporal principles,
because his principles differ in accordance with the time of day, and that is a real problem for
someone who wants to be a national leader. The support in question comes through a much
larger benefit, which is made available to many tens of thousands of people. We were up-
front with people before the election that this particular benefit would be removed, because it
was a benefit that was supposed to be paid for by the mining tax, and the mining tax is not
raising any money. I accept that this will be unpopularno-one wants to lose a benefit. But
we cannot go on spending money that we do not have. We cannot go on being generous with
borrowed money, and this is the problem. This leader of the opposition is trying to embarrass
the government because the government is keeping its commitments. That is the whole
pointwe are prepared to commit to tough policies up-front, before an election, when the
people have a choice. We were elected on the basis of these policies, and, unlike this leader
of the opposition, if we commit to something before an election, we keep that commitment
after an election. It is as simple as that, and I think that the Australian people are big enough
to understand that yes, some tough decisions do need to be made. We promised tough
decisions, and they will be as tough and as fair as they need to be. I know exactly what
members opposite are trying to do. They are trying to present this government as callous and
hard-hearted. The truth that members opposite seem to have forgotten is that this was an
election commitment that we made. We said that in order to help repair the budget
In order to deal with the $123 billion of prospective deficits, in order to deal with the $667
billion of cumulative debt that Labor was running up, we would not continue the Income
Support Bonus. The Income Support Bonus is paid to tens of thousands of people. Amongst
those people are some of those mentioned by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I can also
inform the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that we are not going to continue the Schoolkids
Bonus, and 1,780 Department of Veterans' Affairs clients receive the Schoolkids Bonus.
Presumably we should continue the Schoolkids Bonus on that same logic, because 1,780
DVA clients receive it. I just want to make this fundamental point: no government can
continue to be generous with other people's money. No government can continue to be
generous with borrowed money. We said that the Income Support Bonus would go. We said
that the Schoolkids Bonus would go. We were honest and upfront about that before the
election, and we will do it after the election, because our fundamental task is to ensure that
this government lives within its means. Our fundamental task is to repair the budget because,
as the Treasurer said in question time today, if you want to fix the economy then you have
got to fix the budget first. We will fix the budget, and we will fix the economy. The Leader of
the Opposition is trying to suggest that somehow we are singling out the children of veterans
for bad treatment. We are not. We are removing the income support bonus as we committed
to doing before the election, because it is a payment funded by the mining tax, and the mining
tax is not raising any money. There are tens of thousands of people who will lose the income
support bonus, and I do not suppose that any of them will be very happy to lose it. But I do
imagine that most of them will understand that the government made this commitment up-
front, before the election, and we will deliver upon it after the election. But this idea that the
children of veterans are somehow being singled out for mistreatment by government is
simply false. It is simply false. It is an outrageous smear and it is a comment on this Leader
of the Opposition that he should suggest that we are somehow targeting veterans' children.
Let me say that the children of veterans, depending upon their circumstances, will receive
annual payments of up to $13,312 a year and there are additional payments for single orphans
of up to $1,036 a year. They are the facts. Now, it is true that tens of thousands of people will
no longer get the particular bonus in question. But, as I said, it was a policy that we took to
the election and we were absolutely up-front with people. People were under no illusions as
to what was happening. This particular payment was going, and it will go. The suggestion
from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that this government is somehow against veterans
and their children is simply false. Any idea that this government is against veterans is simply
false We have an interjection from one of the opposition frontbenchers that words are cheap.
Let me just make this point to him. One of the big issues for veterans was the proper
indexation of the DFRDB and the DFRB pensions. We made that commitment before the
election and we are delivering on that commitment after the election. We promised before the
election that the income support bonus would gowe made that up-front and clear before the
election. We said that this particular bonus would go. It is true that some veterans and their
families receive this bonus. They knew before the election that this bonus would go.
Veterans, like everyone else, understand that governments have to keep their commitments.
They also understand, like everyone else, that you cannot be generous with money that you
just do not have. We should never forget that members opposite billed $13 billion worth of
spending against a tax which has raised just $300 million this year. Members of the veterans
community understand that if you want to defend our country, if you want to do the right
thing by veterans, you have got to have a strong economy, you have got to have a strong
budget, and that is what this government is determined to deliver. Madam Speaker, if I may
on indulgence, I will just give the House a brief update on the Australian involvement in the
search for Malaysia Airlines flight MH370. I wish to inform House that so far the Royal
Australian Air Force has conducted two sweeps over the southern search corridor. Another
sweep is scheduled to take place later today. Shortly, there will be four Royal Australian Air
Force Orion maritime surveillance aircraft active in this search area. A New Zealand Orion
and a United States Poseidon aircraft are repositioning to the search and should be available
shortly. We owe it to the people on this ill-fated flight, and their families, to do what we can
to solve this tragic mystery. They remain in our thoughts and in our prayers at this very
difficult time. The short answer is 'yes', but, because the Leader of the Opposition has been
seeking a statement on this matter, let me satisfy him. It is important to maintain the highest
possible standards in our public life. I want to stress to the House and to the Australian
community that people should be in public life to serve our country and not themselves.
There are important matters being investigated by the New South Wales Independent
Commission Against Corruption. In respect of Senator Sinodinos, the matters in question
happened prior to his entering parliament and becoming a minister. The senator has been
asked to assist an inquiry into a particular company; he is doing so fully and frankly, as you
would expect. Senator Sinodinos has served our country long and faithfully as a Treasury
official and as the chief of staff to a Prime Minister, as well as a member of this parliament.
Quite properly, Senator Sinodinos has kept the Senate updated on this matter, and I refer
people to his statements. I do thank the member for his question and I wish to assure him and
other members of this House that every day the government are purposefully and
methodically implementing our plan to build a strong and prosperous economy for a safe and
secure Australia. A key element in that plan is cutting business red-tape costs by at least $1
billion a year every year. This is essential if we are to get our competitiveness and our
productivity up. I regret to say that the World Economic Forum's global competitiveness
ranking shows that Australia has slipped by some six places in the last five years. We are
now, regrettably, only 21st in the world on the global competitiveness ranking. When it
comes to the burden of government regulation ranking, I regret to say that Australia is 128th
in the world. We are behind Romania, but the good news is we are ahead of Angola. On
the Economist's productivity growth ranking, I regret to say that we are second last. We are
51st in the countries ranked, ahead of just Botswana. So we do need to get our productivity
and our competitiveness up, and cutting red tape is an essential part of that. Scrapping the
carbon tax will not only remove a $9 billion-a-year handbrake on our economy; it will not
only save the households of Bonner $550 a year but save $85 million every year in business
red-tape costs. Scrapping the mining tax will not only boost investment but save $11 million
every year in business red-tape costs. A one-stop shop when it comes to offshore
environmental approvals will not only be good for investment but, according to the Office of
Best Practice Regulation, save $120 million a year every year in business red-tape costs. I can
inform the House that tomorrow the government will outline to this House details of the
repeal of some 10,000 redundant acts of parliament and regulations. We will scrap all of
these in our repeal daythe first repeal day of this government. It will be the biggest bonfire
of regulations in our history. I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for his work.
I also wanted to thank the member for Higgins for her work in opposition, which has
prepared for the good work that this government is doing now. Yes, I do. I point out to the
gentleman opposite that the investigation by the New South Wales commission is relating to
a company, not to any particular individual It is the Assistant Treasurer's job to deal with
those particular matters. On that point I should say to the member who asked the question
that the legislative package which the Assistant Treasurer has before the parliament will
actually save the sector and the sector's clients $200 million a year every year. We would like
to restart the mining boom by scrapping the mining tax and scrapping the carbon tax. That is
our plan for Western Australia. Our plan for Western Australia is to get rid of these anti-
Western Australian taxes, the carbon tax and the mining tax. Even the Leader of the
Opposition wants to get rid of the mining tax when he is in Western Australia. It is just that
he opposes it in Western Australia and supports it here in Canberra, where it counts. I suggest
to the member who asked the questionand I am sure he does genuinely want to help the
people of Western Australiathat, if he thought about it, if he wanted to help the people of
Western Australia in reality as well as just in theory, he would change his position on the
mining tax and the carbon tax. He would vote to scrap these anti-Western Australian taxes
which are holding back the people of that great state. I wish to reassure the Legacy
organisation, and everyone who has benefited from Legacy, that the Veterans' Children
Education Scheme is not ending. The Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act
Education and Training Scheme is not ending. These schemes are absolutely supported by the
coalition. What is ending. Every scheme that is directed toward veterans and their families is
being supported. Not only that but this government is about to properly index the DFRDB
and DFRB pensionsa promise that members opposite made and then reneged on between
2007 and 2013. What is ending is an income support bonus, because it was funded by the
mining taxwhich is not raising any money. We were absolutely up-front and clear about
this before the election, and what we said we would do before an election we will do after an
election. What we are not going to do is what members opposite did repeatedly for six years.
That is, try to be generous with money they do not have; try to be compassionate with other
people's moneythat is not our style. We will do the right thing by everyone in this country,
including veterans of this country, and we start doing the right thing by the people of this
country by repairing the budgetbecause, if you do not repair the budget, you cannot repair
our economy. I wish to stress to the Leader of the Opposition that the Veterans' Children
Education Scheme stays. The Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act Education and
Training Scheme stays. What is not staying is the income support bonus. The income support
bonus went to hundreds of thousands of people; it was not something that only went to the
children of veterans. It goes to hundreds of thousands of people. We were very up-front
before the election that the income support bonus would go. We said this before the election.
We are doing it after the election. People expect us to keep our commitments. We were
prepared before the election to be up-front about tough decisionssomething that gentleman
has never been prepared to be. No specific payment to veterans' families is being cut. This is
simply untrue. Now for the The Veterans' Children Education Scheme continues, the Military
Rehabilitation and Compensation Act Education and Training Scheme continues. Under these
schemes, eligible secondary students aged between 16 and 25 and still living at home receive
fortnightly non-means tested payments Under these schemes, eligible secondary students
receive non-means tested payments of between $230.70 and $277.40 per fortnight. Students
living independently can receive up to $421.40 per fortnight. Payments to orphans are up to
$512 per fortnight. In addition to that, a special financial assistance payment of up to $4,000
a year is also payable and up to $2,000 in additional tuition fees can also be funded. We were
absolutely up-front that the income support bonus was going We were absolutely up-front
about the fact that the income support bonus was going. If I may say so, we were quite bold
before the election, because we said that we were going to remove a payment that went to 1.2
million people. Maybe members opposite did not notice but we said that this particular
payment that goes to 1.2 million people was going. So we were absolutely
We were absolutely up-front that the income support bonus was going Repeatedly. We also
told Maybe the Leader for the Opposition was out to lunch, but it was our policy to remove
the income support bonus What we said we would do before the election we will do after the
election. The question from the shadow minister is simply misleading, it is simply false. We
said over the forward estimates period you would get exactly the same amount of money
under the coalition or under the Labor Party. We are actually going to do better than that
because in the PEFO statement members opposite cut $1.2 billion from schools in Western
Australia, in Queensland and in the Northern Territory. I have to say that, to the great benefit
of schools in Western Australia, we put the $1.2 billion back. It is interesting that the shadow
minister stands up to ask a question today because she was asked a question herself on Sky
News by David Lipsonit is not just David Speers who reduces opposition front benchers to
bumbling into coherence. She was asked, 'Will you take to the next election a promise to
restore funding in years five and six for the Gonski education funding model?', a very simple
question. 'What are you going to do in years five and six?' The shadow minister said, 'Look,
what we're focused on is the budget that is in eight weeks time.' David Lipson again asked,
'Will Labor commit to take that funding for years five and six to the next election?' This is
what the shadow minister said, 'But David, it might not shock you to know this is not our
election policy launch.' Really and truly: get real, get real! Labor promised 2,650 trades
training centres but delivered less than 10 per cent of them. That is almost as bad as the
former Minister for Health's performance when it comes to superclinics. When it comes to
incompetence they are all of a piece. We are putting $1.2 billion back into schools funding
that members opposite cut out of it in their pre-election fiscal outlook statement, and we are
paying for it by not proceeding with a Labor campaign commitment. While I am on my feet,
could I add to an answer that I gave earlier today. In an answer earlier today I said that the
Leader of the Opposition must have been out to lunch when the coalition said that we would
scrap the income support bonus. I did the Leader of the Opposition a disservice. I am sorry
about that. I really did do him a disservice, because the Labor Party knew all about our policy
to scrap the income support bonus, because they were trying to scare people about it before
the election. I am quoting from this document from Australian Labor: Labor is assisting
families and pensioners through measures such as the SchoolKids Bonus, the Income Support
Bonus These are all measures that Tony Abbott will cut should he be elected
Labor's latest scare campaign is absolutely and utterly fraudulent leaveThis is the
government's first report on red tape and what we are doing to reduce it. Next week, the
parliament will have its first ever repeal day: to abolish regulation and legislation that has
outlived its usefulness or is doing more harm than good. Cutting red tape is at the heart of this
government's mission: to build a strong and prosperous economy for a safe and secure
Australia. Red tape is what officials wrap people in when they think that government knows
best. So, cutting red tape is a sign that this government and this parliament want Australians,
individually and in the community, to have more control over their own lives. It is an
acknowledgement of the people, our masters. Next week's repeal day will scrap more than
9,500 unnecessary or counterproductive regulations and 1,000 redundant acts of parliament.
More than 50,000 pages will disappear from the statute books. Added to measures already
announced, repeal day initiatives will bring total red tape savings to $720 million a year every
year. The first repeal day will abolish the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits
Commission because people serving our community do not deserve a new level of scrutiny. It
will abolish the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor because all relevant
legislation has already been reviewed and the former government ignored all the monitor's
recommendations. Redundant acts regulating, for instance, the 1970s conversion from
imperial to metric measurement, governing state naval divisions (that became part of the
Royal Australian Navy 101 years ago) and facilitating the construction of the Snowy
Mountains Scheme (that was completed in 1974) will all go. As a result of repeal day, films
will only need to be classified oncenot again and again when they are reissued in DVD,
blu-ray or 3D. As a result of repeal day, businesses will not have to re-apply to use
agricultural chemicals and veterinary medicines, because one approval should be enough.
Universities will no longer have to submit capital asset management surveys in addition to
other surveys which cover essentially the same thing. And jobs agencies will no longer be
required to keep paper records of every applicant which, in one agency alone, occupied 336
filing cabinets. Businesses will no longer be required to administer the former government's
paid parental leave scheme, saving them an estimated $48 million. Associated with repeal
day, national businesses will be allowed to operate under one workers compensation scheme
right around our nation rather than having to operate in up to eight. Next week's repeal day
will be the first of many. Under this government, there will be at least two a year, because we
will make people's lives easier, not harder. It is worth recalling that the first parliament of the
Commonwealth of Australia passed just 513 pages of legislationthat is just half a page of
legislation per day. That is worth contrasting with the last parliament, the 43rd, which passed
half an act of parliament every single day. Between 2007 and 2013, under the former
government, some 21,000 new regulations found their way into national life. No doubt, some
of these were good and necessary but some, clearly, were overkill at best. Why should a long
day care centre with 15 staff and 75 places have to do paperwork, said to cost on average
$140,000 a year which is $2,000 a child or nearly $10,000 a staff member? The result of
this are fewer child care services and higher prices for the ones that exist. Why should a
Sydney cafe that serves alcohol and has outdoor seating be subject to 21 local, 29 state and 25
Commonwealth regulations or sets of regulations? That is 75 different hoops to jump through
that mean higher costs for businesses and fewer jobs for Australians. Why should Australian
medical researchers collectively put 500 years of work into preparing grant applications of
which only 20 per cent succeed? That is time not put into finding cures for disease. Likewise,
why should every Australian university be required to report more than 50 sets of data to the
Commonwealth Department of Education and a further 50 to other government entities?
Again, this is time and money that is not directed to teaching and research. Of course,
government should be confident that standards are maintained and that taxpayers' money is
accounted for, but it is too easy for officials to do their job at others' expense in the name of
safety or accountability. A reason why bricks and mortar retailing is losing out to online sales
is the compliance costs that shops face, from planning regulations to product standards. A
reason why our farmers find it hard to compete is that one dollar in every six of their
earnings, the NFF says, is spent on compliance. About 60 per cent of Australian businesses
are sole traders and 85 per cent have fewer than five employees. All too often, the local
newsagent, drycleaner, baker and butcher has to be the accountant, marketer, HR manager
and cleaner for the business as well as the chief salesperson. They are virtually suffocating in
red tape and it is well past time to say 'enough'. On the World Economic Forum's global
competitiveness ranking, Australia has slipped six places in four years to 21st. Australia's
ranking on the burden of government regulation is 128thyes, 128th in the world, nestled
between Romania and Angola. On The Economist's productivity growth ranking, we come
second last, just ahead of Botswana. The first instinct of democratic politicians, confronted
with a problem, is to promise to make it go away. Like a fence at the top of a cliff, sometimes
regulation is necessary, but there is a limit to what government should do to protect us from
ourselves. More regulation is not the solution to every corporate, community or personal
failing. Sometimes, we just have to accept that mistakes are inevitable and that misfortunes
are unavoidable. When someone in authority gets it wrong, the best outcome might be a
timely resignation rather than more regulation. When it comes to making us act responsibly,
good example may be better than more rules. As Tony Blair has conceded, government
cannot guarantee a risk-free life. 'Ambiguity, uncertainty, the wisdom that comes with failing
and changing your mind', he says, 'are all essential to progress'; because 'a risk averse public
sector will stifle creativity and deny to many the opportunities to be creative.' Since day one,
this government has been cutting red tape. On day one, we began the process of scrapping the
carbon tax. Repealing the carbon tax removes over 1,000 pages of primary and subordinate
legislation and removes compliance costs from over 75,000 businesses. Repealing the carbon
tax not only takes a $9 billion handbrake off our economy and gives a $550 bonus to
households but will provide a direct red tape saving to business of $85 million a year. And
repealing the mining tax will save businesses more than $10 million in compliance costs.
Fifty-five announced but unlegislated tax measures will no longer proceedincluding the
previous government's $1.8 billion FBT hit on the car industry, and the cap on self-education
expenses that would have hit tradies, nurses and teachers. Every cabinet submission now has
a regulation impact statement so that its potential impact on business, community groups and
households can more readily be identified. All Commonwealth government portfolios now
have a dedicated deregulation unit, formed from existing staff, because it is sometimes more
important to repeal old laws than to pass new ones. Each cabinet minister is expected to
consult widely before finalising new policy because the first law of government should be: do
no harm. At the December COAG meeting, all states and territories agreed to create one-stop
shops for environmental approvals so that major projects will only need to be assessed once,
not twice. There is already a one-stop shop for offshore environmental approvals which the
Office of Best Practice Regulation estimates will save businesses $120 million a year. Soon,
NHMRC grants will run for five yearsnot threeso that successful medical researchers
will spend less time filling out forms. This government is making it easier for people to do
business with government by reducing reporting requirements, by using credit cards more
and by paying bills on time. This government has also scrapped the Aged Care Workforce
Supplement that forced providers to sign up to union-dictated enterprise bargaining
agreements. All these measures demonstrate our seriousness about reducing red tape and
making it easier for people to go about their lives. But this is just the start, not the finish.
Every department and agency is conducting a comprehensive audit of the costs it puts on
individuals and entities so that it can put a dollar figure on the cost of compliance and
reporting and start reducing it every year. Every department and agency will be required to
contribute towards the $1 billion a year, every year, in red tape cost savings that the
government is committed to deliver. The Productivity Commission is finalising the indicators
that will make red tape reduction easier to judge. Not only will deregulation become a
standing item on the COAG agenda but there will be less red tape withinCOAG, with the
number of ministerial councils dropping from 22 to eight. The reviews that the government
has in train into competition policy, workplace law, and the financial systemall have a
deregulatory focus. The white papers that the government plansinto tax and into the
federationare both intended to reduce overlap and complexity. We are carefully
considering the former government's changes to coastal shipping and its changes to trucking
rates to ensure that they make doing business easier, not harder. For too long, governments
have acted as if the Australian people work for them. People do not work for government;
government should work for people. It is government's job to serve the people; not people's
job to serve the government. In simple terms, we work for you. And we are working for you
today by creating the biggest bonfire of regulations in our country's history. Our mission is
not bigger government; it is bigger citizens with more opportunities. To the Australian
people, I say: this is about saving you money, saving you time, and trusting your common
sense to make more choices about your life. I am proud of the progress that the government
has made to datebut it is only the start of what is to come. Earlier today, Senator Sinodinos
advised me of his decision to step aside for the good of the government until the investigation
into Australian Water Holdings is resolved, at least in as far as he is concerned. Senator
Sinodinos has done the right and decent thing, as you would expect from someone who has
given our country such long and faithful service. I look forward to his restoration to the
ministry, and in the meantime his ministerial duties will be undertaken by the Minister for
Finance. I have nothing to add to my statement a few moments ago. I thank the member for
Corangamite for her question and I understand her interest. I also understand Kerr's Hire's
concerns because, under the rules as they stand, many short-term leases have to be
registeredthis means more form filling, more time wasting and more unnecessary expense.
Red tape repeal day will fix this, as it will tackle many other instances of redundant and
unnecessary regulation. No-one likes filling in formsit costs time, it costs money and it
costs jobs. That is why red tape repeal day is so important. I can advise the House that red
tape repeal day will involve the attempt to scrap about 1,000 redundant acts of parliament, it
will seek to remove almost 10,000 unnecessary or counterproductive regulationsit will seek
to take 50,000 pages off the statute bookand it will deliver $720 million in red tape cost
reductions this year and every year. This is good news for the businesses, the consumers and
the workers of our country. It is at the heart of this government's agenda to build a strong and
prosperous economy for a safe and secure Australia. And don't we need to get red tape down!
Under the former government Australia's world competitiveness ranking slipped six places in
just four years to 21. Under the former government, our burden of government regulation
ranking sunk to No. 128 in the worldwe are behind Romania but don't worry, we are still
better than Angola. Under the former government, our productivity growth ranking slipped to
second-last in the worldthe only country we beat when it came to productivity growth was
Botswana. This government will tackle the red tape which is suffocating Australian
businesses by lighting the biggest bonfire of regulation in our history.
As Senator Sinodinos has indicated in another place, he will fully answer the questions in the
appropriate commission. Senator Sinodinos has always dealt honourably with me, as you
would expect from him. I do thank the member for Denison for his question and I do
appreciate his concern to try to ensure that the agricultural industries of Tasmania are given
every possible opportunity to succeed. I entirely share that desire to give the agricultural
industries of Tasmania and of our nation every possible opportunity to succeed. That is one of
the reasons why we have negotiated a free trade agreement with Korea, to help the great
agricultural industries of our country. That is why we are on the high road to an economic
partnership agreement with Japan and it is why we are negotiating with China: to try to
ensure that farmers right around our great country get a fair go. I absolutely accept that
industrial hemp, fibre hemp, does have many uses. I absolutely accept that. My understanding
is that Food Standards Australia New Zealand is currently looking at this matter again. It will
report, as I understand it, by 30 June, and the government will respond at that time. The
important thing is that Senator Sinodinos has done the right and decent thing. He has stepped
aside for the duration of this matter, and that is why am looking forward to his restoration to
the ministry As I have already told the parliament, Senator Sinodinos saw me earlier today
and advised me of his decision to stand aside. He made the decision and I have to say it is in
the best and most honourable Westminster tradition that he should do so. I suppose I can
understand the Leader of the Opposition trying to see something wrong in all of this
want to make it crystal clear that what we see here is a member of this parliament doing the
right and the honourable thing, which is what you would expect from someone like Senator
Sinodinos, who has given our country such long, faithful and decent service Senator
Sinodinos was appointed to the ministry because he is a man of great distinctiona man of
great distinction and high competence, a decent and an honourable man. And he has
demonstrated just what an honourable man he is by his actions earlier today I could
understand the Leader of the Opposition's indignation if someone here had done the wrong
thing, but Senator Sinodinos has done the right and honourable thing. An investigation into a
company with which he was once associated is taking place. He has stepped aside until such
time as the investigation concerning him has been concluded What I know is that this
government is determined to uphold high standards in public life. Senator Sinodinos stepping
aside this morning is in the best Westminster tradition. It is not my job to provide a running
commentary on private conversations. It is my job to ensure that standards of decency in
public life are upheld. And that is precisely what has happened today. Senator Sinodinos has
done the right and honourable thing. I am proud of him and I am looking forward to his
return to the ministry. The important thing is that Senator Sinodinos has decided to step aside
for the good of the government. He has done the right and the honourable thing and he should
be given credit by members opposite. I want to make it absolutely crystal clear that Senator
Sinodinos has stood aside. He has not resigned. Because he has acted in an exemplary and an
honourable fashion, and in accordance with the Westminster tradition, I am looking forward
to his return to the ministry. I can advise that for the period in which Senator Sinodinos has
stepped aside he will draw no ministerial salary and will have no access to ministerial
entitlements. on indulgenceI wish to note that this is the first anniversary of the
parliament's apology for forced adoptions. On 21 March last year the former Prime Minister,
Julia Gillard, and I led the national apology for forced adoptions. It was a heartfelt occasion
that meant much to many across our country. We rightly apologised to the women, the
children and the families who were victims of forced adoption. For too long, too many had
believed that they knew what was for the best for young unwed mothers and their babies. But
the people who claimed it should have known better. If they had known better, terrible and
avoidable pain that was inflicted on hundreds of thousands of people would have been
avoided. There is no stronger bond than between a mother and her child, and it should never
have been presumed that these young women were incapable of raising their children. It was
a tragedy for them and for our nation, and last year we did do our best to atone. We said that
we were sorry for being hard-hearted and judgemental. We said we were sorry for turning
what should have been the wonderful experience of new life into something filled with
shame. A year ago, as a nation, we accepted responsibility for the pain, the suffering and the
grief. I want to assure all those who were hurtthe mothers, the children and the fathers
that you are not forgotten. Our hope last year was that the apology would be part of a healing
process. My hope today is that the apology has played, and is playing, its part in transforming
reproach into reassurance and anger into peace. Further on indulgence, if I may, I would like
to inform the House that new and credible information has come to light in relation to the
search for Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 in the southern Indian Ocean. The Australian
Maritime Safety Authority has received information based on satellite imagery of objects
possibly related to the search. Following specialist analysis of this satellite imagery, two
possible objects related to the search have been identified. I can inform the House that a
Royal Australian Air Force Orion has been diverted to attempt to locate the objects. This
Orion is expected to arrive in the area at about this time. Three more aircraft will follow this
Orion. They are tasked with a more intensive follow-up search. I have spoken to my
Malaysian counterpart, Prime Minister Najib Razak, and informed him of these
developments. I should tell the House, and we must keep this in mind, the task of locating
these objects will be extremely difficult and it may turn out that they are not related to the
search for flight MH370. Nevertheless, I did want to update the House on this potentially
important development. Let me repeat what I said to the House yesterday, that Senator
Sinodinos has done the right and the honourable thing. That is what we would expect from
someone who has given our country such long and faithful public service. The question of
who knew what when will be dealt with by the ICAC inquiry, as it should be
I am aware that, this day, members opposite's colleagues in the Senate, and the Greens, have
voted to keep the carbon tax. That is what they have done. They have voted to keep the
carbon tax that they told the Australian people before the last election they had terminated.
They said before the last election that they had terminated the carbon tax and yet today they
voted in the Senate to keep that selfsame carbon tax. All of us would remember the former
Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, running around the countryside saying the carbon tax was
terminated. Hundreds of thousands of Australians got these brochures saying that the carbon
tax I am very happy to read from this document: 'Kevin Rudd and Labor removed the carbon
tax'. Well, the carbon tax was so removed that they supported itthey voted to keep it in the
Senate earlier today. But it is not just the deception pre the election; the deception continues
to this very moment. Remember, Madam Speaker, just an hour or so ago, members
oppositethe Labor Partyvoted in the Senate to keep the carbon tax. This would come as a
shock to the people of Western Australia who opened up their West Australian newspaper
this morning, 20 March. What do they read? Answers from Joe Bullock, who I understand is
the Labor Party Senate candidate: 'Labor is scrapping the carbon tax.' Well, they are so
scrapping the carbon tax that they voted today in the Senate to keep the carbon tax. The truth
is you just cannot trust members opposite to tell the truth and you cannot trust them anywhere
near an economy. The carbon tax is an act of economic vandalism that this government will
remove and that members opposite will keep defending while there is political breath in their
bodies because, whatever they say to the people, when it comes to this parliament they
support the Greens. The unholy alliance between the Labor Party and the Greens: it is
disowned in public but it is adhered to in this parliament. We are keeping our commitments
and the Labor Party cannot help themselvesthey are breaking theirs. What counts is that the
highest standards of this parliament are upheld, that people can be confident that there is
integrity in our public life. Senator Sinodinos upheld those principles. Yes. I am happy to
have question after question on this subject from the Leader of the Opposition. I am happy to
have question after question on this subject from the Leader of the Opposition, because what
is on display in the parliament today is the difference between this government and its
predecessor. When these sorts of issues arose When issues of this nature arise, this
government does the right and the honourable thing, as Senator Sinodinos did yesterday. He
did the right and the honourable thing. That is not just my judgement. It is also the judgement
of Kelvin ThomsonI cannot remember his seat The member for Wills. But it is also the
judgement of the member for Wills Plainly, Senator Sinodinos has done the right and the
honourable thing, and that is not just my judgement but also that is the judgement of the
member for Wills, who said this morning at the doors, 'Stepping aside in the face of an
inquiry like the ICAC inquiry is the right thing to do'. And he addedgood on the member
for Wills'And there is plenty of precedent for it'. Not too much precedent on that side of the
House, I hasten to add. I thank the member for Kennedy for his question and I appreciate his
concern. I appreciate the concerns of many members of this House, such as the member for
Dawson sitting in front of him. I appreciate the concerns of all members on this side of the
chamber and, indeed, people on the crossbench, like the member for Kennedy. I appreciate
his concern, and our concern, to try to ensure that the workers of Mount Isa continue to have
jobsto try to ensure that those mines and plants in Mount Isa continue to operate. I do share
the member's concern to try to ensure that nothing is done by government to make that harder
and that whatever possible to make that easier is done by government. The best thing we
could do in this House right now, and in the Senate right now, to help reduce the price of
power is pass the carbon tax repeal legislationget rid of the carbon tax. Even on the
members opposite's own figures that would reduce the price of power by 10 per cent. That
would be a material benefit not just for every household in our country, which would be $550
a year better off; but it would also be a material benefit to the industries of places like Mount
Isa. I do appreciate the question from the member for Kennedy. There is a measure before the
parliament right nowright nowthat could help the workers of Mount Isa, and that is
scrapping the carbon tax. It is long overdue and members opposite should stop misleading the
Australian public on this matter. They should stop saying one thing in Perth and doing the
opposite here in Canberra. They should start to tell the Australian people the truth and they
should start acting with honour to help the workers and the households of our country.
hese are all matters that will quite properly be canvassed by the ICAC inquiry. Yes. Again,
all of the issues referred to by the Leader of the Opposition will quite properly be canvassed
by the New South Wales investigation. As I indicated yesterday, he has stepped aside from
the assistant treasurership. While he has stepped aside, he will forfeit ministerial salary and
ministerial entitlements. I can confirm that the stood-aside Assistant Treasurer is forfeiting
his salary and is not accessing his entitlements. Let me stress that Senator Sinodinos has done
the right and honourable thing by stepping aside I will tell members opposite what they need
to understand, which is that Senator Sinodinos has done the right and honourable thing
For the period for which Senator Sinodinos stands aside, he will be allocated a backbench
senator's office in the Senate wing, he will not receive his ministerial salary and his staff will
be directed to work for the person acting in his stead, namely the Minister for Finance.
The Leader of the Opposition is desperate to insinuate that there has been some wrongdoing
here. Let me repeat for his benefitand I know it is difficult for members opposite to
appreciatethat Senator Sinodinos has done the right and the honourable thing.
I have here a letter from Senator Sinodinos to the Special Minister of State indicating that he
will forgo his ministerial entitlements. I table this letter. I have a letter from Senator
Sinodinos to the Secretary of the Treasury, saying that his staff will be working to Senator
Cormann. I table the letter. I have here a letter from Senator Sinodinos to the President of the
Senate saying that he will not be drawing his salary. So he will not get his salary, he will not
get his entitlements and he does not have his staff. As just about every member of this House
knows, including members opposite, Senator Sinodinos is a fundamentally decent man. He is
an extremely competent man. He was an absolutely worthy and appropriate appointment to
the incoming ministry, and I have to say his actions yesterday entirely vindicate his decency
and his honour. I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. I inform the House
that the Minister for Foreign Affairs will be absent from question time this week as she
represents the government at the Nuclear Security Summit in the Hague. The Treasurer will
answer questions on her behalf and also on behalf of the Minister for Trade and Investment
from tomorrow when he departs for trade talks in Japan. The Deputy Prime Minister will
answer questions on behalf of the attorney and the Minister for Defence. The Commission of
Audit has done a very good job. It has produced a long and detailed interim report. It has not
yet produced a final report. When the report has been finally produced and when it has been
carefully considered it will be produced to the public. I do thank the member for O'Connor
for his question. If you are serious about helping families, you have got to be serious about
cutting taxes. Cutting taxes and reforming taxes start with scrapping the carbon tax and
scrapping the mining tax, which are anti Western Australian taxes. This government is
serious about scrapping the carbon tax, so serious that legislation to scrap the carbon tax was
the first item of legislation introduced into this parliament. Every day this government gets on
with the job of scrapping the carbon tax. The carbon tax is a piece of economic vandalism.
That is what it is. It is a piece of economic vandalism which costs the families, the
households of this country $550 a yearthat is, $550 a year that the Leader of the Opposition
wants families and households to keep paying. But it does not just cost families $550 a year.
Over time, it will strip $1 trillion out of Australia's cumulative GDP; it will cut iron
production by 20 per cent; it will cut aluminium production by over 60 per cent; and the gross
national income per headthe money that each of us get every yearwill be almost $5,000 a
year less with a carbon tax than without one. That is why we will always strive and we will
not rest until this carbon tax is gone. The carbon tax is an anti Western Australian tax because
Western Australia is Australia's energy capital. The mining tax is an anti Western Australian
tax because Western Australia is the iron ore capital of this country. Everyone knows that
these are bad taxes, even the Leader of the Opposition knows that the mining tax is a bad tax.
That is why every time he is asked about it in Western Australia, he is reduced to bumbling
incoherence. The Leader of the Opposition knows that the carbon tax is a bad tax and that is
why before the election he promised to terminate it. But it just gets worse. Last Thursday
in TheWest Australian Labor candidates were saying that they are scrapping the carbon tax.
On the very day Labor is saying it is scrapping the carbon tax in Perth, it is voting for it in
Canberra. You cannot trust members opposite anywhere near an economy and you cannot
trust this Leader of the Opposition with the truth. We will release the Commission of Audit
report once we have the final report and once we have fully considered it. There is nothing
wrong with this because when the former government got the Gonski review, it considered it
for at least two months. When the former government got the tax review from Ken Henry, it
considered for over four months. This is some so unobjectionable that when the frontbencher,
the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Penny Wong, was asked about this, she said, ' I
think we put it out was it three or four months later? I can't recall, I wasn't' and David
Speers says of the Henry review, Why did you sit on it that long?' And Penny Wong says,
'Probably because we were considering it.' We will carefully consider the Commission of
Audit report as an adult government would do. When we have carefully considered the
report, we will publish it. If members opposite were serious about creating and protecting
jobs, they would be joining the government in scrapping the carbon tax and the mining tax.
That is what they would be doing. They would be joining this government in scrapping these
job-destroying, anti Western Australian taxes. That is what they would be doing.
The insinuations in the Leader of the Opposition's question are simply false, as a statement
released by the Department of Employment today makes absolutely crystal clear. I tender the
statement from the Department of Employment. Of course we stand by the mid-year
economic update, and we absolutely reject the insinuation in the shadow Treasurer's
questionwhich in fact was totally refuted by the statement issued earlier today by the
Department of Employment. Of course, this government is determined to try to ensure that
Australia remains a free, fair and tolerant society where bigotry and racism have no place.
But we also want this country to be a nation where freedom of speech is enjoyed.
Sometimes free speech will be speech which upsets people and which offends people. It is in
the nature of free speech that sometimes some people will not like it. I do not like what
members opposite say quite a lot, but I fully accept their right to say it. Madam Speaker, our
freedom and our democracy fundamentally depend upon the right to free speech. Sometimes
free speech is something the people who listen to it do not like. That is the truth. This
government will do exactly what we said we would do, pre-election. We will do in
government exactly what we committed to in opposition. In opposition, before the election,
we said that we would repeal section 18C in its current form. That is what we said we would
do before the election and that, as the Australian people would expect, is exactly what we are
doing after the election. This is a government which keeps its commitments. This is a clear
commitment that we made. The important issue here is the maintenance of high standards in
public life. I have to say that, by stepping aside from his ministry while this matter is being
investigated, Senator Sinodinos upheld the very best of the Westminster As for the matters
raised by the Leader of the Opposition, I just do not comment on scuttlebutt. As I said in
response to the previous question, I do not believe that it is the job of the Prime Minister to
comment on gossip and scuttlebutt. Senator Sinodinos is a fundamentally decent man who
has done the honourable thing by stepping aside for the duration of this inquiry, at least
insofar as it applies to him If meeting with Eddie Obeid somehow disqualifies people, then
half of the frontbench opposite is disqualified. But these are matters that are, quite properly,
before the New South Wales inquiry, and they will be dealt with by the New South Wales
inquiry. Let me say again that Senator Sinodinos is a fundamentally decent man who has
done the honourable thing by stepping aside while this inquiry is conducting its
investigations. I wish to update the House with the latest developments in the search for ill-
fated flight MH370. The Australian Maritime Safety Authority has advised that objects have
been located by a Royal Australian Air Force P-3 Orion. I can advise the House that HMAS
Success is on the scene and is attempting to locate and recover these objects. The objects
were spotted in the search area, about 2,500 kilometres south-west of Perth, at about 2:45pm
our time. The crew on board the Orion reported seeing two objects, the first a grey or green
circular object and the second an orange rectangular object. These are separate to the objects
reported earlier today by a Chinese search aircraft. I can advise the House that a US Navy
Poseidon, a second Royal Australian Air Force Orion, and a Japanese Orion, are also en route
to, or in, the search area. Planes and ships continue to search the area for any sign of the
missing aircraft. I again caution that we do not know whether any of these objects are from
MH370. They could be flotsam. Nevertheless, we are hopeful that we can recover these
objects soon, and that they will take us a step closer to resolving this tragic mystery. This is
an extraordinary mystery, an absolutely baffling mystery. Let me reiterate to the House that
we owe it to the families of those on board, we owe it to the loved ones of those on board and
we owe it to all the people who are concerned about the fate of this aircraft to do whatever we
reasonably can to find anything that is out there, test it, and see what we can learn about what
has so far been one of the great mysteries of our time. If I may, I will give the House a brief
update on ill-fated flight MH370. As members may have noticed, based on the accumulation
of evidence, late last night Prime Minister Najib Razak of Malaysia declared that the plane
must be presumed lost in the southern Indian Ocean. That means that what up until now has
been a search moves into a recovery and investigation phase. I have this morning spoken to
Prime Minister Najib Razak. I have offered Malaysiaas the country legally responsible for
thisevery assistance and cooperation from Australia. This plane is lost in one of the most
inaccessible parts of our globe. It is a long way from anywhere. But the closest land is
Australia, and we are the best placed country to assist. It is highly likely that in coming days
and weeks many of the relatives of passengers on ill-fated flight 370 will wish to come to
Australia. I want them all to know that should they come here they will be in the arms of a
decent country. I should also let the House know that the government has decided to waive
visa fees for any relatives wishing to come to Australia. I should at this point express my
condolences and the House's condolences regarding the Australian passengers on that flight,
and I propose that we might have a formal condolence motion for them tomorrow.
I accept that this is a difficult issue; I accept that it is an issue that arouses strong passions in
our community, on both sides. And I think it should be treated with seriousness and with
balance in this parliament. What the government is attempting to doas carefully, as
collegially and as consultatively as we canis to get the balance right. What we want to do is
to maintain the red light for bigotryto use the metaphor of the member who asked the
questionbut we want to remove the amber light for free speech. We want to remove the
amber light for free speech. That is what we are attempting to do. All of us deplore racism,
we abhor bigotry. All of us in this country want to be our best selves. Australians at their best
are a decent and welcoming people who are also a people who can engage in very robust free
speech without fear of prosecution. I thank the member for Herbert for his question, and I do
appreciate his concerns to ensure that the ordinary working familiesindeed, under the
former government, the ordinary forgotten families of our countryget a fair go. If there is
one figure that should reverberate around this House every day until the carbon tax is finally
repealed, it is $550 a year. That is the additional burden that the families and households of
Australia face because of members opposite and their carbon tax. What this government
wants to do and what we are being prevented from doing by members opposite is to scrap the
carbon tax but keep the compensation the families and households of Australia got. We want
to do the right thing by the families of Australia. I just cannot understand why, after
everything that has happened, after the election last year that was so bitterly contested,
members opposite are still siding with the Greens, and against the people, in supporting this
toxic tax. I just cannot understand it, because members opposite know just how bad this tax
is. Labor members of the Senate by-election team were proclaiming loudly in Perth last
Thursday that they were 'scrapping the carbon tax'. Well, on the very day they said they were
scrapping the carbon tax in Perth, they were supporting the carbon tax here in Canberra. You
just cannot trust them. This is a government that is determined to ease the cost of living
pressures on families. We will do this not just by scrapping bad taxes and not just by
eliminating unnecessary regulation, but by boosting economic growth through sensible free
trade agreements with our major trading partners. We are pursuing a free trade agreement
with Japan and a free trade agreement with China to complement the free trade agreement we
have already secured with Korea. We are doing so for this reason: trade means jobs. Freer
trade benefits both countries. It benefits the buyer, it benefits the seller and it is good for
workers and families in both countries, and that is what we want. We want a strong and more
prosperous Australia, in a stronger and more prosperous world. I accept that this is a very
important question, and I will do my best to deal with the question of the member opposite
with the respect that it deserves. Of course none of us want to see bigotry The proposed
change to section 18C contains a very strong prohibition on racial vilification. It contains a
very strong prohibition on inciting racial hatred. It contains a very strong prohibition on any
attempt to engage in racial intimidation, as it should. But it also provides for the appropriate
protection of free speech. That is not racial abuse. It just means that if we are having a
legitimate discussion, as we are entitled to in a free and robust democracy such as ours, then
contributions to that discussion will not be proscribed by law. That is the balance that this
government is attempting, in good faith, to get rightthe important balance between
protections, which people are entitled to, and free speech, which people are also entitled to.
Fair enough. We are capable of robust debate in this place. I think Australians are capable of
robust debate, and that is what I want to facilitate in this country. I want it to be civilof
course I want it to be civilbut in the end the truth is that, when people are arguing things
that they feel passionately about, it will inevitably be at times offensive, at times insulting,
and I do not believe that the mere fact that someone might be put off by what is being said
should mean that the person speaking should feel the full sanction of law against them. That
is our position. I reject any suggestion from the member who asked the question that
Australia is a bigoted country. We are not. We are a decent and a fair country. Yes,
occasionally people give in to unworthy impulse in this country, as in others, but we are the
freest, the fairest and the most decent country on earth. I conclude with this observation. No-
one wants to see bigotry or intolerance in our society, but I say this: the best counter to a bad
argument is a good one, and the best antidote to bigotry is decency, proclaimed by people
engaging in a free and fair debate. I make the point that the statements that are being quoted
across this chamber by the shadow minister are abhorrent, they are offensive and they are
wrong. As I said, this is draft legislation which has gone out for consultation with the
community. We think that the legislation gets the balance right. We think that the legislation
preserves protections while removing any element of Madam Speaker, let us see what various
community organisations say in response to the exposure legislation that we are making
available. But I will say this: I know the migrant communities of Australia pretty well, and I
know that they have voted for this country with their feet. I know that they have embraced
our way of life, they have embraced our Australian system, and part of our system is robust
freedom of speech. It is certainly not the only priority of this government. Our priorities are
scrapping the carbon tax and boosting the families' incomes, scrapping the mining tax and
boosting investment in jobs, cutting red tape and boosting productivity and economic activity,
and getting freer trade agreements in place so that our agricultural exporters will get a fair go
at last in the wider world. We are advancing on a wide front to the rescue of this nation. That
is what we are doing, but part of what we are doing Let me point out to the Leader of the
Opposition that the repeal of section 18C in its current form was a policy and a position that
we took to the last election. It was in place for at least 12 months, before the last election, and
now the Leader of Opposition is choosing to play politicsin an attempt to engage in a bit of
dog whistling on this issue, just like they engaged in a bit of dog whistling on 457 visas.
Let me make it absolutely crystal clear. I believe that the members opposite are serious about
wanting to protect and preserve free speech, but I hope they will also believe that members
on this side of the chamber are serious about wanting to ensure that there is no place for
racism in our society. That is why what we are doing with the exposure draft legislation,
which was released today, is clearly prohibiting racial vilification and racial intimidation by
providing for reasonable debate in the robust democracy that is this country. That particular
aspiration was pushed out every year by members opposite when they were in government. It
remains the aspiration of this government. The first duty of this government is to bring the
budget back into sustainable surplus. Once the budget is back into sustainable surplus, then
we will reconsider this matter of 0.5 per cent of GNI. In the meantime we will generally be
increasing foreign aid by CPI. This is a government that will repair the budget, but it is also a
government that will keep its commitments. Some of the commitments that we made were
quite tough and uncompromising commitments that involved making serious savings,
including savings that a lot of people would not like. Even though the income support bonus
goes to some 1.3 million Australians, we had the courage to say, pre-election, that it would
not be continued under a coalition government, because a coalition government does not
believe in spending what it does not have. You cannot give people benefits endlessly on the
nation's credit card, and that is the problem with members opposite. They have engaged in a
species of intergenerational theft. That is what they have engaged in. Under members
opposite, there was $123 billion of cumulative debt, $667 billion of debt, $123 billion of
accumulated deficitsthat is the problem that we are wrestling with. We will not shirk the
difficult decisions needed to engage in the job of fiscal repair, because we understand and we
believe the Australian people understand that, if you want to fix the economy, you have got to
fix the budget first, and that is exactly what this government will do. I move: That the House
record its deep regret at the tragic loss of life that resulted from the disappearance of
Malaysian Airlines Flight MH 370 and express its sincere condolences, together with those of
all Australians, to the families and loved ones of the six Australians and the other passengers
and crew who are presumed to have died. Based on the accumulation of evidence, the
Malaysian government has declared that flight MH370 was lost in the southern Indian Ocean
and that all on board have perished. A considerable amount of debris has been sighted in the
area where the flight was last recorded. Bad weather and inaccessibility have so far prevented
any of it being recovered, but we are confident that some will be. We mourn all those 239
passengers and crew. We especially mourn the six Australian citizens and the one Australian
resident who must be presumed deadand we grieve with their families and their loved
onesMary and Rodney Burrows from Queensland; Catherine and Robert Lawton from
Queensland; Yuan Li and Naijun Gu, who were residents of Beijing; and New Zealander Paul
Weeks, who was a resident of Perth. Today I had the honour of meeting with members of the
Lawton and Burrows families, who are here with us in the gallery today and will be shortly
visiting the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. I want to assure them that Australia will do
all it can to recover what we can from the southern Indian Ocean so that they can have the
closure and eventually the peace that comes with understanding more of what happened.
Coordinated by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, today 12 aircraft and two ships are
searching. Black box recovery equipment is on its way to Australia and will be deployed to
the search area by an Australian Navy ship. I have pledged to Prime Minister Najib Razak of
Malaysia full Australian cooperation in the recovery and investigation operation. The crash
zone is about as close to nowhere as it is possible to be, but it is closer to Australia than to
anywhere else. I want to thank all of the nations involved in search activities and recovery
activitiesChina, the United States, Japan, Korea and New Zealandand I want to
commend the professionalism of all the personnel involved. Meanwhile, four Australian
families have an ache in their heart. Nothing we say or do can take that ache away. Still, the
knowledge that this nation, through this parliament, has paused to acknowledge that loss may
be of some comfort in facing this terrible bereavement. May God bless you at this very sad
time. It is nice to get a question from the Hon. Bill Shorten, who has on his frontbench the
Hon. Mark Dreyfus, Queen's Counsel. This government's priorities are very clear we want to
take the burdens off families that members opposite put on them We want to get rid of the
carbon tax. Last week, Labor voted to keep the carbon tax. We want to get rid of the mining
tax. Yesterday, Labor voted to keep the mining tax. We want to get rid of some 10,000
redundant regulations and acts of parliament, and I bet you this, Madam Speaker, Labor will
vote to keep them. We want to restore the rule of law in the construction industry, and Labor
has voted against that. We want to clean up corruption inside the union movement, and Labor
is opposed to that. This is a government which is focussed on doing the right thing by the
families of Australia Always will be, and if the Leader of the Opposition is serious about
focusing on the priorities of Australian families he will get with the government, scrap the
carbon tax, scrap the mining tax and restore the rule of law in our difficult industries. I thank
the member for Forde for his question, and I can reassure him and members opposite that
every dayevery daythis government is working to make the lives of Australian families
easier. One of the things that most people abhor is the time spent filling out forms, because
time spent filling out forms costs money and it prevents people from getting on with their
lives. That is why today is red tape 'repeal day'. That is why the government will scrap some
10,000 unnecessary and redundant regulations and acts of parliament. That is why we will
take 50,000 pages off the statute books, because we want to make the lives of Australia
families, the life of Australian businesses easier. These changes These changes will save the
businesses and the people of Australia $720 million a year, every year. That is real money
thanks to the real reforms of this government. crapping the carbon tax will not just save a $9-
billion tax hit on the economy, it will not just save every household $550 a year, but
scrapping the carbon tax will remove $85 million$85 millionin red tape costs from the
backs of the businesses of Australia. This has been welcomed. This been widely welcomed. I
quote Jennifer Westacott of the Business Council of Australia She said: The release today of
the federal governments repeal day legislation marks a turning point in dealing with the high
costs and inefficiencies faced by businesses and consumers in our economy The Leader of the
Opposition referred to what he called 'the royal comedy channel'. I think that is offensive and
he should be asked to withdraw This is not a question. This is a sneer. It is a false sneer. It is
a sneer and a smear from a member from parliament who should know better. We have more
than kept our commitments on school education. Labor cut $1.2 billion from school
education in the pre-election fiscal outlook on top of the $3.9 billion that the Leader of the
Opposition, then the education minister, cut from education and training in the 2012 Mid-
Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. We are keeping our commitments; Labor is breaking its
commitmentseven its saving commitments, the commitments that it took to the election
and is now ratting on in the Senate. We are keeping our commitments. We have been and we
will be a trustworthy government. That will be the contrast between this government and its
predecessor. I will do my best to answer both elements of the Leader of the Opposition's
question in a straightforward way. We are not delaying the rollout of the National Disability
Insurance Scheme and the Leader of the Opposition should not try to put fear into the minds
of people with disabilities by suggesting that we are. We are not delaying the paid parental
leave scheme. The coalition took that proposal to both the last election and the election before
it, and of course we stand by it. It was clearly part of our policy in 2010 and it was clearly
part of our policy in 2013. We think that paid parental leave is a workplace entitlement in the
same way that sick pay, holiday pay and long service leave are workplace entitlements.
Because paid parental leave is a workplace entitlement, it should be paid at the real wage of
the relevant worker. Members of the opposition maybe caterwauling, but business will be
paying for it through a modest levy to be imposed on the 3,000 largest businesses in our
country. Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is humming Rule Britannia across the
table when in fact what happened yesterday was the restoration of knighthoods and
damehoods in the Order of Australia. That is what happened. So I say to the honourable Bill
Shortena title derived from the United Kingdom I say to the honourable the Leader of
the Oppositiona title derived from BritainI say to the honourable the Leader of Her
Majesty's Opposition: start telling the truth. Start telling the truth for a change. Now, not one
of the smears and slurs contained in the Leader of the Opposition's statement because it was
not a question; it was a statementnot one of them is true. I will tell you what our priorities
are. Our priorities are helping Australian families by scrapping the carbon tax. Labor wants
the carbon tax to stay. Our priorities are helping Australian jobs by scrapping the mining tax.
Labor wants the mining tax to stay. Our priorities are restoring peace in our workplaces by
restoring the ABCC. Labor wants the ABCC to go. Our priorities are those of the Australian
people. What the Australian people want is less tax, less regulation, more freedom and more
prosperity, and that is what they will get from this government. Well, Madam Speaker, this is
This is a government which is capable of doing several things at the same time. But our
priority is lifting the burdens on Australian families, and last week we tried to scrap the
carbon tax, and Labor made the carbon tax stay. Yesterday we tried to scrap the mining tax,
and Labor made the mining tax stay. We are trying to clean up the building and construction
industry; Labor is trying to stop that. We are trying to get rid of union rorts, rackets and rip-
offs, and corruption of the sort that the former member for Dobell was engaged in; Labor is
still protecting that kind of wrongdoing. These are our priorities; I am proud of them. What
the opposition is attempting to do here is to spread fear in our community. The priorities of
this government are clear, and for the pensioners of Australia, the priorities are very, very
clear indeed. We will scrap the carbon tax and we will keep the compensation The people
who are trying to prevent a benefit to pensioners are members opposite, who want the
pensioners of Australia to keep paying the carbon tax. If we are talking about benefits to
pensions, we want to take the carbon tax off the pensioners of Australia, and Labor is voting
to keep it on them. Shame, Labor, shame! Give the pensioners of Australia a fair go by voting
to take the carbon tax off their power bills. I certainly support efforts by the Treasurer to
work with the states to improve the infrastructure of our country. That is what the Treasurer
is doing. The Treasurer is working with the states to try and ensure that together the state
governments and the Commonwealth government have the assets needed to fund the
infrastructure that Australia needs. We want to ensure that we get the roads, the rail and the
ports that this country needs. We want the infrastructure of the 21st century, because I want
to be known as the infrastructure Prime Minister. In order for us to be the infrastructure
national government, led by the infrastructure Prime Minister, we have to work with the
states. Now, if we can help the states f we can help the states to deploy resources from a
lesser priority to a higher priority, that is a very smart thing to do. The resources of this
nation, whether they are held by national or state governments, should be optimally deployed.
That means rebuilding our infrastructure and unclogging the great economic arteries of this
country. That is what this government wants to do. Frankly, if members opposite had any
sense whatsoever they would support it. Our priority is scrapping the carbon tax and boosting
family income by $550 a year. Our priority is scrapping the mining tax and boosting
investment and jobs right around Australia. Our priority is restoring the Australian Building
and Construction Commission and adding $6 billion a year to our economy and productivity
improvements. Our priority is stopping the boatsand it is working. And, on all of these
grave matters for the security and the prosperity of our country, we are being opposed by
members opposite. I thank the member for Dobell for her question, and I wish to reassure her
and all members of this House that this government's absolute commitment is to build a
strong and prosperous economy for a safe and secure Australia. We are scrapping bad taxes,
we are building the roads of the 21st century, we are finalising free trade agreements with our
major trading partners, and we are restoring a sustainable budget surplus by ending Labor's
waste. And isn't it so necessary to end Labor's waste? Because this government's fiscal
inheritance was cumulative deficits of $123 billion over the forward estimates periodthat is
123 thousands of millions of dollars and a projected debt of $667 billionthousands of
millions of dollars. Labor's projected debt was going to be $23,000 for every Australian man,
woman and childthat is the credit card bill for every Australian man, woman and child that
the Leader of the Opposition wanted to leave us with. This government understands that you
cannot fix the economy unless you fix the budget, and a stronger budget means lower taxes
and more jobs. We were very up-front with the Australian people before the election: the
schoolkids bonus would go, the income support bonus would go, because you cannot give
what you have not got, and you cannot give away to people what you just cannot afford. And
Labor's mining tax, which is supposed to support $13 billion worth of spending, was raising
just $300 million. That is why these things simply cannot be afforded. We have had $20
billion in savings before the Senate$15 billion of coalition savings, $5 billion in Labor
savingsand Labor is against all of it. They just do not get it. I say that no country can ever
spend its way out of economic trouble, and no government can ever spend money it has not
raised. Tough decisions are coming, but they are necessary decisions for the prosperity of our
country. We will keep our commitments, and the most fundamental commitment of all is to
restore the budget. A long, long time ago, the Leader of the Opposition asked me a question
and I propose to answer it. I was asked what our plan is for the workers at Alcoa. Our plan is
to scrap the carbon tax which has cost Alcoa more than $200 million. I was asked what our
plan is for the workers of Alcoa. Our plan is to save them from the carbon tax, which is
costing their company more than $200 million a year. I was asked what my plan is for the
workers at Qantas. Well, our plan is to save Qantas from the carbon tax, which is costing
Qantas more than $100 million a year. Our plan for Qantas is to give them the same level
playing field that Virgin enjoys. I am very confident that the workers of Qantas are more than
capable of holding their own with the workers of Virgin if they are given a level playing
field. What we have seen from members opposite is indignation. Indignation about the fact
that they lost the election, and they have not learned the lessonsthat is what we have seen
from members opposite. Labor cause chaos and then they complain about the clean-up. This
government will clean up the fiscal mess that Labor left us. We will clean up the fiscal mess.
One hundred and twenty-three billion dollars in cumulative deficits over the forward
estimates$123,000 million, $667 billion in projected debt That is $23,000 for every
Australian man, woman and child. This is a big challenge! This is a big challenge, but we are
up for it. We are up for it. That is what the Australian people voted for; that is what the
Australian people expect, and we will not let them down. I do thank the member for Denison
for his question. I know that this is a subject that he takes very, very seriously. I know that
this is a subject that we all take seriously. I accept the passion and the compassion that the
member for Denison brings to this particular subject. None of us want to see anyone in
detention. We certainly do not want to see children in detention. I can inform the member for
Denison that at the end of the Howard government era there were only four people in
immigration detention who had arrived illegally by boat, and none of them were children. I
regret to say that in the period between that time and this time more than 50,000 people
arrived illegally in Australia by boat, including 8,000 children. I deeply regret the fact that so
many people, including so many children, took this very dangerous journey. Let us be blunt.
The reason that the boats started coming. was that Labor and the Greens closed down the
policies that had in the past stopped the boats. I am looking forward to the day when no-one
is in immigration detention. That is the day I am looking forward to. The way to ensure that
no-one is in immigration detention is to stop the boats. That is exactly what this government
is doing. That is the way to ensure that never again do we need to put women, children and
men in immigration detention because they have come illegally to this country by boat. The
boats are stopping. I am pleased to tell the member for Denison that four detention centres
have already closed because of the good work of the Minister for Immigration and Border
Protection, and there is more good work still to come. The only people who are obsessing
about honours are members opposite. As is well known, the former Prime Minister, Mr
Howard, has no greater champion than me. I am John Howard's greatest champion but, in
case members opposite have not noticed, this is not the fifth term of the Howard government.
The Howard government was a great government in its own way, and this government will
endeavour to be a good government in our way. That is exactly what we are doing. Another
respect in which this is a different government from the Howard government is that we have
inherited a much worse fiscal legacy than the Howard government did. John Howard and
Peter Costello inherited Kim Beazley's $10 billion budget black hole. If only we were so
luckyif only it was just $10 billion, not the $123 billion in cumulative deficit we have
inherited. Peter Costello and John Howard only had $96 billion worth of Labor debt to deal
with. We have got $667 billion worth of Labor debt to deal with. I am full of admiration for
John Howard and Peter Costello. They were great leaders of this country, but these times are
different. The challenges that we have inherited, from a much worse Labor government than
the one that they succeeded, are much bigger. We will rise to these challenges, and we will
fix the fiscal hole that we have inherited. If only he had the class of his mother-in-law, that is
all I can say. On that note, I ask that further questions be left on the Notice Paper. Madam
Speaker, obviously offence has been taken. I unconditionally withdraw. I rise on indulgence
to acknowledge the passing of former Senator Brian Harradine. He was a Tasmanian senator
for almost three decades. He was a staunch unionist, a committed Catholic and, at the time he
retired, the Father of the Senate. At the time of his retirement, the Hobart Mercury said about
Brian Harradine: His values were firm, his organisation superb and his negotiating style
maddening. I discovered this myself when I came to negotiate with Brian Harradine over the
extended Medicare safety net back in 2004. Brian never did deals and he never did horse-
trading. But if there was something in it for Tasmania it was amazing how the merits of the
issue always improved. In a long and distinguished career, Brian Harradine was deeply
respected for his values and for his principles. He was deeply respected as a man of honour
and integrity. He engaged in many fights, but it was never about him; it was always about the
cause. For Brian Harradine, faith and family were everything. So I say to Brian's family, on
behalf of the government, to his wife, Marian, to their 13 children, to their 38 grandchildren
and to their family and friends: he was a good man. He made a contribution to this country
and will be missed. I wish to acknowledge on indulgence the passing of the Hon. Neville
Wran AC, QC, former Premier of New South Wales and a former national president of the
Australian Labor Party. Neville Wran was one of the political giants of his generation. He
assumed the leadership of the Australian Labor Party in New South Wales at a time when the
Labor Party was at a low ebb, but he was a magnificently commanding figure in that state and
he totally dominated the politics of New South Wales for well over a decade. In that time, he
oversaw major redevelopments, such as Darling Harbour and the Entertainment Centre. But
while he was an urbane man about town he was also someone who appreciated the
importance of Western Sydney. He shifted much of the focus of government and
governmental institutions to Western Sydney and was responsible, above all else, for the
massive development of Westmead Hospital. He was a fierce parliamentarianthere was
none fiercer. He asked for no quarter and he gave no quarter. It is said that when his chief
parliamentary rival, and Country Party leader, the late Leon Punch, was speaking in
parliament one day, Neville Wran let his displeasure be known by turning to his colleague
and saying, 'If I die before that guy, and he starts talking on my condolence motion, you are
to move that the member be no further heard.' I am pleased to say that Neville Wran did
mellow somewhat in later life, even to the point of being civil to young Liberal members of
parliament with whom he was engaging in constitutional debate in the late 1990s. It was
always a pleasure to share a platform with him or to share the studio with him, even though
we were on the other side. He was a giant. He did make a mark. He will be missed. On behalf
of the government, I offer condolences to his wife, Jill, his children, his grandchildren, his
family and his friends. Madam Speaker, on indulgence, I wish to acknowledge the passing of
Paul Ramsay, the founder of the Ramsay Healthcare Group. Paul Ramsay founded a mighty
business empire, but he never lost his soul. Fifty years ago, Paul Ramsay bought a small
hospital in Mossman, in my electorate. Today the Ramsay Healthcare Group employs some
30,000 people in five countries and it treats almost 1 million patients a year. Paul Ramsay
was, in the words of our former Prime Minister John Howard at his funeral last week, was the
very embodiment of ethical capitalism. He tried never to do a deal such that the person on the
other side of the table would not want to come back for another one. I was lucky enough to
meet Paul Ramsay some 41 years ago. He was a friend of mine and a friend to many in this
House on both sides of the chamber. Paul Ramsay was generous to many good causes, some
very dear to my heart. But above all else he was generous to this nation of ours. His bequest
of his shares in the Ramsay group to a charitable foundation is by far the biggest charitable
gift in our country's historyalmost $3 billion given in perpetuity for good causes. This is
philanthropy on an epic scale. I hope we see more of it in the years and the decades ahead. To
his brother, Peter, to his twin sister, Anne, to his brother-in-law, Brian, and to their families,
on behalf of the government I offer deepest condolences. He will be missed, but the good that
he did will live on, and I hope that his example will live on as an inspiration to many others. I
inform the House that the Treasurer is in the budget lockup and will be absent from question
time today. The Deputy Prime Minister will answer questions on his behalf. As everyone in
this chamber and everyone viewing here and around the country knows, tonight we have a
budget. It is a very, very important budget, which obviously represents the values of this
government and the necessity for this government to repair the debt and deficit disaster that
we were left by members oppositeby the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Shorten, and his
colleagues. I want to assure the Labor Party and all the people of Australia that we will fix
the debt and deficit disaster that we were left by the Labor Party, and we will do it in ways
which are faithful to the commitments we made pre-election. Let me remind members
opposite that every day during the election campaign I expressed the objectives of this
coalition should we be a governmentwe would stop the boats, we would scrap the carbon
tax, we would build the roads of the 21st century and, above all else, we would bring the
budget back under control. That is what this nation needs, and that is what we will deliver. I
thank the Member for Solomon for her question, and I can assure her and all members of this
parliament that this is a government that will keep its commitments. The commitments we
endlessly repeated before the election were to stop the boats, to scrap the carbon tax, to build
the roads of the 21st century and to bring the budget back under control. These are the
commitments we made, and these are the commitments we will honour. And isn't it so
necessary that we get the budget back under control? What the Labor Party and members
opposite did was to leave us a legacy of debt and deficit stretching as far as the eye can see. It
was inter-generational theft. That is what they left us$123 billion in cumulative budget
deficit and $667 billion in projected debt. This is the debt and deficit disaster that members
opposite left us. And members opposite knew they had a problem. That is why they went to
the election promising $5 billion in spending cuts that they have walked away from. They
have walked away from their own scant commitments to budget responsibility. The people of
Australia did not elect us to make easy decisions; they elected us to make the tough decisions.
They did not elect us to be cheapskate populists; they elected us to do what is necessary for
our country, and we will. The people of Australia understand that this country's fiscal
position is simply unsustainable. Every month, this country is borrowing $1 billionthat is
one thousand millions of dollars. Every single month, we are borrowing that just to pay the
interest on our debt. We are borrowing to pay the interest on our borrowing. And as every
single Australian out there in the real world knows, that is simply unsustainable, so we will
tackle the problem. We will do it in ways that are consistent with our pre-election
commitments, and we will do it in ways that set up this great country for the long term. Let
me say this to the Leader of the Opposition: the most compassionate thing we can do for the
pensioners of Australia is to make sure that the pension is sustainable for the long term. There
will be no changes to pensions without an election first. I am delighted to see money being
invested in public transport, and money being invested in urban rail systems should be
invested by the state governments, which own and operate the urban rail systems. After
tonight's budget, we will see far more opportunity for the state governments to invest in the
public transport systems that they own and operate, to recycle assets from less productive to
more productive assets, according to their choice. What we will see in this budget tonight is a
record Commonwealth spend on infrastructure and the opportunity for the states to spend
record amounts on infrastructure should they choose to do so. And don't we need it, because,
thanks to neglect by state Labor governments and by the recent federal Labor government,
there is an $80 billion infrastructure gap in this country. We did not create the problem, but
we will take responsibility for fixing itand the fixing starts tonight. I am certainly happy to
repeat that we are about getting rid of taxes. We want to start by getting rid of the carbon tax
and the mining tax. The Leader of the Opposition is trying to make keeping commitments his
theme; why is the Leader of the Opposition so keen to talk about keeping commitments while
his senators prevent the government from keeping the most important commitment of all
the commitment to get rid of the carbon tax? Why won't this Leader of the Opposition allow
this government to keep its commitment to abolish the carbon tax? We are going to honour
our commitments. We are particularly going to honour our commitment to repeal the carbon
tax. I respectfully suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that he would have a lot more
credibility on the subject of keeping commitments if his senators were not standing in the
way of the repeal of the carbon tax and a $550 a year benefit to every household in this
country. What a fraud this Leader of the Opposition is to talk about keeping commitments
when his senators are standing in the way of this government keeping its commitments. Now,
the Leader of the Opposition has asked, 'Is this government going to cut taxes?' Yes, this
government is going to cut the tax burden. As a result of decisions that this government has
taken, the tax burden will be $5.7 billion lessthanks to this government. If it is a broken
promise, it is only because we are spending more. We are putting back the $1.2 billion that
members opposite, led by the now Leader of the Opposition, ripped out of the forward
estimates in the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook statement. There we are: they
ripped off $1.2 billion and they ripped off Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern
TerritoryThey are very touchy madam speaker. We will end up spending more over the
relevant forward estimates period than Labor because we put back in the $1.2 billion that
Labor ripped out. This is a government which was elected to fix the debt and deficit disaster
that we inherited, and fix it we will. It ill becomes members opposite to complain about the
fire brigade when they are the fire. They are the fire; we will put it out. People will see in the
budget tonight that this is a government which has kept its commitments. This is a
government which has kept its commitments. That is what people will see in the budget
tonight. The most fundamental commitment of all was to get the budget back under control
to end the debt and deficit disaster that members opposite left us. It ill becomes members
opposite to keep talking about commitments when they are trying to stop us keeping the most
fundamental commitment of all, the commitment to abolish the carbon tax and save the
families of this country $550 every single year. If the Leader of the Opposition takes
commitments seriously, what about allowing us to honour our commitment to end the carbon
tax and to do the right thing by the people of Australia? As members opposite will discover
soon enough tonight, this is a budget which keeps faith with the commitments that we have
made to the Australian people, and the most fundamental commitment of all is to get the
budget back under control. Let us not for a second The situation that this government finds
itself in is that we are confronting debt and deficit stretching as far as the eye can see. I can
understand why members opposite are upset about the fire brigadebecause they are the fire.
We did not create this problem, but the people elected us to fix it. That is what the people did,
and fix it we will. And we will fix it in ways which are fair and faithful to the pre-election
commitments that we made. The important thing is to ensure that government makes the
investments that are necessary to ensure that our health system is sustainable and that cures
and treatments are better in the future than they have been in the past. I think there are some
tough decisions about health in this budget. There certainly are some tough decisions about
health in this budget, but what this budget does include is massive investment in better health
for all Australians and for people around the world in the years and the decades to come.
If the shadow minister is looking for good sense when it comes to health policy, she ought
to talk to the shadow Assistant Treasurer who certainly did make good sense on this issue
in times past. Members opposite, the Labor Party, will know everything that we have done
and they will know all of the measures that we have taken to address the debt and deficit
disaster that the Labor Party has left to this great nation of oursthey will know it allat
about 7.30 this evening. The Australian people will be able to make a judgement of us and
the actions that we have taken to address the debt and deficit disaster that Labor has left us.
But the Australian people know this: that no government can go on borrowing $1 billion
every single month just to pay the interest on the borrowings. No government can go on
doing that. That is the unsustainable situation that this oppositionformerly the
governmentleft us. I, every day in the election campaign, was open and upfront with the
Australian people. I said exactly what we were going to do. What we are going to do is get
the budget back under control. We are going to get the budget back under control; that is
what we were elected to do. And we will not let the Australian people down. The short
answer is, no, of course we did not. We told the Australian people that we would tackle the
debt and deficit disaster which the Labor Party created, which the Leader of the Opposition
the kingmaker, queenmaker and manipulator of the former governmentcreated. That is
what we said. We told the Australian people that we would tackle the debt and deficit disaster
that the Labor Party left this country, that we would tackle the intergenerational theft that the
Labor Party practised on the people of this country. That is what we said we would tackle,
and we are up for it. We were not elected to make easy decisions; we were elected to make
tough decisions. We were not elected to be populist; we were elected to do what is right and
necessary for this country. I will gladly submit the budget that the Treasurer of this country
will bring down tonight to the judgement of the people of Australia, because the people of
Australia will know that this is a government which is up for the challenges of the day. This
is a government which is prepared to confront the big decisions that it faces. This is a
government which is prepared to enable the Australian people to be as great as we can be.
That means fixing up the debt and deficit disaster because, if you do not fix the budget, you
cannot fix the economy. Without a strong economy, we cannot be the strong society that
every Australian wants to live in. I am very, very confident that when the Australian people
see the budget tonight there will be some things that they like and there will be other things
that they do not like. But they will know that the adults are back in charge and that they have
a government that is capable of rising to the challenges of these times. If I may, I will take a
moment of the House's time on indulgence. The whole worldand certainly millions of
Australianshave been absolutely transfixed and horrified by the hostage-taking of some
200 schoolgirls in Nigeria. The organisation responsible, Boko Haram, is reportedly
responsible in addition to this for the deaths of some 300 people in north-east Nigeria in
various terrorist incidents. Today I announce that the government is taking steps to
commence the process of banning Boko Haram as a terrorist organisation. In banning Boko
Haram as a terrorist organisation, Australia will be acting consistently with Nigeria and also
with our international partners, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and
New Zealand. I thank the member for Robertson for her question. I acknowledge that she
represents decent, aspirational people who know what it is like to put aside money today for
tomorrow. She represents decent, aspirational people who know what it is like to make
sacrifices for their children and for their grandchildren's future. As the member for Robertson
knows and as I suspect most of her constituents would understand, this is a budget that is
tough but fair. It is a budget that asks for sacrifices from everyone to secure the long-term
future of our country, because we simply could not go on as we were when members opposite
were in charge. We simply could not go on paying the mortgage on the credit card, because
that is exactly what happened when the Labor Party was in government. The sad and tragic
truth is that when the Labor Party were in charge they brought down six budgets, and those
budgets gave us the six biggest deficits in our history. Sure, they forecast surpluses. They
promised surpluses, but what they gave us were the six biggest deficits in our history. They
did not just give us six deficits; they gave us a further four deficits in prospect. They gave us
deficits and debt stretching out as far as the eye can see$123 billion worth of prospective
deficits and $667 billion worth of projected debt. Not only did they give us that; they gave us
a double-dip deficit, because in 2017-18 the deficit went up again to $30 billion. We did not
create this problem, but we will take responsibility for fixing it. We bring the budget close to
surplus in 2017-18. We get the budget back under control, which is exactly what we
promised we would do before the election. We are not just restraining spending; we are
building for the future with the world's biggest medical research fund and with the
Commonwealth's biggest ever infrastructure spend. In 1996 a coalition government brought
in a budget that was tough but fair and set our country up for a decade of prosperityand last
night's budget is in exactly that tradition. I am happy to take that question from the Leader of
the Opposition. Obviously there were some things in the budget last night that the states
liked, such as the record Commonwealth spend on infrastructure. There were other things that
they probably did not like, because we are not going to be bound by unsustainable spending
commitments that were made by members opposite. We will not be bound by Labor's
unsustainable spending commitments. We are not going to be bound by the budget booby
traps that members opposite put in. They are state government run public hospitals. They are
state government run public schools. The state governments will need to take more
responsibility for these in the future, as is right and proper. What the people of Australia
expect is grown-up adult governments in the states, just as they have now got a grown-up
adult government in Canberra. That is as it should be. The whole nation is paying the price of
the Labor Party's incompetence. Let me tackle the issues that the Leader of the Opposition
raises absolutely head-on. Yes, there is a temporary deficit levy. No-one likes it. I certainly
do not like it. But it will impact on just three per cent of taxpayers. We are indexing fuel
excise. Again, it is not something that people would necessarily like, but the fact is the money
is hypothecated to extra road spending, and that will cost the average family 40 cents a week
in the first year. The decisions that this government has made since September last year
reduce the overall tax burden by $5.7 billion. There is all this huffing and puffing from
members opposite about broken promises and about lower taxes. Well, let us keep the
promise to get rid of the carbon tax because that would save every single Australian family
$550 a year. This is a government which does not just talk about lowering taxes; this is a
government which is lowering taxesand it delivered that last night. The Leader of the
Opposition, if I may say so, should get his facts right. Pensions are not being cut, but after the
next election, if this government is re-elected, pensions will grow at a somewhat slower rate
because they will be indexed to CPI rather than male total average weekly earnings. The most
compassionate thing that we can do for the pensioners of Australia is to ensure that pensions
are sustainable and that our social services budget is sustainable. I reiterate the point that the
most compassionate thing we can do for the pensioners of Australia is to ensure that pensions
are sustainable over the long term. That is exactly what we have done. There has not been
and will not be any change to pensions in this term of parliament. We have been very up-
front with the pensioners of Australia about what we think should happen to pensions in
2017, and if people do not like that they will have the opportunity to vote accordingly at the
next election. I do not deny for a second that many Australian families are doing it tough. The
point I keep making is that in confronting the debt and deficit disaster that Australia faces we
are all in it together. I imagine that the shadow minister who asked the question is sincere
about wanting to ease the squeeze on Australian families. But, if she is as sincere as I think in
her heart she is, why doesn't she say to her leader, 'Let's start making it easier for families by
scrapping the carbon tax'? If she is seriously concerned about governments keeping
commitments and making it easier for families, why doesn't she allow this government to
keep its commitment and to make it easier for families by scrapping the carbon tax right
away. Do it now. This budget enshrines two great Australian values: the fair go that we
preserve and the 'have a go' value that we want to encourage. They are the values that are
embodied in this budget. I know that some benefits for families are changing and I accept
that. I make the point that it is important to maximise participation in the workforce and it is
important to bear down on what is sometimes described as middle-class welfare. It is
important to do that, but it is important to do that in ways that are fair. If the people of
Australia want to look at the budget documentation, they will see, for instance, that if you are
a single-income family, with one child under six, with $30,000 of income you are still
receiving more than $18,000 from the taxpayer. If you are a single-income family, with one
child, on $90,000 you are still receiving $6,000 from the taxpayer. I say again, if the Deputy
Leader of the Opposition is very anxious to ensure that this government keeps its
commitments and if she is as anxious as she says she is to ease the squeeze on families then
let us repeal the carbon tax straightaway. Let us repeal the carbon tax straightaway and give
all the families of Australia a $550 windfall. Let us give them $550 a year straightaway. I
know that some benefits for families are changing and I accept that. I make the point that it is
important to maximise participation in the workforce and it is important to bear down on
what is sometimes described as middle-class welfare. It is important to do that, but it is
important to do that in ways that are fair. If the people of Australia want to look at the budget
documentation, they will see, for instance, that if you are a single-income family, with one
child under six, with $30,000 of income you are still receiving more than $18,000 from the
taxpayer. If you are a single-income family, with one child, on $90,000 you are still receiving
$6,000 from the taxpayer. I say again, if the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is very anxious
to ensure that this government keeps its commitments and if she is as anxious as she says she
is to ease the squeeze on families then let us repeal the carbon tax straightaway. Let us repeal
the carbon tax straightaway and give all the families of Australia a $550 windfall. Let us give
them $550 a year straightaway. I want to reiterate to the shadow minister that this is a
government that has kept faith with the commitments that it made to the Australian people
before the election. Every dollar of savings in health is reinvested in health. It is reinvested in
the world's biggest medical research fund, which will find the treatments and cures we need
so that our health system and the health of our people gets better in the years to come. That is
our responsibility. Our responsibility is to do the right thing by the people of Australia. Our
responsibility is not to make easy decisions but to make the right decisions, and that is what
this budget has done. It has made the right but difficult and necessary decisions for the long-
term future of the people of this country. The difficulty with members opposite is that they
want this country to live constantly beyond its means, to keep making payments that it cannot
afford, with borrowed money. That is the problem with members opposite. They want this
country to continue making payments we cannot afford, with borrowed money. We expect
people under 30, the young people of Australia, to be either earning or learning. We expect
them to be in employment or, if for whatever reason they are not in employment, we expect
them to be improving their skills and receiving the support the Commonwealth government
quite rightly provides to people who are improving their skills, including youth allowance.
And I want to make it absolutely crystal clear to the shadow minister opposite, who
presumably did not look at every element in the budget that we are making it much easier to
go to university, to do a diploma, to do an apprenticeship or a traineeship with our Trade
Support Loans I say to the Leader of the Opposition, it is not kind to put people on social
security when there is an alternative. There is always a training or education alternative
available to the young people of Australia, and if they are not in employment, we should
encourage them to take it. May I say to the Leader of the Opposition that he is all politics, no
policy; all complaint, no solutions. And I might offer this thought to members oppositethat
confected moral outrage is no basis for governing a country And it is one of the reasons
members opposite are utterly unfit for government. What this country needs is a government
which is prepared to confront the reality that our country faces, the reality of debt and deficit
stretching out as far as the eye can see, the debt and deficit disaster which the members
opposite, the Labor Party, created. This government did not create the problem but we take
responsibility for addressing it. We take responsibility for fixing the problemthe debt and
deficit disaster that Labor created. I think that is exactly what the people of Australia elected
us to do and I am proud to serve them in my capacity as Prime Minister of this great nation. I
stand by what I said before the election. I absolutely stand by what this government has done
in last night's budget. I am absolutely confident that, when the Australian people come to
judge this government and this opposition in 2016, they will vote for a government which has
been faithful to its pre-election commitments. Do you know what the Australian people were
looking for in the election last year? After six years of dysfunction, the people of Australia
were looking for some leadership. They were looking for a government that was prepared to
make not the easy decisions but the hard decisions. The people of Australia were looking for
leadership. Last night they found it. I inform the House that the Assistant Minister For
Defence will be absent from question time today, representing the government at a ceremony
to present a Governor-General's Banner at RAAF Base Richmond. The Minister for Foreign
Affairs will answer questions on his behalf. This is a budget which is faithful to the
commitments that this government made to the Australian people, at the election. As a result
of decisions made by this government, the overall tax burden reduces by $5.7 billion dollars.
I thank the member for Dobell for her question and for the way that she represents the decent,
aspirational people of the Central Coast, who do understand that governments, like families
and businesses, have to live within their means. This is why this country could not go on as it
had under the Labor Party. This is why this government is refusing to put our nation's
mortgage on the credit card, as the Labor Party had been doing for far too long. Unaffordable
payments with borrowed money necessarily have to be reined back. This is a tough budget.
This is not a tough budget because this government wanted it to be tough; it is a tough budget
because it needs to be tough to deal with Labor's debt and deficit disaster. The Treasurer has
quite rightly described this as a 'contribute and build' budget. Everyone will contribute and
will benefit from the stronger economy that this budget will create. This budget is not about
the political convenience of this government, it is about the long-term strength of the
Australian economy. As I said, everyone will contribute. High-income earners will contribute
through the deficit levy, members of parliament will contribute through the pay freeze and
everyone will contribute through fuel excise indexation. This is not just a budget for saving;
this is a budget for building, a budget for nation building. There is the biggest infrastructure
spend in the history of the Commonwealth. There is a world-leading medical research fund to
give us the treatments and cures of the future and there are innovative trade support loans to
ensure that the decent working people of this country get a good start in their working life.
Back in 1996, an earlier coalition government brought in a budget that was tough but fair and
would set up this country for a decade of prosperity, and this government's budget is a budget
in that proud tradition. I deeply respect all of the people who have built this nation. Today's
elderly have built this nation, and they deserve the respect of our people and of this
parliament. The best and most compassionate thing that we can do for the pensioners of
Australia is make the pension sustainable for the long term, and that is exactly what this
government has done. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition's question is simply false. There
is a statement in her question that is simply false. We are not cutting pensions. We are not
cutting pensions. But after the next election we are proposing to change the method of
indexation for pensions. That is what we are proposing to do after the next election. I will be
absolutely candid with members opposite. What we did in this budget was demonstrate our
plan to clean up Labor's mess. And, yes, it is a tough plan. A lot of people will not like it. But
what people understand is that there is no easy way to fix Labor's debt and deficit disaster.
Our budget is our plan to clean up Labor's debt and deficit disaster. What we want from the
Leader of the Opposition tonight is his plan to clean up the mess he created. If he cannot offer
us that plan he just demonstrates the fact that he is simply unworthy of high office. If the
shadow minister opposite has a look at tables in the budget documents, she will see that we
are continuing to provide generous assistance to families with children. Obviously there are
some changes to family tax benefit part BI accept that. I also accept that former Prime
Minister Howard was, as he said today, 'the father of family tax benefit part B'. There are
some things that were absolutely right when we had surpluses of $20 billion a year and there
are quite different things which are absolutely right when we have deficits of $50 billion a
year, and that is what we are dealing with. We are dealing with the debt and deficit disaster
that the members opposite created. We are dealing with Labor's debt and deficit disaster.
There were some things that were affordable when we had a $20 billion surplus. Those things
are now not affordable with the $50 billion deficitsthe deficits that this Labor Party has
given us. I want to say that John Howard, to his great credit, made the decisions that were
right for his time and this government will make the decisions that are right for our time. The
budget that was brought down earlier this week is a very important budget for the future of
our country. It is designed to create a culture of enterprise. It is designed to ensure that we are
not focusing on what people cannot do but on what people can do. Now, the shadow minister
obviously was not listening to the very good answer on this very topic that has just been
provided by the Minister for Social Services, but I want to say that theWe believe that
work-ready youngsters, work-capable youngsters, ought to be either learning or earning; and,
as a result of this budget, those who are not working for a wage will have far more
opportunity to learn a skill, to go to university, to go to TAFE, because this government is
giving them far more opportunity to do so. I believe that this budget embodies the great
aspirations of the Australian people, and at the very heart of our national character are two
things: first of all, the desire to extend to the more vulnerable members of our community a
fair go. This budget absolutely protects the fair-go principle which is so important in this
country of ours that we love. Australians also expect the people who can to have a go. That is
what this is all about. Those who are not capable of working will continue to be protected,
but those who are capable of working will be expected to have a go. They will be expected to
be either earning or learningand that is the way it ought to be. I am happy to respond to the
confected indignation, based on selective memory, of the Leader of the Opposition. As I said
in this chamber yesterday, yes, for three years there will be an increase in the top marginal
rate of tax that will impact on three per cent of taxpayers. Yes, there is fuel excise indexation.
In the first year that means about 40c a week for the average family. But, overall, the
decisions made by this government reduce the tax burden by $5.7 billion. If the Leader of the
Opposition is as concerned as he says he is about commitments and getting tax down, there is
a simple thing he can announce tonightthat he is going to help this parliament repeal the
carbon tax. That is the challenge that I extend to this Leader of the Opposition: repeal the
carbon tax. If you are fair dinkum about giving families a break, repeal the carbon tax tonight
and give families of Australia a $550-a-year tax break. This government have been honest
and upfront with the Australian people with a budget that accepts that there are no soft
options anymore. We have accepted that there are no soft options anymore, but we are going
to hear from the Leader of the Opposition more soft options, more cop-outs and more
borrow-and-spend policies. We have put before the people of Australia a comprehensive plan
to clean up Labor's debt and deficit disaster. We have put forward our plan to clean up
Labors mess. What we now need from the Leader of the Opposition is his plan to clean up
the mess that he created. The premise of the question is simply untrue. Every dollar of
savings in health is being reinvested in the medical research fund that will give us the
treatments and the cures that our country and our world needs in the years and the decades to
come. It is true that pie-in-the-sky promises that were made by the former government do not
bind this government. We made that absolutely crystal clear before the last election. We all
know that the former government tried to booby trap our fiscal future by making completely
unsustainable promises for the out years. The first of those out years is now in the forward
estimates period, and I have to say that, in that final year, spending will increase. Spending
will continue to increase but it will do so at a sustainable rate, not the absolutely
unsustainable rate contained in the pie-in-the-sky promises, the undeliverable pie-in-the-sky
promises, that the Labor Party gave before the election. We said pre-election that we would
not be bound by Labor's pie-in-the-sky promises for the out years. We absolutely said that.
We made it absolutely crystal clear that borrowing to make unsustainable, unaffordable
promises simply was not on. We have made it crystal clear in the budget that in 2017-18 there
will be a lower rate of increase in health and hospital spending. We have made that absolutely
crystal clear. Not a cut; a lower rate of increase. We were absolutely upfront about this pre-
election, and we have been absolutely upfront about this in the budget. I appreciate that some
of the state premiers are unhappy about this. I appreciate that. I should also point out that they
are very happy about the infrastructure spending in the budget, and, yes, as far as the states
are concerned there are swings and roundabouts. There are some things that they do not like;
there are some things that they do like. But what we have done is given them at least three
years to prepare, and I am looking forward, through the federation white paper process, to a
constructive and collegial dialogue to improve our federation and to try to ensure that the
states and territories are sovereign in their own spheres. I do not especially like some of the
things that we have had to do to clean up Labor's debt and deficit disaster. I do not especially
like that, and in a different world we would have been able to have a different budget. But in
the real worldthe world that we have inherited from the Labor Partywe have to clean up
the debt and deficit disaster. We have to clean up the debt and deficit disaster. We have to
accept that fact that the soft options that were peddled for six years by the Labor Party are
simply no longer available to the Australian people. We were elected not to make the easy
decisions but to make the hard ones. We were elected not to squib things but to embrace the
difficult decisions that were needed to secure this country's future. That is what we were
elected to do. We were elected to put the budget back under control. And on no fewer than 31
separate occasions during the election campaign that is exactly what I promised. I promised
that we would stop the boats, that we would scrap the carbon tax, that we would build the
roads of the 21st century and that we would get the budget back under control. I am very
proud to say that that is exactly what happened on Tuesday night. I am very pleased to say
that this is a government with the intestinal fortitude to do the things that members opposite
always lacked the guts to do. We did not create the debt and deficit disaster. We did not
create it, but we take responsibility for fixing it. Fix it, we will. And we are fixing it in ways
that are fair. We are fixing it in ways that are fair and I am very pleased to have this
opportunity to wrap up question time on budget week by saying that we have risen to the
challenge of these times. We have risen to the challenge of these times by delivering the
budget that Australia needs to deal with the debt and deficit disaster that the Labor Party gave
us. We have risen to that challenge. On that note I ask that further questions be placed on
the Notice Paper. I inform the House that the Minister for Agriculture will be absent from
question time today as he is receiving medical treatment for a knee injury sustained over the
weekend. The Deputy Prime Minister will answer questions on his behalf. It is National Sorry
Day and it is a perfectly appropriate question for the Leader of the Opposition to kick off
question time with today. I am very pleased to be able to reassure the Leader of the
Opposition that while we are making some savings in this area, as we are making savings
across the board, we believe that by collapsing some 100 separate programs into five broad
programs we can achieve efficiencies in service delivery that will mean, with somewhat less
money, that we will achieve better outcomes. This is our objective: to achieve better
outcomes for the Indigenous people of our country. What we are absolutely committed to
doing is to ensuring that children go to school, that adults go to work and that people are safe
in their own homes. These changes were thoroughly discussed with the Prime Minister's
Indigenous Advisory Council. As anyone who has read Warren Mundine's speech given last
weekend would know, the council is satisfied that the government are heading in the right
direction. Australia does have a fundamentally strong economy, but under the former Labor
government the budget was fundamentally weak. So we had a fundamentally strong economy
but a fundamentally weak budget. What this government is doing is fixing the budget to
strengthen our economyand didn't it need fixing! The former government, the Labor Party,
inherited a $20 billion surplus and $50 billion in the bank, and they gave the people of
Australia the six biggest deficits in our history. They gave us debt and deficit stretching out
as far as the eye can see$123 billion in cumulative projected deficits and $667 billion in
projected gross debt. Thanks to the policies pursued by members opposite, this country is
borrowing a billion dollars every single month just to pay interest on the borrowings. Under
the policies of members opposite, within a decade that mean $3 billion would have to be
borrowed every single monthenough to fund the Western Sydney infrastructure package,
which this government are getting on with. You cannot keep putting the mortgage on the
credit card, which is what members opposite have done. This government did not create the
problem, but we are shouldering responsibility for fixing it. Under us, instead of a $30 billion
deficit in 2017-18, the deficit will come in at under $3 billion and debt will be $300 billion
less under the policies that we announced in the budget. This is what the government was
elected to do. We were elected to take the tough decisions necessary to get this country back
on track and that is exactly what we are doing. Every day before the election, we made it
crystal clear what we were doing: we would stop the boats, we would scrap the carbon tax
and we would build the road to the 21st century and we would get the budget back under
control, and that is precisely what this government are doing. We were absolutely crystal
clear on budget night that we were changing the conditions for the receipt of family tax
benefit part B, that we were reducing the primary income earner's income from $150,000 to
$100,000 because we do want to bear down on so-called middle-class welfareWe support
choice. We absolutely support choice. But there is a limit to how much taxpayer support we
can give once the youngest child is at school. There is a limit to that. We were absolutely up-
front in the budget about this. We must live within our means. Living within our means
means that handouts with borrowed money cannot continue in the way members opposite
want. I absolutely accept that if you go through the budget figures, if you go through the
budget announcements, you can find some people who will be impacted by budget decisions.
I absolutely accept that. Shock! Horror! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has discovered
that some people will be impacted by budget decisions. Of course some people will be
impacted by budget decisions. We could not go on as a nation giving people borrowed money
that our nation cannot afford and that the government cannot sustain. Because of the
pseudogenerosity of members opposite, this country was in an absolutely unsustainable
situation, borrowing a billion every single month just to pay interest on the borrowings. That
situation was simply unsustainable. The thing about the budget is that it is a contribute-and-
build budget. High-income earners will pay the deficit levy. Members of parliament will face
a pay freeze. Motorists will pay the fuel excise indexation. Everyone is making a contribution
so that our country will be better off in the long run, and that is what we were elected to do:
to get the budget back under control so that our country will be better and stronger in the long
run. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is so concerned about the welfare of the people of
Capricornia, then scrap the carbon tax. That will save every household in Capricornia $550 a
year. It is pretty clear what members opposite are doing today. They are going through the
budget striving to find losers. Every Australian was the loser from Labor's six years of
incompetence. Every Australian will be the poorer because of Labor's six years of
incompetence. This government knows that a lot of people are doing it tough, we know there
is not an electorate in the country where there are not some people doing it tough, but we owe
it to those people to get this economy back into shape and you cannot fix the economy
without fixing the budget. That is what this government is doing. Every single month the
people of Page are contributing to having to pay $1 billion in interest. That is $1 billion in
dead money, that is $1 billion that could have been spent on fixing the Pacific Highway. That
is the kind of thing we would be able to do sooner and better but for Labor's six years of
incompetence. If the member for RichmondI think I called her the member for Page
earlier; we have a very good member for Page, a much better member for Page than we have
member for Richmondis serious about taking the burdens off the families of Richmond, tell
her leader to scrap the carbon tax. If she is worried about promises, tell her leader to let this
government keep its promise to scrap the carbon tax and scrap it now. Concessions are
essentially a matter for the state governments and for local council My understanding is that
of pensioner concessions some 90 per cent of the burden is quite properly and appropriately
carried by the state government. If I could address the shadow minister's general point: yes,
we are asking some sacrifices of our people. We are asking for some sacrifices, and everyone
is making a contribution. As I said before, high-income earners are paying the deficit levy,
members of parliament are forgoing a pay rise, motorists are bearing fuel excise indexation.
This is a budget where all of us need to make a contribution so that all of us can be better off
in the medium and long term. The sad truth is that every single Australian was a loser
because of the incompetence of the former government. We did not cause the debt and deficit
disaster that members opposite gave us. We are shouldering the responsibility of fixing it
because that is what the Australian people expect of us, and we will not let them down. Let
me just remind the member for Charlton of the commitments that this government made pre-
election: to stop the boats, to stop the carbon tax The commitments that we made pre-
election were to stop the boats, to scrap the carbon tax, to build the roads of the 21st century
and to get the budget back under control. There are no cuts to health, and every single dollar
of saving in health is being reinvestedevery single dollar of saving in health is being
reinvested. And when it comes to public hospitals, public hospital funding increases by nine
per cent this year, nine per cent next year, nine per cent the year after that and six per cent in
the fourth yeara massive increase. This is why, as the Treasurer says, the states are $9
billion better off as a result of this budget. Every Australian, in the long run, is better off
under this budget because if you get the budget under controlif you fix the budgetyou fix
the economy and that makes every single Australian better off. If the member for Charlton is
so anxious about things in the budget, and if he really wants to help the pensioners of his
electorate, he should tell his leader to scrap the carbon tax now. Scrap the carbon tax now,
and that would make every single household in the electorate of Charlton $550 a year better
off. It has not been axed. It is as simple as thatit has not been axed. I do reject the
suggestion from the Leader of the Oppositionan unworthy suggestion, if I may say so
that this government or, indeed, myself as prime minister, are uninterested in this. Obviously,
we want to do the right thing by all people who are suffering, including people who are
suffering the dreadful diseases that come from exposure to asbestos. Without wanting to, as it
were, blow my own trumpet, when I was the health minister I did establish a national
research centre for research into this terrible disease. So I simply say to the Leader of the
Opposition: before he gets into the politics of smear, check the facts. I think that the shadow
minister should tell the truth. Pensions have not been cut and they will not be cut. The
shadow minister, frankly, demeans himself and he demeans this parliament when he suggests
that they have. He should stop scaring pensionersand while he is about it he should stop
writing references for drug runners in Villawood. To assist the house, I am happy to
withdraw. I am happy to withdraw and I am sorry that I did make that reference in respect of
the member for Watson. I should not have done it. But he, equally, should not try to scare
pensioners. The pension is not being cut. The pension will not be cut. Every six months under
this government the pension will go up. As the Minister for Social Services has just pointed
out, in March the single pension went up by some $15 and the couples pension went up by
some $12. And it will happen in September and it will happen next March and it will happen
next September. This will happen each and every year. Yes, come September 2017, the
pension will increase by CPI as opposed to male total average weekly earnings. The best
thing that we can do for the pensioners of Australia is make the pension sustainable. The best
thing we can do for all Australians is get the budget back under control. The best thing we
can do for our country, to honour our commitments, is take the necessary and the difficult
decisions needed to secure this country's future. That is what we are doing: we are securing
this country's future. And what are members opposite doing? They are worrying about who
might be in what room, at what time, in this parliament. Really and truly, this man is no Bob
Hawke. He is no Bob Hawke; he is no leader; and he has no answers for the difficulties our
country faces. I inform the House that the Minister for the Environment will be absent from
question time today to attend a funeral. The Minister for Foreign Affairs will answer
questions on his behalf. There are three false statements there. First of all, this is the budget
that Australia needs right now to face Labor's debt and deficit disaster. Second, there were no
$80 billion of spending in any budget that has been reduced by this government. I challenge
the Leader of the Opposition to point to $80 billion in Labor budgets that were going to be
spent on health and education. Finally, no advertising campaigns have been undertaken by
this government. That contrasts with when the Leader of the Opposition was in government.
Seven hundred million dollars were spent on political advertising by the former government.
I thank the member for Robertson for her question. I can point out to her that this country has
a fundamentally strong economy, but under members opposite we had a fundamentally weak
budget. The government is fixing the budget to strengthen our economy. This is exactly what
we were elected to do. I said until I was blue in the face during the last election that we would
do four things: we would stop the boats, we would scrap the carbon tax, we would build the
road to the 21st century, and we would get the budget back under control. I can understand a
certain amount of excitement from members opposite, because members opposite did not
think the budget needed to be brought back under control. None other than the Leader of the
Opposition saidhe likes to talk about advertising, well here is a bit of false advertising that
the Leader of the Opposition put outhe claimed, in a dodger distributed to his electorate,
that the budget wasThe Leader of the Opposition claimed back in 2012 that the budget was
back in surplus, on time and as promised. I know why he is turning his back; he is
embarrassed by this. He said, 'in these uncertain global times, there is no clearer sign of a
strong economy than a surplus'the surplus he never, ever delivered, the surplus Labor never
delivered and was incapable of delivering. What did we get from members opposite? We got
the six biggest deficits in Australia's history. We got 200,000 more unemployed at the end of
their six years than at the beginning. We got $123 billion of cumulative prospective deficits,
$667 billion of projected debt and $1 billion a month in interest paymentsevery single
monthjust to pay the interest on the borrowings. They were paying the nation's mortgage
on the credit card. It just could not go on; and it will not go on, thanks to this government.
We are taking the tough decisions now to avoid even tougher decisions in four or five years
time. We are taking the tough decisions now to set up the prosperity of the future. This is the
first honest budget in six years. This is the budget our country needs. On this issue, as on so
many others, the Leader of the Opposition is simply incapable of telling the truth. This is the
Leader of the Opposition who could not be trusted by either of his two previous leaders.
Kevin Rudd could not trust him; Julia Gillard could not trust him; and the Australian people
should not trust him either. Again, two falsehoods. We are not cutting $80 billion from
schools and hospitals. There was no $80 billion in any Labor budget. There was no $80
billion in any Labor budget to be cut. So there was no $80 billion in any Labor budget, no
$80 billion that Labor ever set aside in any Labor budget, that has been cut. All that is
happening is that the rate of increase has been reduced because the rate of increase that
members opposite were proposing is simply unsustainable. Let me make it crystal clear to the
Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who cannot contain her excitement Hospital funding
increases by nine per cent this year, nine per cent next year, nine per cent the year after that
and six per cent the year after that. What sort of a cut is a nine per cent increase? What sort of
a cut is a six per cent increase? I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition: what sort of a cut
is a nine per cent increase? That is falsehood No. 1. Falsehood No. 2: there is no government
advertising campaign, so please stop having the vapours about something that is not
happening. Stop wasting questions. Members opposite are supposed to be so excited about
this budget and they are already off the budget and onto a piece of confected fantasy. That is
what they are doing. Given that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is incapable of asking a
serious question in this place, let me offer a serious point and say thank you to our friends
from Malaysia. Let me say how pleased I have been to work with the Malaysian government
and how pleased I have been to work with Prime Minister Najib of Malaysia on the hunt for
flight MH370, a search that goes on and a search that this government will continue to
prosecute. We owe it to the families of the 239 people on that flight not to rest until we can
solve this mystery. The truth, which members opposite are in denial about is that we could
not go on borrowing $1 billion every single month just to pay the interest on Labor's
borrowings. We simply cannot go on like that. The budget is this government's attempt to
deal with Labor's budget mess. Where is Labor's? There were a lot of tough decisions in this
budget, and it is good that members opposite have noticed that there are some tough decisions
in this budget. There is no easy way to deal with the debt and deficit disaster that Labor has
left this country. In the budget this government has carefully explained to the Australian
people what we propose to do to deal with the mess that Labor created, and now it is up to the
Leader of the Opposition to say how he will fix the mess that he helped to create. Let's face
it: the Leader of the Opposition was a senior minister for almost six years in the government
that gave us the six biggest deficits in history. He was the kingmaker who put Julia Gillard
into the prime ministership. Then, when that was not good enough for him, he was the
kingmaker who put Kevin Rudd back into the prime ministership. So if he was good enough
and Machiavellian enough to make and unmake prime ministers, please tell us, Leader of the
Opposition, what you would do to fix the debt and deficit disaster. The Leader of the
Opposition helped to make the mess. He should explain how he is going to fix it. We have
been absolutely upfront with the Australian people about our solution for Labor's mess. It is
time for the Leader of the Opposition to be equally honest with the Australian people. They
are the fire; we are the fire brigade. I refuse to be impartial as between the fire brigade and
the fire. Again there were many falsehoods in that question. Let me quote from someoneI
am not sure that he is a wise man but he has certainly said some wise things: But there's a
better way of operating a health system, and the change should hardly hurt at all. the ideal
model involves a small co-paymentnot enough to put a dent in your weekly budget, but
enough to make you think twice before you call the doc. And the idea is 'hardly a radical
idea'. It is an idea which certainly appeals to Labor's shadow Assistant Treasurer. I can
understand that the shadow Assistant Treasurer could be fairly uncomfortable, but come on
over! If you don't like it there, come on over! Labor's shadow Assistant Treasurer is not the
only person who supports the government on this issue. Labor's former prime minister, Mr
Hawke, the father of the co-payment, supports what this government is doing. There are a
whole range of ways to get immunised. Yes, a GP is one way, but there are also community
health centres and other ways of being immunised. It is very important that immunisation
rates stay up, and this government certainly supports that. It is very important that we make
Medicare sustainable for the long term. That is what we are trying to do. It is very important
that we make Medicare sustainable for the long term. What this government will not do is do
what members opposite have done for far too long and pretend that we can continue to
borrow at unsustainable rates to provide services that simply cannot be afforded. There is
nothing wrong with a co-payment. The shadow minister who is yelling across the table thinks
that it is perfectly fair to have a co-payment for the PBS, does she not? Suddenly, for once,
that shadow minister is silent. For once that shadow minister is silent. It is perfectly fair, is it
notIt is perfectly fair to have a co-payment for PBS drugs. Members opposite introduced a
co-payment for the PBS. They introduced a co-payment for Medicare. If a co-payment for the
PBS is perfectly fair enough, why is there something fundamentally wrong with a co-
payment for Medicare? Members opposite do not like me quoting the Labor Assistant
Treasurer on one subject. Let me quote him again: FAR too often ... proponents of social
change call for a return to old-style tax and spend policies, large government handouts and
government intervention in the economy Unfortunately, this brand of well-intentioned
social and economic Luddism would visit yet more suffering and exclusion on those very
people in need of assistance. Madam Speaker, he is right about co-payments and he is right
about the economic policies of his own colleagueseconomic Luddism. We cannot afford to
go on in this way anymoreand, as far as this government is concerned, we never ever will.
How can members opposite seriously say that a modest co-payment for visiting the GP will
stop sick people from visiting the doctor, when they do not contend that a modest co-payment
for the PBS is no such disincentive? I ask you, Madam Speaker, how can they say that co-
payments for Medicare are wrong and co-payments for the PBS are right? They simply
cannot sustain the logic of their position. Their position is simply untenable. Now we have
this slightly sad attempt by members opposite to say that people are going to be deprived of
vital health treatment because of the same modest co-payment on Medicare that people have
always faced in respect of the PBS. Let me read something: 'Is anyone seriously suggesting
that, in the circumstance you're talking about, where there is the possibility' I am quoting
something that is very relevant: 'Is anyone seriously suggesting that, in the circumstance
you're talking about, where there is the possibility of breast cancer, that is going to stop them
going to the doctor? I mean, that is emotionalism being played at the lowest level.' That was
Prime Minister Bob Hawke, a real Labor leader, unlike this tawdry excuse for a leader sitting
opposite. There has been no cut. It is quite common for an underspend in one area of a
portfolio to be spent in another area of the portfolio. The government has budgeted $377
millionlet me repeat that: the government has budgeted $377 millionfor this royal
commission, until the middle of 2016, because we want this commission to do its work. I
would be fairly confident that by the time it is finished this will be well and truly the best
funded royal commission in Australia's history. And it should be, because this is an abhorrent
crime. It is deplored by this governmentand indeed by all members of this Houseand the
royal commission should be supported to get on and do its job, and it will be by this
government. This is an important question from the member for Pearce and I thank him for it.
The sad truth is that Labor's debt is costing this Commonwealth $1 billion every single month
just to pay the interest on the borrowings. In 10 years time, had members opposite continued
in government, it would not have been $1 billion a month it would have been $3 billion a
month in dead money, spent in interest repayments on the borrowings. That is $1 billion,
even now, that is not available for schools, for hospitals and for roads. If we did have that
saving of $1 billion a month, because we were not paying for Labor's debt and deficit, in
three months we could build the Western Sydney infrastructure package, in six months we
could duplicate the Pacific Highway from Newcastle to the Queensland border, in little over
12 months we could fully build the East West Link in Melbourne and in just one month we
could almost conclude the Perth Gateway and the Swan bypass. But we just have not got that
$1 billion a month, because that is paying Labor's debt bill. That $1 billion a month is paying
Labor's debt bill. They gave us the six biggest deficits in our history. They would have given
us, had they been re-elected, four more years of record deficits. They would have given us a
decade of deficits, had they been re-elected. Every year of deficit is just more debt for our
children to repay. They were stealing from our future. It was intergenerational theft from
members opposite. The budget is this government's plan to fix Labor's debt. Where is Labor's
plan to fix Labor's mess? Let's face it, we had the good Bowen from the Parliamentary
Budget Office give some advice to the bad Bowen, just the other day. The good Bowen said:
'It is time to start coming out of debt and deficit; otherwise, the longer you leave it the more
exposed you become and the harder it is to wind back.' This government has taken tough
decisions today so that we do not have to take even tougher decisions in the future.
Australians expect their governments to take the tough decisions, not to squib them. Racism
has no place in Australian society, no place whatsoever. Racism is absolutely abhorrent.
Racism has no place in our society and neither do unreasonable restrictions on free speech.
As the House would know, we have called for debate, we have sought community input, we
are considering the submissions that we have received and we will be responding in due
course. Assuming that I am in my current joband I make no assumptions about longevity
I can assure you that I will be in the top marginal tax bracket. I will be in the top marginal tax
bracket, which means, yes, I will be continuing to make a very considerable contribution to
the task of repairing Labor's debt and deficit disaster. The tragedy which members are still in
denial about is that every single Australian will be paying for their debt and deficit disaster
for many, many years to come. That is problem. When we have six years of utter
incompetence, six years of utter betrayal of everything they once said they stood for,
everyone pays. That is the problem: everyone has been a loser from the last six years of
Labor's debt and deficit disaster. I thank the member for Denison for his question. Loath as I
am to disagree with the member, I do respectfully suggest to him that the former Labor-Green
government was a much bigger brake on Tasmania's economic development than the Bass
Strait! This government here in Canberra and, I am sure, the new government in Hobart do
want to contribute seriously to Tasmania's economic development because Tasmania needs to
be a great place to work as well as a great place to live and a great place to visit. Members on
this side, like the member for Denison, want to ensure that Tasmania is an economy as well
as simply a national park. To that end, we are contributing $400 million towards the
duplication of the Midland Highway. I confirmed $26 million towards upgrading the Brooker
Highway. There is some $40 million being contributed towards the upgrade of Hobart airport.
The coalition invented the Freight Equalisation Scheme, we support the Freight Equalisation
Scheme, we have no plans to change the Freight Equalisation Scheme, and that is why $114
million was committed to the Freight Equalisation Scheme every year in the budget just
brought down. Yes. This question is typical of the hypocrisy and incoherence of the Labor
Party, because the Leader of the Opposition, when he was education minister, was in part
responsible for a cut to the budget of the CSIRO. How can it be that there is a sense of
absolute disaster and moral outrage when there is a modest cut to the CSIRO by this
government, when there was an equal cut to the CSIRO when the Leader of the Opposition
was the minister? The Leader of the Opposition thinks that, if Labor cuts the CSIRO, that is a
great thing for our country, but for some reason a similar action from this government is
wrong. No-one can take this opposition seriously. No-one can take this opposition seriously,
and that question proves it. I do not accept that the Education Union analysis is gospel. Trust
the Leader of the Opposition, the former union official, to treat the national tertiary education
union 'analysis' as gospel! No-one else does. I am not going to give the guarantee that the
Leader of the Opposition seeks, but I can give a guarantee that no sensible institution would
price itself out of the market. It is as simple as that. If this particular former union official had
as much gumption as another former union official who once led the Labor Party, he would
not ask silly questions like that. But the one thing you do know about this former union
official is that he is no Bob Hawke. I know this is difficult for members opposite, but in a
deregulated system fees can move up and fees can move down. What can be guaranteed in a
deregulated system, in a market system, is that institutions will not try to price themselves out
of the market. All I can assume is that the shadow minister opposite thinks that institutions
are so stupid that they will destroy themselves. Well, they are not. They are not. We will give
them the freedom that they need to be as good as they can be, and I do not know why
members opposite are so frightened of freedom. Why are members opposite so frightened of
freedom? Why do they think so ill and so little of our institutions that they want to keep them
in chains? I just wish to make two points in response to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
The first point is that anyone going to an Australian university to do an undergraduate degree
will have the course fees, whatever the fees are, covered by FEE-HELP. So no-one need pay
a single cent up-frontand I have to say it will be the most advantageous loan they ever
receive under the conditions that this government has put forward. I simply reject this
suggestion that there is something fundamentally wrong with a deregulated university system.
I simply reject the idea being peddled by members opposite that our universities are not
capable of governing themselves and that prospective students are not capable of making
intelligent decisions about their future. And I am not alone in my support for a deregulated
university system. Let me quote: Market based HECSthat is to say, market based fees
will also help to improve our higher education system by making universities even more
responsive to student needs and educational outcomes Well, who was this wise man? Who
was this guru, this sage, this seer, this prophet? None other than Labor's Assistant Treasurer. I
can understand why not too many of his colleagues want to sit next to himI think at the
moment he's got a bit of a communicable disease down there! Do you know what it is? It's
common senseonly it's not very catching with members opposite! The result of the changes
which this government is putting in place will be a better funded, more dynamic and
competitive education sector. That is not me, that is Labor's Assistant Treasurer, and he is
absolutely right. His common sense should be heeded by people like the Deputy Leader of
the Opposition. I should make a number of points in response to the Leader of the
Opposition's question. First of all, we believe that the students and prospective students of
Australia are more than capable of making decisions based on what is best for them and we
also believe that universities of Australia are more than capable of making decisions on the
basis of what is good for institutions and good for the students who attend those institutions.
We do not believe that these people and these institutions are so inept, so self-centred and so
incompetent that they cannot be trusted to look after their own futures. That is the first point I
want to make. The second point I want to make is that every dollar of any fees will be
covered by FEE-HELP loans, as you would expect. These are probably the most
advantageous loans that anyone will ever receive. The other point I want to make is that the
FEE-HELP system is for the first time being extended to a whole range of educational
institutions, including institutions that are providing diploma and other courses. We are
extending the range of help available to students; we are extending help to a much wider
range of students. I should also point out that what is good for university studentsshould
also be good for apprentices, and we are making loans available to apprentices on the same
basis that we are making loans available to students. The final point I make is: fair enough,
the Leader of the Opposition is concerned about debts incurred by students but at least those
students would be coming into it with their eyes open. What about the debtWhat about the
debt that the former government settled every Australian with? What about that debt? What
about the $667 billion of debt that was just going up and up and up? How can the Leader of
the Opposition be crying crocodile tears over debts faced by students, which they will have
every ability to repay in a stronger economy, and have no interest whatsoever in the debt that
the government in which he served ran up and up and endlessly up? No wonder no-one takes
this opposition leader seriously. We have replaced one program with a better one. It is as
simple as that. We have replaced one program with a better one and in the process we have
substantially increased support for apprentices. The shadow minister opposite is unhappy
about the changes to the funding of certain programs. I say to her: she is responsible. We had
to save money because of the debt and deficit disaster that members opposite created. It is
absolutely necessary for the Commonwealth of Australia to live within its means. It is
absolutely necessary for the Commonwealth of Australia to stop handing out money that it
does not have and cannot sustainably borrow. It is absolutely necessary that we make
responsible savings, including in this area. Because of the debt and deficit disaster that
members opposite created some difficult decisions simply had to be made. We have not run
away from the difficult decisions the way members opposite did consistently for six years.
What we have said to the young people of Australia is: 'Don't waste your life. Leave school
and either improve your education or get a job.' Now isn't that a salutary and necessary
message to the young people of Australia? It really does say something about the sad decline
of the once great Labor Party. It is not so much the working class party; I am afraid this is a
political party which is more interested in expanding the welfare system than it is in
expanding the wage system. This really is one of the reasons why no-one can take this Labor
Party seriously. I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill is another step in
delivering reform to intercountry adoptions. For too long, adoption had been in the too-hard
basket. For too long, it has been too hard to adopt and for too long, this has been a policy no-
go zone. It should not be that waybecause adoption is all about giving children a better life.
There are too many children who have no parents, or no effective parents, and they deserve a
better life and adoption is a way of giving it to them. The government wants to make it easier
to adopt when it is in the best interests of the child. We do not want to repeat the mistakes of
the past, but we do want to remove the red tape and reduce the delaysthat do not benefit
anyone. It is red tape that impacts on children who legitimately need a safe and loving home
and Australians who dream of providing that home. So in December last year I announced
that the government would improve overseas adoption by the end of this year. We have been
delivering on that commitment. Already, the government has considered a report by senior
officials on options to reform overseas adoption which was informed by over 100
submissions from the public. We have announced improvements to the process for families
adopting children from Taiwan and South Korea. We have opened a new overseas adoption
program with South Africaand are commencing discussions with seven other countries
about possible new overseas adoption programs. COAG, the Council of Australian
Governments, has also agreed in principle to a new national overseas adoption service from
2015; and the minister for immigration is developing options to reduce waiting times for
visas for adoptive children from overseas. This bill is another important element of my
governments commitment to reform intercountry adoption. The purpose of this bill is to
facilitate the grant of Australian citizenship to children adopted by Australian citizens under
bilateral adoption arrangements between Australia and countries that are not party to the
Hague convention on intercountry adoption. Under such bilateral arrangements, Australian
citizens have, for several years, been able to adopt children from South Korea, Taiwan and
Ethiopia. Although the intercountry adoption program with Ethiopia is now closed, there are
a number of families who are awaiting the finalisation of their adoptions. At present, children
adopted under bilateral arrangements require a passport from the home country and an
Australian adoption visa to travel to Australia. This imposes additional complexity and cost
on the adopting families. Under the amendments to be made by this bill, children will be able
to be granted citizenship as soon as the adoption is finalised. They will then be able to travel
to Australia on an Australian passport, with their new families, as Australian citizens. This
bill will place children adopted by Australian citizens under bilateral arrangements in the
same position as children adopted by Australian citizens under Hague convention
arrangements. The overarching requirement from Australias perspective is that a potential
partner country, first, is willing to participate in an intercountry adoption arrangement with
Australia and, secondly, will meet the standards and safeguards equivalent to those required
under the Hague convention. Where a non-convention country meets these standards, there is
no reason why adoptions should not be recognised in the same way as adoptions in
convention countries. The government has recently given effect to this principle by amending
the Family Law (Bilateral Arrangements-Intercountry Adoption) Regulations 1998 to provide
for automatic recognition of adoptions in partner countries once the adoption is finalised and
an adoption compliance certificate has been issued. Children adopted from Hague convention
countries which issue adoption compliance certificates are already able to obtain Australian
citizenship as soon as the adoption is finalised. This has been the case since the enactment of
the Australian Citizenship Act 2007. The adoption compliance certificate provides assurance
that the adoption has been carried out in accordance with the ethical and legal framework
required by the Hague convention. As the process for children adopted under bilateral
arrangements, including automatic recognition under Australian law, is in substance identical,
there is no reason why those children should be treated differently in the Australian
Citizenship Act. The key feature of the bill is an amendment to subdivision AA of division 2
of part 2 of the act. The amendment simply expands the scope of the existing Hague
convention provisions, so that they also cover adoptions in accordance with bilateral
arrangements. The decision-making framework remains the same. An application must be
made to the minister for the child to become an Australian citizen. The application can only
be approved if the adoption has been finalised in the overseas country and an adoption
compliance certificate issued by the authorities of that country. The adoption must also have
the effect of terminating the legal relationship between the child and his or her previous
parents. Importantly, the minister retains a discretion to refuse an application which meets the
requirements. This would be relevant if fraud or some other irregularity came to light before
citizenship was granted. Similarly, the minister must not approve a child becoming a citizen
if the minister is not satisfied of the identity of the child. The amendments made by the bill
will apply for the benefit of all children adopted under bilateral arrangements, whether the
adoption was finalised before or after the amendments come into force. I am pleased to
undertake this real action to bring families together. Without pretending that everything is
going to be simple and straightforward immediately, I hope that this bill and my
governments other reforms to intercountry adoption will provide significant new hope for
parents without children and significant new hope for children without parents. I commend
the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. It is the government's intention that there will be a
GP co-payment from the middle of 2015. This is the government's intention. It is also the
government's intention that we will put the legislation into the parliament and we expect that,
after appropriate consideration, the parliament will understand that Labor's debt and deficit
disaster has to be brought under control and that we need to make Medicare sustainable for
the long term. That is what this co-payment is all aboutit is about making Medicare
sustainable for the long term. As members opposite in their hearts know, a modest co-
payment is perfectly appropriate and sensible policy. It was members opposite in government
under Bob Hawke that brought in a PBS co-payment. If it is perfectly right and proper to
have a PBS co-payment, it is perfectly right and proper to have a modest Medicare co-
payment. Let me just remind members opposite of what the then health minister and Deputy
Prime Minister, Brian Howe, said back in 1991 when introducing a GP co-payment: 'The
measures being introduced in this budget relate to the preliminary findings of the national
health strategy. They are the first steps in dealing with the structural problems in the
healthcare system.' He said this strategy outlined as a priority for reform, 'the judicious use of
price signals to encourage both doctors and patients to be more selective in their use of
medical services'. Who ran the national health strategy? So not only do we have Bob Hawke
as the father of the co-payment, we have got the member for Jagajaga as the mother of the co-
payment. The real authors of the co-payment are over there. Just to remind the member for
Jagajaga, the 'judicious use of price signals to encourage both doctors and patients to be more
selective in their use of medical services' was part of the national health strategy, which the
member opposite helped to author. I do thank the member for Boothby for his question. The
government's plan for a stronger Australia is quite simple. It was outlined again and again
and again before the election and after the election. It is to stop the boats; it is to scrap the
carbon tax; it is to build the roads of the 21st century; and it is to get the budget back under
control. I can assure this parliament that this government is delivering. For almost six months
there have been no successful people-smuggling ventures to our country, thanks to the fine
work of the minister and also the professionalism of the naval, customs and police personnel
on Operation Sovereign Borders. We are scrapping the carbon tax because that will make the
average household $550 a year better off. We are cracking on with building the roads that
Labor neglected. And this budget does tackle Labor's debt and deficit disaster. The budget
had to tackle Labor's debt and deficit disaster because we just cannot go on borrowing $1
billion every month just to pay the interest on the borrowings. That is $1 billion in dead
money. Without this $1 billion a month interest bill we could fund in just a month the north-
south road which the member for Boothby is so naturally concerned about. We could fund the
Midlands Highway duplication in just two weeks without the $1 billion a month interest bill.
We could fund the Gateway Motorway upgrade in Brisbane with just one month of Labor's
interest bill. We could fund the rebuild of the Bruce Highway in just seven months of Labor's
interest bill. But we cannot spend more on schools, hospitals and roads because of Labor's
interest bill. That $1 billion a month is the price that all Australians are paying for Labor's six
years of incompetence and waste and debt and deficit disaster. I want to assure this
parliament, and through this parliament the people of Australia, that this government will
take the hard decisions necessary to put our country back on track. We will not squib them.
That is what people elected us to do. I do not assume for a second that the shadow Treasurer
has accurately characterised the comments of the Treasurer, but let me answer the question.
The government has no plans whatsoever to collect student debts from dead people. What we
do certainly intend to do is to make stronger efforts to collect student debts from living
people, because that is what the taxpayers of this country have a right to expect. I am happy
to deal with these matters, as you would expect, Madam Speaker. The Leader of the
Opposition is speculating on debt. Let me give him this fact. Under Labor's policy a family of
four would face a $100,000 share in Labor's debt bill of $667 billion. Look at the budget
figures. Under Labor's policy our gross debt would have maxed out in 10 years time at $667
billion$25,000 per Australian man, woman and child. That is the debt that this government
was elected to address and that is what we are doing. We are addressing Labor's debt and
deficit disaster. We are responding to Labor's interest bill. We are letting this country know
how we will respond to Labor's debt and deficit disaster, how we will clean up Labor's mess.
The challenge is for 'Interest Bill', sitting over there, to tell us how he would deal with
Labor's interest bill. he government has, as the member suggests, changed indexation rates at
various times from male total average weekly earnings to the consumer price index. We have
done it because we want pensions and other benefits to be sustainable for the long term. I do
not necessarily accept the analysis that the member cites, and obviously we will be looking at
that piece of analysis and we will be coming up with a response at the right time. There is
nothing wrong with changing the indexation from male total average weekly earnings to the
consumer price index. And why do I know there is nothing wrong with changing the
indexation from MTAWE to CPI? Because Labor did it. Labor did it in the budget couple of
years ago. In budget measures 2009-10, they changed the family tax benefit family payment
indexation from MTAWE to CPI. That is what they did. So not only is the member for
Jagajaga the mother of the Medicare co-payment, she is the mother of CPI indexation.
Madam Speaker, I am not going to mislead; I am going to quote what the member for
Jagajaga said at the time in 2009. She said, 'These reforms'that is, changing indexation to
CPI'are designed to ensure the current system is sustainable and provides continuing
support for families who need it most and encourage participation and productivity'. She was
honest then. She was telling the truth, and now I think she is just having Well I just think
she is playing politics now. Pensions are going up every six months. They are going up every
six months now, they will go up every six months in the future. They are going up. I just
think it would be much better for our country, it would be much better for the pensioners of
Australia, if the alternative government of our country stopped scaring pensioners and started
to tell pensioners the truth. And the truth is that pensions will go up every six months The
difference, as the member the member for Jagajaga well knows, is that indexation changes
The difference, as the member for Jagajaga well knows, is that indexation changes from male
total average weekly earnings or CPI, whichever is the greatest, to CPI. That is the difference.
As the member for Jagajaga well knows, what this government is doing is applying to
pensions the same indexation that she applied to family tax benefits. Let me tell her very
softly, because I do not want to be accused of shouting at anyone, that we are doing for
pensions exactly what she did for the family tax benefit. It is exactly the same thing. I ask the
member for Jagajaga: if it was fair for her to do this to the family tax benefit how can it be
unfair for us to do it for pensioners? How can it be fair for her to do it and somehow be unfair
for us to do it? The Prime Minister has the call and will answer the question as it has been put
to him. I have been asked a question about the indexation of pensions and I am just pointing
out that the indexation system that this government is applying to pensions is exactly the
same as the indexation system that the member for Jagajaga applied to the family tax
benefitexactly the same. The member for Jagajaga cannot help herself. What she does not
like is the fact that she has been caught out in utter hypocrisy. What members opposite cannot
stand is the fact that this government has been honest and true. Members opposite are utterly,
completely hypocritical. Hypocrisy, thy name is Labor. This really is pretty low from the
Leader of the Opposition. It really is pretty low for the Leader of the Opposition to come into
this parliament and ask this kind of question. The decisions in respect of the official
residences are all made on the basis of departmental advice. One of the very first things that I
did on winning the election was to say to the departmental officials that I was not going to
occupy the mansion that they had rented. Of all the various charges that could be levelled
against this government, this is absolutely the least sustainable. Pensions in Mallee, and
everywhere else, are going up under this government. There are 36,208 households in Mallee.
Let me repeat that. There are 36,208 households in the seat of Mallee that the member who
asked the question is so concerned about. Every one of those households could be, on
average, $550 a year better off if the member for Bendigo would do the right thing by those
36,208 households. Indeed, there are probably 36,617 households in her own seat of Bendigo.
Come on, Member for Bendigo, help those 36,617 households. Take the carbon tax burden
off their backs and do it now. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition well knows, it has
been the consistent policy of this coalition to have a fair dinkum paid parental leave
scheme because we believe that paid parental leave is a workplace entitlement not a
welfare one. I should point out that the parent earning some $55,000 would be much, much
better off under the coalition's paid parental leave scheme than under that put in place by the
former government. The Leader of the Opposition should tell the truth to the Australian
peoplePensions will go up every six months. The only difference is that, from 2017,
pensions will go up by the same indexation method that the shadow minister for social
services applied to family tax benefit. That is the truth, and the Leader of the Opposition
should stop scaring the pensioners of Australia. As for this Paid Parental Leave scheme,
which the Leader of the Opposition is a little obsessed withand I do not know why he is so
frightened of letting the women in the workplaces of Australia get a fair deal at last. I mean,
why are the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition so against the
women in the workplaces of Australia getting a fair deal at last? That is right. When the
public servants who used to work with her as a minister took paid parental leave, they got
their paid parental leave at full pay. What was wrong with that for them? If they got paid at
their full pay, why shouldn't the women working for supermarkets and factories and small
businesses right around our country? Why shouldn't they get the same deal that has long been
given to the public servants of Australia? Let us scotch this myth that somehow paid parental
leave is going to benefit wealthy women. Ninety-eight per cent of the women in the
workforce of this country earn less than $100,000, and they deserve a fair go, and they will
get a fair go under this government. There are no changes to pensions in this term of
parliament. All savings in health are being reinvested in health, and overall health spending
increases. I am happy to say that, yes, the top marginal rate of tax goes up by 2c in the dollar
for three years, and that will impact on people earning over $180,000 a year, which is less
than three per cent of all taxpayers. And indexation Yes, we have fuel excise indexation;
and, yes, in the first year that will cost the average family between 40c and 60c a week. The
truth is that all of us have to contribute to the budget repair job. We all have to contribute to
the budget repair job. The sad truth is that every single Australian is paying the price for
Labor's debt and deficit disaster. Every single Australian is paying the price for Labor's debt
and deficit disaster. Labor's interest bill is $1 billion every single month. This is the sad price
that every single Australian is having to pay to repair six years of incompetence, debt and
deficit deceit. That is the price. Do I regret this? Of course I regret it. We are all having to
pay the price of Labor's incompetence. Of course I regret it, but I make no apologies ever
everfor doing what is necessary for this country. I make no apologies whatsoever for doing
what is necessary for this country. The people of Australia elected us to fix the mess that
Labor left, and fix it we will. I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. The
Leader of the Opposition should not verbal the Minister for Communications, who said no
such thing. He said no such thing. The truth is that there is no easy way to sort out the debt
and deficit disaster that members opposite left us. There is no easy way, but this government
has explained to the Australian people how we will fix Labor's debt and deficit disaster. This
is a good budget, an honest budget and it is the right budget for this time. Now that this
government has explained how we would deal with Labor's debt and deficit disaster, the
Leader of the Opposition should explain how he will deal with Labor's debt and deficit
disaster. I thank the member for Gilmore for her question and I wish to assure her that this
government is taking important steps to strengthen our economy. We are faithfully
implementing our election commitments. Stopping the boats will save some $2.5 billion over
the next four years. Scrapping the carbon tax will save the average household $550 a year.
Building the Roads of the 21st Century will be a massive boost to productivity, because
people will not be stuck in traffic jams. We are tackling Labor's legacy of $1 billion a month
in dead moneyjust to pay the interest on Labor's borrowings. We are getting the budget
back under control. That means that health and education programs, pensions and other social
security payments will be sustainable in the long term. This is a budget for saving, but it is
also a budget for building with the largest infrastructure spend in the history of the
Commonwealth. There is the East West Link in Melbourne, the WestConnex and
NorthConnex in Sydney. There is the North-South Road in Adelaide; there is the Gateway
upgrade to the Bruce Highway in Queensland. I know the member for Gilmore will also
appreciate this: we are restoring Defence spending. It is a budget for living within our means,
but it is also a budget for playing to our strengths. The Medical Research Future Fund will,
over time, double Australia's medical research spend, and this is an important area of
comparative advantage for our country. Some eight Australian Nobel Prize winners, such as
Howard Florey the inventor of penicillin, have been medical researchers. Four Australians of
the Year in the last decade, such as Professor Ian Frazer the inventor of cervical cancer
vaccine, have been medical researchers. These investments will give us the treatments and
the cures of the futurethe treatments and the cures that our people and people right around
the world need. What we are doing is investing less in short-term consumption so that we can
put more into long-term investment. That is the overall philosophy behind this government's
budget. We are getting on with the job that the people of Australia elected us to donot to
make the easy decisions, but the necessary decisions for our country's future. Again, Madam
Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition should not promote falsehoods in this House. We
promised that the DFRDB and the DFRB pensions would be indexed by CPI or male total
average weekly earnings, whichever is the greater. We have absolutely delivered on the
policy commitments we took to the election. Again I would say to the member opposite that
we made a commitment that DFRDB and DFRB pensions would be indexed by the higher
rate, a commitment which the former government made in opposition but failed to deliver on
in government. We made that commitment in opposition and we have delivered on it in
government. Clearly the former minister realises the error in the questions that were being
asked previously. The truth is that no military pensioner will receive a worse rate of
indexation than a civilian one. Like the member who asked me the question, I want to protect
the environment. But unlike the member who asked me the question, I do not want to destroy
the economy in the process. Even the Labor Party finally worked out that any environmental
policy that closed down the coal industry was a policy that no sensible Australian government
could follow. I am all in favour of protecting our environment but I will tell you what else I
am in favour of: I am also in favour of economic growthnot just in this country but right
around the world. If we are going to have economic growthnot just in this country but right
around the worldit will require energy. It will require energy, and by far the most efficient
and effective source of baseload energy is coal. It is interesting that members of the Labor
Party are now cheering-on their Green coalition partner. Let the coal workers of Australia
know that Labor members of this parliament, by the interjections, are agreeing with that
Green up there. They want to close the coal industry down. We want the coal industry to be
an important part of Australia's economic future, and the world's, for the benefit of us and for
the benefit of people everywhere. We made a specific commitment to people on DFRDB and
DFRB pensions and we have honoured that specific commitmentwe have absolutely
honoured that specific commitment. I make the point that I made in answer to the earlier
question from the member for Lingiari: no military pensioner will receive an inferior rate of
indexation to a civilian one. Unlike members opposite who make commitments to veterans in
opposition which they break in government, we make commitments to veterans in opposition
and we have absolutely honoured them in government. The shadow minister, in common
with some of her colleagues, is attempting to demonstrate that there has been some breach of
promise. There has been none. We made a commitment to DFRDB and DFRB pensioners.
We made a commitment to those people in those particular military pensions who previously
were indexed at only CPI that they would be indexed at CPI or MTAWE, whichever was the
greater. I think the Leader of the Opposition is trying to suggest that somehow a six-week
gestation period was inadequatethis from a political party that cooked up the National
Broadband Network on the back of a coaster on a VIP flight. Really and truly! The Medical
Research Future Fund is a policy based on endowment funds that were created under the
former government and for which there is an abundance of precedent in Australian
government. If members opposite were more interested in government and less interested in
grandstanding, and if they were more interested in policy and less interested in politicking,
they would know that well. I stand by my comments, and I simply point out to the shadow
minister who asked the question: if it is right and proper for a modest co-payment to be
applied to people getting PBS drugs, how can it be wrong and immoral for people to be
charged a modest co-payment for a visit to the GP? This issue of the so-called unfairness of
co-payments. Well, how can it be unfair when Labor imposes a co-payment on
Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme drugs? How can it be fair for Labor to impose a co-payment
and unfair for the coalition to impose a co-payment? This exposes the utter, absolute and total
hypocrisy of members opposite. We all know that the father of the Medicare co-payment is
Bob Hawke; we all know that the mother of the Medicare co-payment is the member for
Jagajaga. We all know that the son of the Medicare co-payment is the member for Fraser. I
have discovered that a kind of cousin of the co-payment is in fact the member for Hunter,
who said that the co-payment decision was a very brave one, but it was justifiable; it was a
decision designed to address the ever-burgeoning cost while maintaining the scheme's most
basic aim: affordability. He was talking about the PBS, but what is right for the PBS is right
for Medicare as well. From the middle of 2016, people will pay the long-term bond rate
capped at six per cent. I was delighted to be shoulder to shoulder with the member for
Wentworth and the Minister for Communications selling the budgetall of the benefits of
this budgetjust on Saturday at the Victor Chang medical research institute, an institute
which will be one of the many beneficiaries of the Medical Research Future Fund. In any
dispute between a member of my front bench and a member of the fourth estate, I am firmly
on the side of my frontbencher. Let me make it crystal clear to the member who asked the
question: public hospital funding increases by nine per cent this year, nine per cent next year,
nine per cent the year after that and six per cent in the final year of the forward estimates.
That is the truth. The only difference between us and members opposite is that we are
slowing the rate of growth of public hospital spending in the final year of this budget's
forward estimates because we think that public hospital spending, along with everything else,
should be sustainable. It is not easy to deal with the debt and deficit disaster that the Labor
Party left us. It is not easy to deal with a situation where our country is paying $1 billion in
dead money every single month just in interest on the borrowings. It is not easy to deal with
this. But this government will do what it was elected to do and get the budget back under
control. As for the specific measure that the member who asked the question is concerned
about, this is something that the former government cut. This is a cut that the former
government made. It was not there in the pre-election fiscal outlook. It is a Labor cut, and I
say to the states and territories: 'Know who is responsible for this: it is them. It is members on
the other side of the House.' It is so typical It is so typical, I regret to say, of this opposition
leader and this opposition that they have a political critique but not an economic critique.
The reason for that is that this budget is a serious attempt to address the economic disaster
that members opposite created. This budget is a real plan, a real economic action strategy, to
deal with the predicament that this country faces as a result of six years of incompetence and
dishonesty from members opposite. We have a plan for the future of our country. All the
Leader of the Opposition has is one long complaintno solutions; all complaint. That is why
the people of Australia can trust this government. I ask that further questions be placed on
the Notice Paper. Is it 'days' or is it 'weeks'? There is a difference. This is a government
which has brought down a budget which is not only about living within our means; it is also
about playing to our strengths. And one of Australia's great strengths is medical research.
Some eight Nobel Prize winners from this country were medical researchers, including
Howard Florey, the inventor of penicillin. Over the last decade we have had some four
Australians of the year who are medical researchers, including Fiona Wood, the inventor of
plastic skin; and Ian Frazer, the inventor of the cervical cancer vaccine. We are very, very
good at medical research. We are outstanding at medical research. We are one per cent of the
world's population and we produce some five per cent of the world's refereed medical
research. This is not just a budget for saving but a budget for building. That is why I am so
proud of the Medical Research Future Fund. It will help this country and help the world in the
years and decades ahead. I thank the member for Eden-Monaro for his question. I can inform
him that the government's Economic Action Strategy is about building a strong and
prosperous economy for a safe and secure Australia. If you want a stronger economy you
have to fix the budget; and if you want to fix the budget you have to tackle Labor's debt and
deficit disaster. The former Labor government, which members opposite were part of for six
years, gave this country the six biggest deficits in our history. It increased unemployment by
200,000 as well as giving us the six biggest deficits in our history$240 billion of deficit,
almost a quarter of a trillion dollars of deficit, in Labor's six budgets. These are deficits
stretching as far as the eye can see. And every year you are in deficit adds to the debt; Labor's
debt, in a decade's time, would be $667 billion, and every dollar of debt adds to the interest
bill. The price that Australians are paying for six years of Labor incompetence is $1 billion a
month. That is just to pay the interest on Labor's borrowings. In a decade, it would have been
$3 billion a month, just to pay the interest on Labor's borrowings. The coalition did not cause
the problem but we are prepared to take responsibility for fixing it. We were elected to fix the
problem, and fix it we will. That is why this budget reduces projected maximum debt by
almost $300 billion. We will take the projected deficit in 2017-18 from about $30 billion to
under $3 billion, within sight of surplus. Less debt means lower interest rates; a lower deficit
means that we can do things like scrap the carbon tax and help households to the tune of $550
every single year. But that is not all. We have negotiated two free trade agreements, with
Korea and Japan; that means more exports. Thanks to the Minister for the Environment, we
have approved $500 billion in new projects, and that means more jobs. This is a government
with a plan, with an Economic Action Strategy. Unfortunately we have an opposition which
just has one long complaint. I am very pleased that Ambassador Najib is back in Australia. I
am obviously very pleased that I will be meeting with President Yudhoyono tomorrow,
because it is important that the relationship between Australia and Indonesia continues to
improve. This is a very important relationship; in some respects, our most important
relationship. I am determined to do everything I can to improve the relationship. I am
particularly keen to ensure that the relationship improves while President Yudhoyono is in
office, because not only has he been a great president of his country; he has also been a very
good friend to Australia. As the member opposite should know, these international
agreements sometimes take a little while to negotiate. There were free trade agreements that
members opposite tried to negotiate; they took years and years and years. It has taken a little
while to negotiate. The Indonesians took some time to give us their draft, and we are now
working on their draft. I am confident that, when the foreign ministers and the defence
ministers sit down for the two-plus-two dialogue in a few weeks' time, that would be a very
good time to finalise this code of conduct. Let's talk about the GP co-payment. The GP co-
payment is a sensible measure from this government to try to make Medicare sustainable for
the long term. How can members opposite insist that it is right to have a modest co-payment
for the PBS and it is somehow wrong to have a modest co-payment for Medicare? It just does
not add up. The member for Jagajaga likes to interject. Let me quote from the National
Health Strategy. I am quoting from a document called the National Health Strategy.
The National Health Strategy said: 'There is considerable pragmatic appeal in the use of co-
payments.' Then I read on: For further information about the National Health Strategy contact
Jenny Macklin, Director, National Health Strategy. So 'considerable pragmatic appeal in the
use of co-payments'. But it does not stop there. We know the direct ministerial author of the
co-payments was a gentleman called Brian Howe, former Deputy Prime Minister. Jenny
Macklin said of Brian Howe: Brian Howe, as many on this side will know, has been a
wonderful source of inspiration to me She went on to say: It is a great challenge now to be
able to bring those ideas into this place. She did not have the guts to do that, but this
government does. I might equally well ask the shadow minister opposite: why did the former
government introduce a PBS tax? What this government has done in respect of Medicare is
exactly what the Labor Party did in respect of the PBS. It is exactly the same. If it was right
to have a modest co-payment for the PBS, how can it be wrong to have a modest co-payment
for Medicare? When members opposite brought in a modest co-payment for the PBS they
said, 'It is to make this system sustainable, to continue to have it accessible, to continue to
have it affordable, to continue to have it universal, but to make it sustainable.' It is exactly the
same argument, exactly the same ethical and moral considerations, which have led us to do
exactly the same for Medicare which the Labor Party did for the PBSexactly the same for
Medicare. The former Prime Minister Bob Hawke, the former Deputy Prime Minister Brian
Howe, the former director of the national health strategy, the member for Jagajagawe are
doing for Medicare exactly what they proposed. We are doing for Medicare exactly what
Labor's Assistant Treasurer proposesthat is, to make this great Medicare system of ours
sustainable for the long term. Madam Speaker, when we are talking about public hospital
funding from this government, there is a nine per cent increase this year, a nine per cent
increase the year after, a nine per cent increase the year after that, and a six per cent increase
in the final year of the budget. What is so wrong with nine per cent, nine per cent, nine per
cent and six per cent? Where is the problem? We are increasing public hospital funding.
Every single year, public hospital funding increases: by nine per cent this year, by nine per
cent next year, by nine per cent the year after that and by six per cent the year after that. The
difference between this government and members opposite is that we want public hospital
funding to be sustainable. We want public hospital funding to be sustainable. As for subacute
beds, that was funding that the former government did not see fit to put in the Pre-election
Economic and Fiscal Outlook. It did not see fit to put it in the pre-election fiscal outlook. All
we get from members opposite is no solutions; all complaint. They are running the national
complaints bureau and, frankly, the people of Australia are looking for better. The shadow
minister is labouring under a misapprehension. I presume he would not be telling a deliberate
untruth, but the simple reality is that, every year, school and hospital funding increases under
this government. Every year, school and hospital funding increases under this government.
Public hospitals: nine per cent this year, nine per cent next year, nine per cent the year after
that and six per cent in the final year. And, from memory, for schools funding it is eight per
cent this year, eight per cent next year, eight per cent the year after that and four per cent the
year after that. So we are continuing to generously fund public schools and public hospitals.
In fact, when it comes to public schools in Queensland, we are doing so much better than
members opposite. The Leader of the Opposition neglected to put $1.2 billion into the Pre-
election Economic and Fiscal Outlooksimple truth. He cannot help himself. He is
constantly interjecting, but I am afraid he is just embarrassed about the fact that he was not
strong enough to keep $1.2 billion in the pre-election fiscal outlook. That is $1.2 billion
ripped off from Queensland schools by that Leader of the Opposition and put back by this
government. I want to assure the member opposite that in fact Commonwealth funding to the
ACT increases every single year under the budget that this government has just brought
down. I do not have the figures at my fingertips, but I did look at them yesterday and, from
memory, Commonwealth funding to the ACT increases by three per cent every year under
this budget. In tough times like this, that is a pretty good deal. We all know where the
problem is: it is members opposite, who are in denial about the debt and deficit disaster that
this country faces because of six years of incompetence. For the benefit of the member who
asked the question, this year there is a nine per cent increase in public hospital funding. Next
year it is nine per cent and the year after that it is nine per cent and, in the final year, it is six
per cent. When it comes to public schools, this year it is an eight per cent increase Next
year it is an eight per cent increase and the year after that it is an eight per cent increase.
Madam Speaker, I got it wrong: it is not a four per cent increase; it is actually a six per cent
increase for public schools in the final year. This is a government which is sustainably
supporting the great public schools and the great public hospitals of this country. What we are
not doing is pretending that we can forever put the mortgage on the bankcard and that is what
members opposite tried to do. And that is why this country is now paying $1 billion every
single month in interest on the borrowings. That is the price that every single Australian has
to pay for Labor's incompetence. We did not create the problem, but we will fix it. The
shadow minister should just for once tell the truth. The truth is that there is a nine per cent
increase this year, a nine per cent increase next year, a nine per cent increase the year after
that and a six per cent increase in the final year. Hospital funding goes up substantially every
single year. The shadow minister for foreign affairs should stop trying to scare the patients of
Australia. She should come up with some solutions and put the complaints aside. If she is
serious about replacing the Leader of the Opposition, she might as well start with a few ideas
of her own. I am happy to take the question because, underneath the attempted humour, I
presume there is a serious intent. The member asking the question wants to know what the
policies of the United States government and the Australian government on climate change
have in common. I can tell him that there is no carbon tax in the United States. There is no
emissions trading scheme in the United States. This government is determined to ensure that
there will be no carbon tax or emissions trading scheme here in Australia. What the United
States is doing is taking sensible direct action steps to reduce its emissions, which is exactly
what this government is proposing to do. We are proposing to put sensible measures in place
to protect our environment. It is not sensible to protect the environment by damaging the
economy, and that is why neither the United States nor Australia should have a carbon tax.
Madam Speaker, I rise on indulgence to acknowledge the passing of Sir Jack Brabham AO
OBE. Sir Jack was an Australian legend. He was indeed one of a kind. He served in the Royal
Australian Air Force before becoming a giant of motor racing. He won the Formula One
World Championship in 1959. He was first Australian to win that particular title, and he won
again in 1960. In 1966 he won his third world championship, driving a car that he had built
himself. Nobody had ever won a championship in their own car before and nobody has done
it since. He also took out the Constructors Championship in 1966 and in 1967. Sir Jack was
always willing to have a go and was named Australian of the Year in 1966, a National
Treasure in 2012 and was the first driver in history to be knighted for his services to
motorsport. He was respected and admired for his spirit and for his great skill as an engineer
and, at all times, he was the quintessential gentleman, charming and patient to a fault with his
fans. He was a champion driver, an engineer and, more recently, a champion for macular
degeneration awareness. To his wife, Margaret, and to his sons the government extends its
deepest sympathies. I do thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. There is a
serious and deteriorating situation in Iraq. A radical Islamist groupa group so extreme that
it is a splinter group from al-Qaedaoriginating in Syria, has now made major advances
across wide swathes of Iraq. This is a very concerning development. It seems that this group
has proceeded through Iraq with maximum violence and terror to the civilian population and
has behaved with extraordinary brutality towards surrendering Iraqi soldiers and policemen.
There are reports that the Iraqi security forces have rallied somewhat, but at the moment
those reports are sketchy. This is a very, very concerning situation. As things stand, it is a
humanitarian disaster for the people of those sections of Iraq which have now fallen under the
control of this group. Should the control of this group be consolidated, we are faced with the
situation of a terrorist statea terrorist state with considerable sway over parts of a quite
sophisticated country. Not only is it a humanitarian disaster for the people of those sections of
Iraq but also it is a security disaster for the Middle East and also for the wider world. As you
would expect, there was discussion between myself, and members of my party, and senior
figures in the United States. It is, as you would expect, the sort of thing that is natural
between two very, very close allies. The United States is weighing its options. It is
considering the situation, and consultations between Australia and the United States will
continue. This is a serious situation. No-one should underestimate the difficulty that this
development poses to the people of Iraq, to the people of the Middle East and ultimately to
the people of the whole world. I thank the member for Petrie for his question. He is right: the
government has said we are in the business of building a strong and prosperous economy for
a safe and secure Australia. In particular, pre-election, the government said that we would
stop the boats, we would scrap the carbon tax, we would build the roads of the 21st century
and we would get the budget back under control. That is what we said we would do and since
the election we have been purposefully setting about doing just that. For almost six months,
there have been no successful people-smuggling venturesarrive in Australia. Within the
next month or so the carbon tax should be abolished and that will save the average Australian
household some $550 a year. This is the best thing we can do right now to reduce cost-of-
living pressures on Australian families. Very soon, work will be underway on the major roads
that the government committed to, pre-election, and, thanks to the recent budget, we are now
back on track for sustainable surpluses. I regret to say that the former government gave us the
six biggest deficits in Australia's history. The former government gave us debt and deficit
stretching out as far as the eye can see. The policies of the former government would have
given us $123 billion in cumulative deficits over the next four years and debt peaking at $667
billion. Because of the position the former government left our country in right now the
Australian people, through the Commonwealth budget, are spending a billion dollars on
interest alone every month. We are spending a billion dollars in interest alone every month.
That is a billion dollars in dead money because of the spending spree of the former
government. Thanks to this budget, we will be in a situation that is very close to balanced by
2017-18 and gross debt will be $300 billion less than would have been the case under
members opposite. It is not easy to repair the fiscal disasterthe debt-and-deficit disaster
that we have inherited from members opposite. We never said it would be easy. We did say it
would be done and done it will be under this government. I do acknowledge the work that the
cleaners of our country do and I particularly acknowledge the work that the cleaners around
this building do including Lucia, Anna, Maria and the other hardworking cleaners that do
such an extraordinary job in cleaning our own offices. I want to make it absolutely crystal
clear that no cleaner's pay is reduced. Every cleaner continues to be paid under the relevant
industrial instrument and no cleaner in this country can be employed at other than the award
or above. No-one can be employed at other than the award or above and the Leader of the
Opposition should not go around this country scaring people. But that is the tragic pass to
which members opposite have come: all they can do is scare. They have no solutions, just
complaints, and the people of Australia are entitled to better from the Leader of the
Opposition. The assertions in the Leader of the Opposition's question are simply untrue. They
are simply false. The assertions claimed by the Leader of the Opposition are simply untrue.
He can chatter away across the dispatch box, but all of the talkAll of the interjections from
the Leader of the Opposition, who just cannot control himself sitting there, do not make his
assertions true. No cleaner can be paid at other than the award or above. That is the simple
truth. No cleaner in this country can be paid at other than the award or above. That is the
truth, and nothing that this government has said changes that. I do thank the member for his
question. I do look forward to working with him for the abolition of the carbon tax, and I do
look forward to his support for the abolition of the carbon tax when the Senate changes in just
a couple of weeks time. I want to assure the member that we will abolish the carbon tax,
because I share his concerns about the impact of the carbon tax on the people of this country,
particularly the impact of the carbon tax upon the people of Western Australia and
Queensland. We will rescue them from this toxic tax. We will. We will absolutely rescue
them from this carbon tax. We said we would scrap the carbon tax before the election. Even
members opposite said that they were going to terminate the carbon tax. It is just that they
said one thing before the election and did the opposite after the electionas always. So I am
happy to say that the Leader Let me conclude by assuring the member who asked the
question that when it comes to the carbon tax it seems that he and I are on precisely the same
page. Let me make two observations in response to the shadow Treasurer's question. First of
all he is simply wrong when he talks about pensioners. Pensions go up every six months.
They go up every six months; they went up in March by about $14 for a single pensioner.
They will go up by roughly the same amount later in the year. Every six months pensions will
increase. Yes, in 2017 the rate of indexation will be by CPI rather than by CPI or male total
average weekly earnings. But what is wrong with indexing by the very index that members
opposite, when they were in government, applied to family tax benefit? If it is wrong to index
pensions by CPI, why did members opposite index the family tax benefit by CPI? How can it
be wrong to index pensions by CPI, and right to index family tax benefit by CPI?because
that is exactly what members opposite did. We will fairly index pensions, and pensions will
go up every six months. Members opposite should stop scaring the pensioners of Australia.
They really should stop scaring the pensioners of Australia. As for paid parental leave, I am
very proud to believe that, for the first time, the women of Australia should have access to a
fair dinkum paid parental leave scheme. I am very proud that we are responsible for what will
be a watershed economic and social policy advance, because, unlike members opposite, we
think that paid parental leave is a workplace entitlement. It is a workplace entitlement, not a
welfare entitlement. We took it to the 2010 election, we took it to the 2013 election, and we
will deliver it. The principle that the Leader of the Opposition is apparently supporting is that
public servants should get a better deal than the people of Australia. The principle the Leader
of the Opposition is apparently supporting is that his staff should get a paid parental leave
scheme that pays them at their real wage but the people of Australia should not. That is what
the Leader of the Opposition is saying. The Leader of the Opposition is saying that his staff
should get a better scheme than the people of Australia. That is the real unfairness. What I am
saying, what this government is saying, is that everyone should get access to paid parental
leave at their wage, because this should be a workplace entitlement. I would have thought
that members opposite, if they were fair dinkum about doing the right thing by the workers of
Australia, would want to see people who were on parental leave paid at their real wage. If
you get paid at your real wage when you go on holiday, if you get paid at your real wage
when you get sick pay, if you get paid at your real wage when you take long-service leave,
then surely you should get paid at your real wage on paid parental leave. The best way to
ensure that this is properly funded is to make sure that the biggest companies in Australia pay
it. I am very happy to get questions from the Leader of the Opposition on this subject; I really
am, because this is an important social and economic reform and it will be delivered by this
government. I can only assume that should the current opposition ever come back into
government that they would change the public service rules to prevent public servants from
being paid at their wage when they take paid parental leave. The only conclusion we can
draw from the repeated attacks by the opposition on the government's policy to ensure that
the rest of the population get the same benefits that public servants get is that they want to
take these benefits away from public servants. That is the only conclusion that can be drawn.
This government's position is absolutely crystal clear: if it is right for public servants to go on
paid parental leave at their wage, it is right for the workers of Australia to go on paid parental
leave at their wage. And as for pensioners: well, if the member were fair dinkum about
looking after pensioners she would vote to abolish the carbon tax. That is what she would do!
If members opposite were fair dinkum about helping the families, the pensioners and the
households of Australia they would do what they said they would do before the election and
terminate the carbon tax. Of course, they love the carbon tax. They love the fact that the
households of Australia are $550 a year worse off as a result of their carbon tax. This
government will save the people of Australia from this carbon tax and deliver $550 a year
that the people of Australia absolutely deserve. Again, members of the opposition are
spreading untruths. It is as simple as that. The member who asked the question has said
something about pensions which is simply are true, because pensions will go up every six
months of every year. Back in March, the single pension increased by $14 a fortnight. The
married rate increased by, I think, $11 for each member of a married couple. Increases of this
order will take place later this year, twice next year and twice the year after that. Every six
months the pension goes up. What has happened is that the government will, over time,
somewhat reduce the rate of growththe reason being that we do need to address the debt
and deficit disaster that members opposite left us. This is the problem. The problem is that we
are paying $1 billion a month in interestthat is $1 billion in dead moneybecause of the
debt and deficit disaster that members opposite left us. We have a plan to fix this; all Labor
has is a complaint. Once upon at a time, we had serious people in the Labor Party. When the
Labor Party was led by people like Bob Hawke and Paul Keating, they had some serious
answers for our country. They were prepared to take some tough decisions to reform our
nation and to help set up the prosperity of the future. I regret to say: how a mighty party has
fallen. This government will do what is necessary to put our future on a sound and
sustainable basisbecause that is exactly what the people of Australia elected us to do. We
will not shirk the task. Every time members opposite make untrue statements, it is an
opportunity for the government to repeat the truth. The truth is that pensions go up now, they
will continue to go up in the future and they will always go up. They will always go up under
this government. What will not continue to go up under this government is debt and deficit.
The reason we needed to make the changes we have made in this budget is that, as things
werewith the debt and deficit disaster that members opposite had bequeathed this nation
so much that we cherish, so much that we value and so much that makes us special as a
country was becoming unsustainable. It was simply becoming unsustainable. When you are
borrowing $1 billion every single month just to pay the interest on Labor's borrowings, you
have to make some tough decisions. That is what this government was elected to do. We have
not shirked the tough decisions. We have done precisely what the people of Australia asked
us to doto put this country back onto a sustainable path to a surplus. Yet again there are
assertions in the question which are simply untrue. I ask the member who has asked the
question to demonstrate where her claim is justified because there are no changes to carers as
a result of the budget. We made commitments to carers, pre-election, and those commitments
will be kept. They will be kept because this is a government which keeps its commitments.
One of our commitments was to a fair dinkum paid parental leave scheme I say to the
member who asked me the question: why does she think that her staff should have access to
paid parental leave at their wage and not the rest of the people? I can understand why
members opposite are touchy about this, because what they want is fundamentally unfair.
They want one standard for public servants and a worse standard for the people of Australia. I
think there should be one fair standard for all the people of Australia. If you go on paid
parental leave you should be paid at your wage. The caterwauling from members opposite,
the barrage of interjections from the Leader of the Opposition and others, demonstrate just
how touchy they are, just how hypersensitive they are on this point. Why does the Leader of
the Opposition think that his staff should be paid paid parental leave at their wage and not the
rest of the people of Australia? If it is fair for public servants it is fair for the people of
Australia. That is why we took this commitment to the 2010 election, we took it to the 2013
election and we will deliver on it, because the people of Australia deserve a fair system of
paid parental leave. This government has not reduced the pay of any cleaner full stop, end of
story. This government has not reduced the pay of any cleaner. The Leader of the Opposition,
who cannot help interjecting, should stop telling untruths. He should stop telling untruths.
And let me repeat yet again quite slowly for the Leader of the Opposition: no cleaner in this
country can be employed other than under an industrial award or agreement. No cleaner
can be employed other than on the basis of the award or better. That is the simple truth now,
it was the simple truth yesterday and it will be the simple truth tomorrow. The trouble with
this Leader of the Opposition is that he is always trying to distort the truth. He is always
trying to promote a scare. This is a Leader of the Opposition who has no solutions, just
complaints. I certainly want to see a more egalitarian society. Of course I want to see a more
egalitarian society; we all want to see a more egalitarian society This government has been
in power for hardly nine months. Members opposite were in power for six years prior to that.
The social problems that the Leader of the Opposition has discerned are problems that were
created by his own government. That is the problem. This Leader of the Opposition has no
plan for the future; he simply has a complaint. This government does have a plan. We have a
plan for a stronger economy and the way to get a stronger economy is to get a stronger
budget. This is a fundamentally fair budget. It is a budget where everyone is playing his or
her part. Yes, the top three per cent of taxpayers will face a deficit levy. They will pay, as
they should. Members of parliament will pay because there will be a pay freeze. Motorists
will pay through fuel indexation excise. Everyone is doing his or her bit. This is a budget for
our country. This is a budget for the long-term benefit of our country. This is the kind of
budget that only a strong and committed government could deliver, but this is the budget that
the Australian people elected us to bring down. We said we would fix Labor's debt and deficit
disaster and that is precisely what we are doing. In response to the falsehoods of the Leader
of the Opposition, I make two points. In response to the Leader of the Opposition's
falsehoods I make two points. First, this government was elected to deal with the debt and
deficit disaster that members opposite created. That is the first point I make. The second point
I make is: when it comes to public hospitals, funding goes up nine per cent this year, nine per
cent next year, nine per cent the year after that and six per cent in the fourth year. In respect
to public schools, funding goes up eight per cent this year, eight per cent next year, eight per
cent the year after that and six per cent in the fourth year. Every single year, spending on
health and education goes up. That is why the question from the Leader of the Opposition is
just a farrago of falsehoods. I thank the member for McPherson for her question. Like
everyone on this side of the House, she is very conscious of the promise we made to the
people before the election: to build a strong and prosperous economy for a safe and secure
Australia. If you want a stronger economy, you have to build a stronger budget and that is
precisely what this government has delivered. Instead of debt and deficit stretching out as far
as the eye can see, instead of $120 billion of cumulative deficits, instead of debt peaking at
$667 billion, this budget brings us back to balance within four years. This budget reduces
debt by almost $300 billion. This is an honest budget. It does not fake up a surplus by
cooking the books and fiddling the figures. Above all else, this budget addresses the problem
of dead moneythe one billion dollars in interest repayments every single month that this
Commonwealth is paying because of the Leader of the Opposition and members opposite.
If we did not have the billion dollars in dead money thanks to Labor's debt and deficit disaster
we could, as the Leader of the House says, build the north-south corridor in just one month. If
we did not have this dead interest money we could upgrade the Gateway Motorway in
Brisbane in just one month. In six months we could rebuild the Bruce Highway and in a little
over a month we could do the range crossing at Toowoomba. In a month we could rebuild
Hobart hospital. I know the member for McPherson, as an engineer and chairman of the
public works committee, wants to get these things built. They will be built so much more
quickly when we are no longer paying off Labor's debt. This is a budget that tackles the
problems that members opposite left us. This is a government with a plan to make our
country strong. All we have from members opposite is a scare and a complaint with no
solutions. You cannot trust Labor with national security and you cannot trust Labor with our
nation's economy. Yet again, more falsehoods from members opposite. There are no cuts to
pensions. Pensions go up every single six months; every six months pensions will increase. In
March, pensions go up; in September, pensions go up. Every March and every September,
pensions go up. The member for Hunter should not run around this country scaring the
pensioners of Australia. What this government is doing is making the pension sustainable. If
there is one thing that threatened the sustainability of our pension system, it is the debt and
deficit disaster which members opposite left us. When it comes to roads, I am very proud to
say that this budget is the greatest road building budget in Australia's history. There are few
things that are better for country Australia than new roads, and that is what the people of
Australia will get in spades under this government. Let me repeat there are no cuts to
pensionsnone. There are no cuts to pensions. In March every year pensions go up; in
September every year pensions go up. Every year. It is true that in 2017 the indexation rate
changes. It is true that the indexation rate changes after the next election. What we are doing
is applying to pensions the same indexation rate that the Labor Party applied to the family tax
benefit. If the indexation rate is fair applying to the family tax benefit, then it is also fair
applying to the pension. I want to make absolutely crystal clear to the pensioners of Australia
that their pensions are safe with this government. I want the young people of Australia to get
the best possible start in life. I have to say that no-one should start their adult life on social
security. We want the young people of Australia to be either earning or learning and, thanks
to the changes in this budget, the chances to learn are absolutely unprecedented. Thanks to
the changes in this budget, there are more opportunities to learn than ever before. We will be
making available Trade Support Loans to apprentices and we will be applying to non-degree
courses the same kind of fee help that has long been available to people doing degrees. It is a
fairer, better system as a result of the changes that this government has put in place under the
budget. Madam Speaker, there are no broken promises. There are no broken promises. We
made it absolutely crystal clear pre-election that we were not committed to Labor's
unsustainable pie-in-the-sky promises for the out years. We made it absolutely crystal clear
that we were not committed. I have been asked about our budget and the New South Wales
budget. Let me make it absolutely clear: as a result of this government's budget, total
Commonwealth funding to New South Wales increases by $5.8 billion$5.8 billion of
increased funding as a result of our budget. Year on year, hospital funding grows by eight per
cent, 10 per cent, 10 per cent and eight per cent. Year on year, schools funding grows by
seven per cent, eight per cent, nine per cent and six per cent. This Commonwealth
government is investing almost $15 billion to build the infrastructure of the 21st century for
New South Wales. That includes $2.9 billion for our Western Sydney infrastructure plan; it
includes $5.6 billion to complete the duplication of the Pacific Highway; it includes $1.5
billion plus a concessional loan of up to $2 billion for the WestConnex project. I applaud the
budget that the New South Wales government has just brought downI really do applaud it.
I particularly applaud their emphasis on infrastructure. Let me say: this infrastructure Prime
Minister is helping that infrastructure government to the right thing by the people of New
South Wales. What this government wants to do is establish fairness. It is not fair that the
staff of the member who just asked this question get access to paid parental leave at their
wage and people working as shop assistants in milk bars, in the small businesses of country
Australia do not. What I want to do is to ensure that there is fairness across urban and
regional Australia by ensuring that every Australian gets access to a fair dinkum paid parental
leave scheme. I know that members opposite are disappointed that they did not have the guts
to think of this and put it forward as policy. That is the truth, Madam Speaker. Why should
public servants have access to paid parental leave at their wage and not the rest of Australia?
Why should the Leader of the Opposition's staff have access to paid parental leave at their
wage and not the rest of Australia? So I want one rule for everyone and that rule is that paid
parental leave should be paid at a person's wage. People get paid holiday pay at their wage,
they get paid sick pay at their wage, they get paid long service leave at their wage and,
finally, under this government, they will get paid parental leave at their wage. That is fair.
That is just. That is modern. It is social reform and it is economic reform, and it will be
delivered by this government. The great thing about our paid parental leave scheme is that it
extends the fundamental principle that people should be paid parental leave at their wage,
from the Public Service here in Canberra to the country areas of Australia. That is what it
does. It establishes the same rule for the whole country that, when you go on paid parental
leave, you get paid at your wage. Not just as a public servant in Canberra and not just as a
high-priced city lawyer or accountant but as a hardworking small-business employee in
country Australia, at last you get paid your paid parental leave at your wage. Under us, right
around Australia, parental leave is a workplace entitlement, not a welfare entitlement. It is
just, it is fair, it is modern, it will be delivered by this government and it establishes fairness
between city and country Australiaat last. The figure that the member for Ballarat cites was
not in a Labor budget. There were unsustainable, undeliverable, pie-in-the-sky promises that
were only made by the former government because they knew they would never be called
upon to deliver them. Let us make it absolutely crystal clear for the umpteenth time: under
this government public hospital funding increases every year; under this government health
spending increases every year; and public hospital funding goes up nine per cent this year,
nine per cent next year, nine per cent the year after that and six per cent in the fourth year.
The member opposite can bellow all she likes, but the fact is that public hospital spending
and health spending go up every year. The difference is that our spending is sustainable in a
way that the former government's was not, because this coalition government is tackling the
debt and deficit disaster which members opposite are so rightly embarrassed about. They are
rightly embarrassed about the debt and deficit disaster that they bequeathed to the nation that
means that every single month we are now paying $1 billion in dead money that we should
not have to pay. Just think how much better we could do when it comes to building new
public hospitals if we were not wasting $1 billion every single month because people like the
member that asked that this question were just out-and-out incompetent and utterly
untrustworthy. It is fair and it is affordable. It is fair because it delivers paid parental leave to
the whole of Australia, not just to the public servants who work for members opposite. It is
affordable because it is paid for by a modest levy on the 3,000 most profitable and largest
companies in our country. So it is fair, it is affordable and it is just. It should be delivered
because we have promised it at not one but two elections, and it will be delivered under this
government. The logic of members opposite is that it is all right for public servants to be paid
at their wage but somehow it is wrong for shop assistants, people working in small business
and all of those decent, hardworking women working in the suburbs of Brisbane, Sydney and
elsewhere and in regional towns. How can members opposite claim to be friends of the
workers of Australia when they do not want female workers to get paid parental leave at their
wage? How can they? Really and truly, why is it fair for the Leader of the Opposition's staff
to get paid parental leave at their wage and not every other Australian? It is simply not fair. I
will make three points in response to the Leader of the Opposition. First of all, fuel excise
indexation was first introduced by the Labor Party. So how can they be so upset by
something that they themselves invented? The second point I make is that every single cent
that is raised by fuel excise indexation will be hypothecated to roads, and thatand this is
my third pointis a very good deal for country Australia. I was asked about country
Australia, and I am explaining how this is a great budget for country Australia, because at
long last, as a result of this budget, we duplicate the Pacific Highway, we upgrade the Bruce
Highway, we upgrade the Midland Highway, and we build the Toowoomba Range crossing.
This is a budget that delivers in spades for country Australia. We are reorganising more than
a hundred separate programs into five. That is why we believe that we can make modest
savings in this area and still deliver more to the Indigenous people of our country. The
trouble with members opposite is that they spent money but they did not get outcomes. That
is the sad truth. When it comes to Indigenous affairs, more than most, they spent money
without getting outcomes. This is a government which is determined to get outcomes. We are
still spending the money but we are doing it more efficiently. In my portfolio alone, more
than $2 billion a year is spent under this budget. In the Health portfolio alone, almost $1
billion a year is spent on Indigenous health. We will spend the money, but we will do it
efficiently, we will do it effectively. That is what the Indigenous people of this country
deserve. We said we would fix the mess. We said we would fix the mess, and wasn't there a
messdebt and deficit disaster stretching out as far as the eye can see? Let's remind
members opposite of exactly their own record: six budgets, the six biggest deficits in
Australia's history and not a surplus in sight. In case the Leader of the Opposition has
forgotten, let me remind him what this government promised repeatedly before the election.
We promised that we would stop the boats, and the boats are stopping. We promised that we
would scrap the carbon tax, and, Senate permitting, that will happen within a month. We
promised that we would build the road to the 21st century, and that is already happening. And
we said we would get the budget back under control. Members opposite promised a surplus
year in, year out. The Leader of the Opposition even misused taxpayer funding, telling his
electorate that a surplus had actually been delivered. I am afraid members opposite are
obviously coming to the end of their tether. This question time is obviously overtaxing
members opposite. The Leader of the Opposition did not just promise a budget surplus; he
claimed it had actually been delivered. The Leader of the Opposition was a serial misleader
of the Australian people. He was serially incapable of telling the truth. He did not tell the
truth to Julia Gillard. He did not tell the truth to Kevin Rudd. He does not tell the truth to
anyone. We said we would fix up the budget mess, and that is exactly what this government
is doing. Like the member who was asked the question, I value and appreciate the great work
that our tradies do. I appreciate the need for proper training systems. The problem is that for
all their talk, members opposite were much better at spending money than they were at
getting a result. Under the policies of members opposite, some 50 per cent of apprentices
never completed their training. So what we want is a better training system. Members
opposite actually cut $2.4 billion for skills training in the 2012 MYEFO. Members opposite
promised 2,650 trade training centres. They delivered fewer than 350 of those. I want to
assure the House that, under this government, money will be invested sensibly and good
results will be achieved. We will spend some $5 billion on training over the forward
estimates period. Very importantly, we will be giving trainees access to trade support loans
because they deserve support on the same basis that university students have. We want a fair
system, a good system, a flexible system and a productive system. That is what people will
get under this government. I thank the member for Capricornia for her question. It is an
excellent question. I can assure her that this government were elected to do a number of very
important things. We were elected to scrap the carbon tax, because that will save households
$550 a year. We were elected to stop the boats, because that will stop the deaths and also save
some $2.5 billion over four years. We were elected to build the infrastructure of the 21st
century, because, thanks to the neglect of state Labor governments, Australia's roads have
been turned into the world's longest parking lot. We were elected above all else to clean up
Labor's budget mess which had given us the sixth biggest deficits in history, deficits
stretching out as far as the eye can see and debts peaking at $670 billion. As a result of
Labor's budget mess, the Commonwealth is currently borrowing $1 billion every single
month. We are borrowing $1 billion every single month just to pay the interest on Labor's
debt. That is dead money. Think what we could do if we were not paying $1 billion every
single month just to cover the interest on Labor's debt. Within a year we could fully fund the
upgrade of the Bruce Highway. Within two months we could fully fund the Toowoomba
range crossing. Within three months we could pay for the Western Sydney infrastructure
package. Within six months we could fund the duplication of the Pacific Highway. In over 12
months we could fund the East West Link in Melbourne. In one month we could fund the
north-south road in Adelaide. In a month we could fund the Gateway Motorway upgrade in
Brisbane. In just two weeks we could fund the Midland Highway project in Tasmania. In less
than a week we could fund the Commonwealth Games on the Gold Coast. In less than a
month we could fund the Perth Gateway and in another month we could more than fund the
Swan Valley bypass. I say to the member for Grayndler that the Labor Party were economic
vandals in office and in opposition they are even worse. The Leader of the Opposition is
groaning and moaning on the other side of the ministerial table. He is all complaint and no
solution. Members opposite stand for bigger deficits, more debt and open borders. This is the
right budget for Australia because it tackles Labor's debt and deficit disaster. As for the figure
that the Leader of the Opposition bandies about, I challenge him to produce one of the Labor
Party's budgets which has that figure in it. I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to come
up with a single Labor budget with that figured in it. There is no cut because there was no
budget that contained it from members opposite. There is no Labor budget that made the
commitment that the Leader of the Opposition refers to. This was a pie-in-the-sky,
undeliverable promise from the Labor Party, that was never contained in any single budget.
When it comes to schools, let me be very clear, there is an eight per cent increase this year, an
eight per cent increase next year, an eight per cent increase the year after that, and a six per
cent increase in the final year. When it comes to public hospitals, there is a nine per cent
increase this year, a nine per cent increase next year, a nine per cent increase the year after
that, and a six per cent increase in the final year. On the question of indexation, members
opposite changed the indexation of the family tax benefit from male total average weekly
earnings to CPI. Members opposite demonstrated by their actions that the CPI is a fair
indexation system. If it was fair for members opposite to do it for the family tax benefit, it is
fair for this government to do it to other benefits. If it was fair for Labor to do it, it is fair for
the coalition to do it. This is a fair budget, an honest budget, and above all else, it is the right
budget for Australia because it deals with Labor's debt and deficit disaster. We have our plan
to deal with Labor's debt and deficit disaster. We have demonstrated how we are going to
clean up Labor's mess. It is about time that Labor demonstrated how they will clean up the
mess they created. I am pleased that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has asked me about
the New South Wales budget, because the budget that the New South Wales treasurer has
brought down is a very good budget. It builds on the outstanding work of the former
treasurer, now Premier Mike Baird, who is really doing very good work indeed.
Commonwealth funding to New South Wales is increasing by $5.8 billion thanks to the
budget that we brought down. Commonwealth spending to New South Wales is up by $5.8
billion thanks to the budget that this Commonwealth government brought down a few weeks
ago, and that is $1.4 billion more than would have been the case under the policies of
members opposite. Right around this country, thanks to the budget that we brought down, the
states will be $9 billion better off over the next four years. This is a bonanza for the state
governments under this government; it is an infrastructure bonanza. It is not just
unsustainable recurrent spending, because this government is shifting spending out of short-
term consumption and into long-term investment, because that is what we want to do. We
want to build a strong and prosperous economy so that over the long term our country will be
safe and secure. Again, for the benefit of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, in New South
Wales, year on year, hospital funding grows by eight per cent, 10 per cent, 10 per cent and
eight per cent. In New South Wales, year on year, schools funding grows by seven per cent,
eight per cent, nine per cent and six per cent. This Commonwealth government is investing
$15 billion in infrastructure in New South Wales. I am very proud of that, because there is a
terrible infrastructure gap in New South Wales because of the neglect of members opposite.
Because of the neglect of members opposite, roads in Sydney are some of the world's longest
car parks. Well, that is going to change under this government. I am determined to be the
infrastructure Prime Minister, and I am proud that with the help of this government Mike
Baird will be the infrastructure Premier. I thank the member for Denison for his question. Of
course he has a perfect right to bring petitions to this parliament on any subject at any time,
and I respect the member's commitment to the environment. But I do say, in response to the
member for Denison, that I too am a conservationist and I regard myself as as much of a
conservationist as any member of this parliament. The challenge that all of us in this
parliament face in respect of the great state of Tasmania is to try to ensure that the great state
of Tasmania is an economy as well as a national park. We need to ensure that the great state
of Tasmania is a strong economy as a well as a beautiful national park. We need to ensure
that the great state of Tasmania is a good place to work as well asI understand and
appreciate and share the commitment of the member for Denison to Tasmania's forests. They
are great renewable resources as well as pristine and beautiful places, and I want the people
of Tasmania to be able to work in forests as well as to walk in forests. I want people to be
able to make a living from forests as well as to appreciate their natural beauty. This is a
question of getting the balance right, and the member for Denison can trust this government
to do just that. For the benefit of the person who asked the question, let me repeat that every
year school and hospital funding goes up under this government, and every year school and
hospital money for the state governments goes up. The shadow Treasurer really should quote
more completely if he is going to be taken seriously. If he wants to quote one, let me quote
another. The Deutsche Bank Research Report 2014-15, released yesterday, stated: We note
that Commonwealth grants to New South Wales have actually increased over the forward
projection period, relevant to the 2013-14 budget update. This government is not only
delivering more money to schools and hospitals but it is also tackling Labor's debt and deficit
disaster. That is why it is not only an honest budget, not only a truthful budget, but it is the
budget Australia needs for these times. I can understand why the Leader of the Opposition is
a bit obsessed with the member for Perthbecause she is the member who wants to scrap the
mining tax! The newsletter put out by the Minister for Foreign Affairs is entirely accurate. It
is entirely accurate because we are improving indexation for the DFRDB and the DFRB
pensionsas we promised. We are delivering precisely on our promise. But when it comes to
dodgy newsletters, what about the Leader of the Opposition's? His newsletterI must say
that he looks a bit younger in the photograph in that newsletter; the pressure is getting to
himfrom 2012 promised, in big print on the front page, 'a budget surplus for a strong
economy'. When? Throughout this mendacious documentWhen it comes to newsletters, the
Leader of the Opposition is an absolutely serial deceiver of his electorate and a serial
deceiver of the Australian people. If you cannot trust the Leader of the Opposition even to get
a question right, why would you ever trust him with the future of this country? Any letter that
this government sends to people will at least be truthful, unlike the Leader of the Opposition's
letter claiming, in 2012, that a budget surplus had been delivered. Is that true? Something else
the Leader of the Opposition sent out to the public of Australia-I don't want to display it, but I
am reading from it: 'Carbon tax abolished'. I stand amazed at the question from the Leader of
the Opposition given that he sent material out to the people of Australia claiming 'carbon
tax abolished'. Really and truly. The barefaced gall. The absolute hide. The sheer front of this
person. An absolute serial deceiver of the Australian peoplejust as he was a serial deceiver
of former Prime Minister Rudd and former Prime Minister Gillard. Really and truly. For this
Leader of the Opposition, for this serial deceiver of the Australian people, to complain about
a letter that might be sent out by this government to tell the Australian peoplethat pensions
will go up every March and every September, every single year, really and truly. If this
Leader of the Opposition wants to talk about telling the truthif this Leader of the
Opposition wants to talk about being trustworthy, we are coming up to the fourth anniversary
ofhis trustworthiness to Prime Minister Rudd, and we are coming up to the first
anniversary of his trustworthiness to Prime Minister Gillard. If Prime Minister Rudd and
Prime Minister Gillard could not trust this Leader of the Opposition, the Australian people
never can. I am not sure what letter might have been sent out by the member for Hume; but I
tell you what, it would not have been any better than the member for Fraser's letter:
But there's a better way of operating a health system, and the change should hardly hurt at all
the ideal model involves a small co-payment I am trying to compare the letter of the
member for Hume with the letter of the member for Fraser. I am sure the member for Hume's
letter was a fine letter, but I doubt whether he would have been able to do as well as the
member for Fraser, who said: But there's a better way of operating a health system, and the
change should hardly hurt at all the ideal model involves a small co-paymentnot enough
to put a dent in your weekly budget, but enough to make you think twice before you call the
doc. Good on the member for Fraser, who went on to say: And the idea is hardly radical.
So, if the member for Hume is simply repeating the wisdom of the member for Fraser, good
on the member for Hume. Members opposite made a big mistake with the member for Fraser.
When they heard he was at the ANU they thought it was the AMWUthat is what it was.
But it was a university, not a union! It was a place where they are committed to the truth, not
where they are committed to slush funds and corruption. There are no changes to pensions in
this term of parliament. It is as simple as that. There are no changes to pensions in this term
of parliament. If the Australian people do not like what this government has proposed, they
can take the appropriate action at the ballot box at the next election. I will tell you what this
government is doing and why this is a budget that is honest and necessary for our country at
this time. This government is outlining a clear plan to fix Labor's debt and deficit disaster.
We have demonstrated exactly what we propose to do to deal with the mess that Labor
created. Now it is up to Labor to demonstrate what it will do to fix up the mess that it created.
If Labor thinks that there is something fundamentally wrong about applying to pensions the
indexation rate that they applied to the Family Tax BenefitIf Labor thinks that there is
something fundamentally wrong with that, then they should tell us what they are going to do.
They should tell us what they are going to do to fix up the Labor debt and deficit disaster,
because, Madam Speaker, it is absolutely crystal clear, as things stand, that members opposite
think there was no problemwith debt and deficit and there was no problem with broken
promisesThey are living in a fantasy world, that is what they are doing. As the Treasurer
pointed out earlier today in question time, even John Edwardsa long-term Labor staffer, a
long-term friend of the Labor Party and a decent human being, it has to be said, but someone
whom Labor appointed to the Reserve Bank Boardhas come out and said, 'Honestly, there
is a budget crisis.' John Edwards is right: there is a budget crisis. We accept that; we have put
out our plan to deal with it; and it is high time that members opposite woke up to reality and
told us exactly what their plan is. Because pensions go up every year. Pensions go up every
yearevery March pensions; every September pensions go up. Pensions will go up every
single year. It is true that, come September 2017, if this government is re-elected, there will
be a change in the rate of indexation. That is true, but pensions will continue to increase
every single year. They will increase every March; they will increase every September; they
will increase every single year. I say again to the rather noisy member for Jagajagathe
member for Jagajaga who is so honest and truthful that she promised in her 2012 budget
update that 'we are back in surplus'. When are we back in surplus? Not 2012! There is no year
ever when pensions go down. Every year pensions go up. They go up in March every year.
They go up in September every year. They go up twice every year. The only difference is that
from September 2017 they will be indexed by the same rate that the member for Jagajaga
herself, as minister for family services, thought was fair and reasonable for the family tax
benefit. If it is fair and reasonable for the family tax benefit, if it is just and moral for the
family tax benefit, it is moral for other benefits as well. Not only was the member for
Jagajaga being utterly untruthful in her budget update; she is being utterly untruthful now.
She should be better than thatshe really should be. I can confirm that pensions will go up
every six months under this government. They will go up every six months under this
government. This government has absolutely delivered on its commitment not to change
pensions in this term of parliament. We have absolutely delivered on our commitment not to
change pensions in this term of parliament. It is true that we have not continued with a
national partnership agreement on pensioner concessions, but pensioner concessions are
overwhelmingly the preserve of the states. Less than 10 per cent of the value of pensioner
concessions was provided by the Commonwealth, and, given that in this budget the
Commonwealth is providing the states with some $9 billion more, we thought that this was a
small price that the states could pay to the task of budget repair. I am pleased to say that, so
far, every single state has undertaken to continue to maintain the value of pensioner
concessions. I do thank the member for Forrest for her question. I can inform her and other
members of the House that the government is making steady progress towards all of its key
election goals. This government was elected to scrap the carbon tax, because that will save
the households in Australia $550 a year, and legislation is before the Senate. This government
was elected to build the infrastructure of the 21st century, because of years of neglect by state
Labor governments, and work is soon underway on many of these projects. We were elected
to clean up Labor's budget mess, because $1 billion a month in dead money is being wasted
just to pay the interest on Labor's budget debt. This budget brings us back close to balance
within four years. Above all else, this government was elected to stop the boats. There were a
lot of policy catastrophes that were authored by members opposite, but perhaps the gold
medal for incompetence and catastrophic policy failure was their border protection chaos. I
can report to the House that today Australia has reached the milestone: six months since
the last successful people-smuggling operation to our country. That is six months without a
boat. Madam Speaker, members on the other side are touchy on this, because in the last six
months there has been not a single boat and no illegal arrivals by boat. In the comparable
period under the former government there were almost 200 illegal boats and almost 13,000
illegal arrivals by boat. Operation Sovereign Borders is working. The boats are stopping, and
that is saving lives. The boats are stopping, and that is saving the budget $2 billion. I pay
tribute to everyone involved in Operation Sovereign Borders, from the minister and General
Campbell to the naval and Customs personnel, the police, the intelligence and the
immigration staff, who are making it all work. I also pay tribute to our partner governments
in Nauru, PNG, Sri Lanka, Malaysia and Indonesia, whose corporation is also making these
successful policies possible. Combating the people smugglers is an ongoing effort, but this
government will remain vigilant to ensure that our borders are secure and our country is safe.
I make two points in response to the Leader of the Opposition, and the first point is that
pensions go up every six months. They go up every March and every Septemberthis year,
next year and the year after that. There are no cuts to pensions, because pensions go up every
six months, every year. They go up in March and September this year, they go up in March
and September next year and they go up in March and September the year after that. It is true
that after September 2017 they will go up by the rate of indexation that members opposite,
the Labor Party, thought was entirely fair for the family tax benefit. We have explained to the
Australian people how we are going to deal with Labor's debt and deficit disaster. It is about
time that Labor explained how it would deal with Labor's debt and deficit disaster. Just for
once, I say to the opposition: 'Outbid us on the quality of your ideas, not the strength of your
negativity.' Who said that? I am not surprised that the Leader of the Opposition recognises
that statement, because that is exactly what he said. We have told the Australian people how
we are going to clean up Labor's debt and deficit disaster, and the Leader of the Opposition
should tell us how he is going to fix the mess that he and his colleagues have created. At the
risk of repeating myself, I just want to point out to members opposite that all pensions will go
up in March and September every year. All pensions will go up in March and September
every year, but what will happen in September 2017after the next electionis that the
indexation rate will change to a rate which the Labor Party thought was fair for family tax
benefit. If it is fair for family tax benefit, it is fair for other social security benefits. If the
Labor Party thought it was fair for family tax benefit, they ought to think it is fair for what
this government has done. The Leader of the Opposition should stop trying to scare the
pensioners of this country. He should stop trying to curry political favour on the basis of a
scare. It is cheap. It is unworthy. Decent Labor leaders like Bob Hawke and Paul Keating
would be ashamed of it. Even the Leader of the Opposition was once above this kind of thing.
He said in this House in 2011: We in the Labor Party do not rely on scaring people to obtain
power If it was true in 2011, it certainly is not true in 2014. I was asked about payments to
carers and there are no changes to payments to carers. I want to make it absolutely crystal
clear that this is a government which is determined to protect the vulnerable people of this
country, but it is also determined to ensure that Labor's debt and deficit disaster is addressed.
As Reserve Bank board member John Edwardsthe distinguished economist and friend of
the Labor Party that the Labor Party appointed to the Reserve Bank Boardsaid: 'This is a
budget crisis. It does need to be addressed.' It is going to be addressed by us in ways to
protect the vulnerable. I simply repeat that there are no cuts to payments to carers. We made a
series of commitments to carers pre-election and they will be kept. What we are doing in this
budget is protecting the vulnerable; but, while protecting the vulnerable, we are doing what
we were elected to do, which is to sort out Labor's debt and deficit disaster. If members
opposite had any political integrity, they would tell us how they are going to deal with the
debt and deficit disaster that they created. Members opposite are clearly uninterested in any
response to their questions but let me give them one further nugget of informationThe final
piece of information that I should provide to members oppositethey probably do not want
to be reminded of thisis that in 2008, in government, the Labor Party attempted to scrap the
carers bonus. Does the Leader of the Opposition remember that? Does the Leader of the
Opposition remember that? In 2008, the Labor Party was in government and the Leader of the
Opposition, who was then a parliamentary secretary, attempted to scrap the carers bonus.
They only failed to do that because the opposition successfully opposed it. I want to make it
very clear that this government is the best friend that the carers of Australia have ever had. I
will expose Labor's lies this week and I will expose Labor's lies next weekit is as simple as
that, and I will keep doing it week in and week out. Of course to assist the House I will
withdraw. The claim that is being made is simply untrueno budget ever brought down by
members opposite when they were in government included this $80 billion figure. It was not
in any of their budgets. It was not in any of their budgets because it was an undeliverable, pie
in the sky promise that members opposite only made because they knew they would never be
called upon to deliver it. Let me repeat, for the benefit of members opposite who seem to
have truth deficit disorder, the facts. Hospital funding goes up nine per cent this year, nine
per cent next year, nine per cent the year after that and six per cent in the fourth year. School
funding goes up eight per cent this year, eight per cent next year, eight per cent the year after
that and six per cent the year after that. Every single year health spending goes up. Every
single year education spending goes up. Spending is sustainable under this government, it
was not sustainable under the members opposite. The tax in question is a Labor tax, which
the Leader of the Opposition should remember. For the benefit of members opposite, who I
think must have had a bad night at the ball because they are absolutely hysterical today, let
me make two points. We are eliminating taxes. We are scrapping the carbon tax, we are
scrapping the mining tax, and if members opposite would like us to keep that promise they
can pass the legislation. We are reducing the tax burden. The overall tax burden reduces by
$5 billion as a result of decisions taken by this government. So I am really pleased that the
Leader of the Opposition has reminded people of what I said in 2012, because we have
absolutely delivered on those commitments. Today the government reintroduces the Clean
Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013. As I said back in November of last year
when I introduced this bill for the first time, the Australian people have already voted on this
bill and now the parliament again gets its chance. The people have spoken, and now it is up to
this parliament to show that it has listened. The Australian people pronounced their
judgement against the carbon tax. They want it gone and this bill delivers. It delivers on the
coalition's commitment to the Australian people to scrap this toxic tax. The budget that the
government delivered recently was tough but it was visionary. It was about setting this
country on the path to long-term structural change. But a cornerstone of this government's
plan for a stronger economy, for lower taxes, for less regulation and for stronger businesses,
is the repeal of the carbon tax. The first impact of this bill will be on households whose
overall costs will fall by about $550 a year on average. Because of this bill, household
electricity bills will be around $200 lower next financial year without the carbon tax.
Household gas bills will be about $70 lower next financial year without the carbon tax. Prices
for groceries, for household items for services will fall, because the price of power is
embedded in every price in our economy. This is a bill to reduce the bills of the Australian
people. That is what it is. It is a 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 onto households and to businesses.
Butand this is importantfamily 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 businessesfor every single one of them. The previous government said and
argued that only big business paid the carbon tax, but this simply was not true. Every small
business paid the carbon tax through higher electricity and gas bills and higher costs for
suppliers. As well the carbon tax 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 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. That is what it does. It reduces the cost of living, it makes jobs more
secure and it improves the competitive position of our country. Why would anyone be against
that is? Particularly, when it is what the Australian people voted for. Repealing the carbon tax
is what the employers and the jobs providers of our country want now. The Business Council
of Australia, for instance, supports the wind-up of the current carbon pricing mechanism,
because it places excessive costs on business and households and because our carbon charge
is now one of the highest in the worldthat is what the BCA says about the carbon tax. 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. 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 emissions. The intention of the new
government, of this 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 doubtthe government is repealing the carbon tax in full. We are repealing
the carbon tax in full. We are doing what we were elected to do. Others have said that they
would terminate the carbon tax, but they were only renaming it. Well, we are not renaming it;
we are abolishing the carbon tax in full. Repealing the carbon tax at the end of the financial
year provides certainty for business and it simplifies the transition. It means that the
government will not be proceeding with the previous government's legislated carbon tax
increase that would have taken effect from 1 July. Unfortunately, the new government cannot
undo the past. We can only make the future better, and that is precisely 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. We will ensure that the
benefits of repealing the carbon tax are passed on to 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. There will be penalties of up to $1.1 million for corporations and $220,000
for individuals. It is prudent to do what we reasonably can to reduce carbon emissions, but we
do not believe in ostracising any particular fuel and we do not believe in harming economic
growth. Climate change is a serious issue and we do have strong policies to come into place
so that we do rest lightly on the planet. 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. So we will scrap the
carbon tax and then proceed with our direct action plan. The centrepiece of this direct action
plan will be the Emissions Reduction Fund, a market-based mechanism for reducing carbon
dioxide emissions, a fund that provides a powerful and direct additional incentive for
businesses to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The $2.55 billion fund will use positive
incentives to reduce Australia's emissions and it will prioritise cost-effective targeted means
to do so. It is an incentive based approach that will support Australian businesses and
households to lower their energy costs at the same time as reducing Australia's emissions. It
will see us plant more trees, get more carbon captured in soils, clean up power stations and
use smarter technology. We believe that by the time the five per cent reduction kicks in in
2020 we will have an overall reduction in our emissions of some 22 per cent off 2000 levels
of business as usual. This is serious action about a significant problem. The carbon tax is a $9
billion hit on our economy this year alone. It is a $9 billion hit on jobs, a $9 billion burden on
investment and a $9 billion burden on Australians that we just do not need. This bill gets rid
of it. This bill is the government's bill to reduce the Australian people's bill, so I commend the
bill to the House. I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I inform the House that
the Treasurer and the Minister for Trade and Investment will be absent from question time
this week as they participate in the Australia-China Strategic Economic Dialogue in Beijing.
The Deputy Prime Minister will answer questions on behalf of the Treasurer and the Minister
for Foreign Affairs will answer questions on behalf of the Minister for Trade. This
government was elected to fix Labor's debt and deficit disaster, and fix it we will. I would be
very reluctant to accept the figures in the Leader of the Opposition's question because the
Leader of the Opposition has a bit of a record of misleading people. Let me point out to the
House that under this government people will continue to receive generous social security
benefits. The difference is that under this government it will be sustainable. Under members
opposite it was not sustainable. Just to give you a couple of examples, a single-income
household with a child with $30,000 in private income will continue to receive some $18,000
from the taxpayer under this government if the child is under six. A similar household
earning $90,000 will continue to receive some $6,000 from the taxpayer. This is a
government which appreciates that families are doing it tough and, if members opposite are
fair dinkum about doing the right thing by the families of Australia, repeal the carbon tax and
do it now. I do thank the member for Brisbane for her question. Families and businesses right
around Australia cannot wait to see this carbon tax scrapped. I was at a business this morning,
Oxford Coal Storage in Melbourne. It has 400 employees and a $60,000 a month carbon tax,
a bill that cascades right throughout the economy because this is one of the biggest food
distributors in our country. So right around Australia every business is hit by the carbon tax.
Every household is hit by the carbon tax, and the best thing this parliament can do right now
for the businesses and the families of Australia is scrap the carbon tax. This government was
elected to do certain specific things. We were elected to stop the boats. We were elected to
build the roads of the 21st century. We were elected to get the budget back under control and,
above all else, we were elected to scrap the carbon tax. If last year's election was about
anything, it was a referendum on the carbon tax, and the answer of the Australian people was
absolutely clearscrap this toxic tax! It is a nine per cent impost on the price of power. It is a
$9 billion a year handbrake on our economy. It is a $550 a year hit on households. This toxic
tax must go, and it will go under this government. If the carbon tax stays, by midcentury our
steel production will be down 20 per cent, our aluminium production will be down by 60 per
cent, our gross national income per person will be down by $4,000. There will be a
cumulative $1 trillion reduction in Australia's GDP. This is an economic disaster, and it is all
the fault of members opposite. Today legislation to scrap the carbon tax was reintroduced
into this House of Parliament. Shortly, this legislation will be considered by the Senate and
soon members opposite will have to say where they stand on this tax. Before the election they
said they wanted to terminate the carbon tax. Well, they have their chance to terminate the
carbon tax. Vote to scrap this toxic tax in this House in a few days time. This is the
government which is determined to fix Labor's debt and deficit disaster. Unlike members
opposite, we do not live in some kind of fairyland where there is some kind of budget fix
based on fiddling the books and cooking the figures. We do not live in that kind of a
fairyland. We have explained to the Australian people exactly what we are going to do to fix
Labor's debt and deficit disaster. We have explained what we are going to do to do. I see the
member for Grayndler is attempting to support the Leader of the Opposition for once! But we
have explainedWe have been open and up-front with the Australian people about what we
are going to do to deal with the situation created by members oppositewhereby this
country is paying $1 billion every single month. We are paying $1 billion every single month
just to pay the interest on Labor's borrowings. That is what we are doing. We have been very
up-front with the Australian people about what we are doing to fix Labor's debt and deficit
disaster. Now members opposite should have the honesty and the integrity to tell us what they
are doing to deal with the debt and deficit disaster that they created. his government was
absolutely crystal clear before the election that we would tackle Labor's debt and deficit
disaster. We were absolutely crystal clear that we would tackle Labor's debt and deficit
disaster. A single-income family with two dependants aged under six on $60,000 a year will
receive $12,630 a year from the taxpayer. A single-income household with two dependants
under six will get $12,630 from the taxpayer. What this illustrates is that people will continue
to receive generous social service support under this government. The difference is that our
social security system is sustainable under this government. It was completely unsustainable
under members opposite, and if If members opposite are fair dinkum about looking after
the families of Australia, they have an opportunity to do something this week in the
parliament: vote to scrap the carbon tax. The Leader of the Opposition, who loudly interjects
across the table, who cannot help himself when it comes to chattering across the tableThe
Leader of the Opposition ran around the country claiming that he would terminate the carbon
tax. The Leader of the Opposition liked to stand up before the election and say that he would
terminate the carbon tax. He has an opportunity to be the terminatorand vote, to make an
honest politician of himself. Vote to terminate the carbon tax in this parliament this week.
Members opposite think that government could just go on borrowing and borrowing to pay
benefits but the country simply could not afford it. The spending spree of the Labor Party
means that every single Australianincluding the family that the shadow minister referred to
in her question, is contributing to $1 billion a monthin dead moneyin interest repayments
on Labor's borrowing. This is the difficulty that eventually had to be tackled and it has been
tackled by this government. This is a government which has had the decency and the honesty
to face up to the debt and deficit disaster that we inherited from the former government, from
members opposite. Members opposite need to get real and they need to understand that we
cannot and could not go on forever on borrowed money. We simply could not go on under
the policies of members opposite borrowing more and more every month because we were
going deeper and deeper into deficit every month. This government has taken the tough
decisions. We have made the hard decisions necessary to get the budget back under control
and to bring the budget back into balance within four years. Someone had to do it. Members
opposite have proven incapable of doing it. This government has done what this country
needed to be done. Notwithstanding all the changes that this government has made, we will
continue to have a generous social security system. A sole parent with two dependents aged
six to 13 years earning $60,000 a year in 2016-17 will get $8,348 from the taxpayer in social
security benefits. So we are continuing to generously support the vulnerable families of this
country. That is what the people expect of us, but we have got to do it in ways which are
sustainableand that was never going to happen under members opposite. I can confirm that
we will keep the commitments that we made before the election and one of the commitments
that we made was that we were scrapping the schoolkids bonus, because the schoolkids bonus
is a cash splash with borrowed money. That is the problem. Members opposite think that you
can keep spending money this country does not have and has to borrow, running up ruinous
bills for our children and grandchildren to pay. We are not ripping off our children and our
grandchildren. We are not mortgaging this country's future to sustain present spending. We
are not. We are being absolutely responsibleand we are implementing the policies we were
straight enough with the Australian peopleup-front enough with the Australian peopleto
take to the election, like abolishing the schoolkids bonus, a cash splash with borrowed
money. For the benefit of the shadow minister who asked the question, a single-income
couple where one of the parents earns an income of $60,000 a year and the other does not
earn an income, with two dependents aged six to 13, will continue to receive, in the year
2016-17, $8,348 from the taxpayer. The difference between the payments we will make and
the payments members opposite were promising to make is that our payments can be relied
upon because our social security system is sustainable in a way that of the members opposite
simply was not. The best thing that I can do for the workers of Oxford Cold Storageand for
workers in businesses right around Australia is to try to ensure that those businesses remain
profitable, because if you cannot make a profit you cannot survive and if you do not survive
there is no employment and there are no workers. This government gets it in a way that
members opposite never did. You cannot have strong communities without a strong economy
to sustain them and you cannot have a strong economy without profitable private businesses.
We get that; members opposite do not. That is why they loaded up private businesses with the
carbon tax, with the mining tax, with endless regulationsThe point I am making is that the
best thing that we can do the workers of Australia is to try to ensure that their businesses can
flourish, because if the businesses can flourish the workers can continue to be employed and
can enjoy the higher wages that everyone wants to see workers in this country earn. More
profitable businesses are more productive businesses; more productive businesses have
higher paid workers. We get that; members opposite do not. That is why they loaded up the
businesses of Australia with the mining tax, with the carbon tax, with more regulation and
green tape. We want to see all of those go. The Leader of the Opposition asked me about
workers earning $50,000. Let me explain for the Leader of the Opposition's benefit that,
under the budget that this government has brought down, if you are a sole parent, with one
child aged under six, earning $50,000 in 2016-17 you will receive $11,705 in social security
support. The difference between this government and members opposite is that we support
the businesses employing the workers and we want the social security system to be
sustainable for the long run. We understand, in a way that members opposite do not, that you
cannot continue to pay money that you haven't got. You cannot continue to saddle up future
generations with ever-expanding debt to pay for today's consumption. You cannot do that.
Members opposite should really wake up to themselves. We have explained how we will sort
out Labor's debt and deficit disaster. Members opposite need to do the same. We were
absolutely up-front that we were eliminating the schoolkids bonus and we were absolutely
up-front that we were going to tackle the debt and deficit disaster. As for fuel excise
indexation, that was a policy that was introduced by members opposite and it is a policy
which has been resumed by this government. It is a policy that was introduced by members
opposite So it comes passing strange for members opposite to be complaining about fuel
excise indexation when it is a Labor tax. It is a Labor tax that was invented by the Labor
Party and it has been restored by this government as a revenue measure. It will cost the
average family some 40c a week in the coming financial year. I accept that there have been
some tough decisions in this budget. I accept that. I accept that this government has made
some hard choices in this budget. We had to make tough decisions. We had to make hard
choices because members opposite consistently shirked the tough decisions, the necessary
decisions, that were needed to sort out the debt and deficit disaster that they themselves had
created. But I say to the member who asked the question that, if you are a single income
earner on $60,000 a year with three dependents, one aged under six and two aged between six
and 13, you will continue to receive $17,920 a year from the social security system. The
difference between this government and members opposite is that this government wants all
workers' jobs to be more secure. That is why we arescrapping job-destroying, economy-
wrecking taxes, and we want the social security system to be sustainable. A social security
system that is run on borrowed money simply is not sustainable. We are fixing Labor's debt
and deficit disaster. We have explained to the Australian people how we will fix the debt and
deficit disaster that we inherited. It is high time that Labor explained what they will do to
address the debt and deficit disaster that they created. I have the budget papers before me. I
have got a dual-income couple on a 70-30 income split, with two dependants aged under six,
earning $60,000, and they will receive $10,067 a year through the social security system in
2016-17. Under this government people will continue to receive generous social security
benefits. The difference is that under this government they will be sustainable. Under
members opposite, they were being paid for by borrowed money. They were mortgaging our
children's and our grandchildren's future so that they could big-note themselves with
handouts. That is what they were doing. When it comes to I just make the point to the
shadow minister: why is it right to have a PBS co-payment and somehow wrong to have a
Medicare co-payment? She can interject, but it would actually be nice to have from members
opposite a clear rationale. Why is it right to have a PBS co-payment and somehow wrong to
have a Medicare co-payment, especially when Bob Hawke was the father and the member for
Jagajaga was the mother of the co-payment and the member for Fraser is the child of the co-
payment? I know that members opposite do not like being reminded of the fact that former
Prime Minister Bob Hawke brought in a co-payment and the current shadow minister for
families supported a co-payment, and the Labor shadow Treasurer down there supports a co-
payment. But let us just repeat what the member for Fraser thinks: theres a better way of
operating a health system, and the change should hardly hurt at all the ideal model
involves a small co-paymentnot enough to put a dent in your weekly budget, but enough to
make you think twice before you call the doc. And the idea is hardly radical. So I say to the
member who asked the question: your argument is not with me; your argument is with your
own Assistant Treasurer. You persuade the Shadow Assistant Treasurer that a co-payment is
a bad idea, and then I will start to listen to you. Childcare payments are not going down. They
are not. They are not going down, but I do make the observation that members opposite,
when they were in government, froze the childcare rebate. They froze the childcare rebate.
Members opposite, when they were in government, promised 260 childcare centres to end the
double drop-off and they delivered only 38. Wasn't it right that only 38 out of 260 were
actually delivered? How can a point of order be taken on this? I am exactly answering her
question. I repeat: when members opposite were in government they froze the childcare
rebate and this government has done no more than what the former government was prepared
to do with benefits in this area. If it was right for the former government to do things like
freeze the rebate, why isn't it right for this government, likewise, to do what it has done. I do
say that, for all the histrionics that we are getting from the shadow minister who asked the
question, members opposite have an absolutely hopeless record. They promised 260 childcare
centres to end the dreaded double drop. Remember that? They promised to end the double
drop with 260 childcare centres; 38 is all they built. Under members opposite, childcare costs
increased by 53 per cent53 per cent! We want to see a better childcare system. We want to
ensure that our childcare spending gets the maximum possible benefits to our community and
to our economy. That is why we have a Productivity Commission inquiry. As for Paid
Parental Leave, all this government wants is for the same sort of system that currently applies
to public servants, who get paid at their wagethe same fairness that members opposite
think should apply to public servantsto apply to everyone, because if it is right for public
servants it is right for the rest of our community. I do not see why members opposite should
want a better deal for public servants than they want for the ordinary battling, struggling
workers of this country. What is fair for public servants is fair for everyone. That is why this
government supports a fair dinkum Paid Parental Leave scheme. Australia simply could not
go on as we were, under the former government, borrowing more and more every year,
loading up our children and our grandchildren with an ever-increasing debt. Right now,
because of the policies of the former government, every Australian is paying a billion dollars
every single month. We are contributing our share to the billion dollars that the
Commonwealth is paying every single month just to pay the interest on Labor's borrowings
and, under the policies of members opposite, within a decade it would have been $3 billion a
month. We simply could not go on like this. Every year of deficit takes us deeper into debt,
and every year the debt goes up the interest bill just increases. It just goes up and up and up
and up. I want to make it very clear that the Australian government respects the legitimacy of
the Egyptian government and its legal system, but we are shocked and dismayed by the
Greste decision. We understand and support the Egyptian government's crackdown on
extremist groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood, but we fail to see how this is helped by
a very harsh sentence that has been directed to people who were reporting on the
brotherhood, not supporting it. Some weeks ago, I spoke to the Acting President of Egypt, Mr
Mansour. Over the weekend I spoke to the newly elected President of Egypt, President al-
Sisi. I want to assure the House that the Australian government will continue to make
intercessions at every level with the Egyptian government and elsewhere to try to ensure that
Peter Greste and his colleagues are swiftly released. I thank the member for Capricornia for
her question. I can assure her that scrapping the carbon tax will indeed be good for the people
of Capricornia. It will certainly help the mining industry because the carbon tax is designed to
make the price of coal prohibitive. It will certainly help the trucking industry, because under
members opposite, there was going to be an extra carbon tax hit on the trucking industry from
1 July. It will help the cattle industry, because abattoirs are some of the businesses hit hardest
by the carbon tax. But above all else, it will help the households of Capricornia by giving
them a $550 a year bonus. That is what scrapping the carbon tax will do. The carbon tax is a
nine per cent impost on power prices. It is a $9 billion handbrake on our economy, as well as
being a $550 a year hit on the households of Australia. That is why it must goand that is
why, if this parliament is serious about helping the struggling families of this country, it will
get rid of this carbon tax this week. Without the carbon tax, the aluminium industry will be
60 per cent bigger; the iron industry will be 20 per cent bigger. Without the carbon tax our
cumulative GDP by 2050 will be one trillion dollars greater. Without the carbon tax, our
gross national income per person will be nearly $5,000 a year higher by the middle of this
century. That is why abolishing the carbon tax is a massive economic reform. If we are
serious about reforming our economy we will get rid of the carbon tax and we will get rid of
the carbon tax this week. Only one thing stands in the way of getting rid of the carbon tax and
that, of course, is the federal opposition and its leader. Not only does the Labor Party want to
keep the carbon tax, they want it to go up. They want it to go up on 1 July by five per cent.
How shameful. This is the Leader of the Oppositionwho said, before the election, that he
wanted to terminate the carbon tax. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: be the terminator.
Do not be the vacillator. Do not be the procrastinator. Do not be the fabricator. Be the
terminator and get rid of this toxic tax this week. You are the only one standing in the way of
Australianfamilies earning $550 a year more. The seniors of Australia are very sensible
people, and they know that governments, like businesses and like families, simply cannot
continue to live beyond their means; that governments, like families and like businesses,
should not be in the business of trying to deliver a cash splash with borrowed money. That is
what the seniors of Australia understand. The seniors of Australia, I believe, understand that
this government was elected to deal with the debt and deficit disaster that members opposite
createda debt and deficit disaster embracing the six biggest deficits in Australia's history,
$123 billion of prospective cumulative deficits over just four years, a debt projected to peak
at $667 billion and an interest bill of $1 billion every single month just to pay the interest on
Labor's existing borrowings. That is what the seniors of Australia understand. They
understand that unless remedial action was taken, every single Australian would be saddled
with a Commonwealth debt bill the equivalent of $25,000 per man, woman and child. That is
the debt burden that members opposite saddled this country with. The seniors of Australia get
it, unlike members opposite. They realise that they cannot keep living beyond their means,
and that is why I am confident that the seniors of Australiaand the people of Australia
generallyappreciate that this government had to take some tough decisions. We really did
have to take some tough decisions, and some of those tough decisions involved saying no
more cash splashes with borrowed money. The seniors of Australia are very sensible people,
and they know that governments, like businesses and like families, simply cannot continue to
live beyond their means; that governments, like families and like businesses, should not be in
the business of trying to deliver a cash splash with borrowed money. That is what the seniors
of Australia understand. The seniors of Australia, I believe, understand that this government
was elected to deal with the debt and deficit disaster that members opposite createda debt
and deficit disaster embracing the six biggest deficits in Australia's history, $123 billion of
prospective cumulative deficits over just four years, a debt projected to peak at $667 billion
and an interest bill of $1 billion every single month just to pay the interest on Labor's existing
borrowings. That is what the seniors of Australia understand. They understand that unless
remedial action was taken, every single Australian would be saddled with a Commonwealth
debt bill the equivalent of $25,000 per man, woman and child. That is the debt burden that
members opposite saddled this country with. The seniors of Australia get it, unlike members
opposite. They realise that they cannot keep living beyond their means, and that is why I am
confident that the seniors of Australiaand the people of Australia generallyappreciate
that this government had to take some tough decisions. We really did have to take some
tough decisions, and some of those tough decisions involved saying no more cash splashes
with borrowed money. It is true that some very tough decisions were made in this budget. It
is tough that some tough decisions were made in this budget and it is true that some of those
decisions impact on seniors. That is absolutely true, and I wish that members opposite had
not run up the debt and deficit disaster that made these decisions necessary. I really do. I
really do wish that members opposite had been more capable of running the economy. I really
wish that members opposite actually kept their promises to deliver a budget surplus, but they
never did. They put our country into a perilous economic position, and it was up to this
government to take the necessary action to rectify the situation. The seniors of this country
have seen enough of life to understand that governments, like families and businesses, just
cannot keep living beyond their means, and that what this government was doing under
members opposite. We were running up debt and deficit for our children and grandchildren to
pay because members opposite were incapable of saying no. Members opposite were
incapable of governing for a day, let alone a week, month or year without taxing and
spending, without borrowing and spending. Members opposite were absolutely addicted to
spending, and that is why under members opposite the Commonwealth's debt levels were
projected to rise to $25,000 per man, woman and child. The seniors of this country are
commonsense people. They understand that the last thing government should be doing is
delivering cash splashes with borrowed money. It should not have happened under members
opposite and certainly will not be happening under this government. The people of Australia
elected this government to tackle Labor's debt and deficit disaster. That is exactly what we
are doing. We are tackling Labor's debt and deficit disaster, and one of the reasons why there
is a debt and deficit disaster which this government has to handle is because members
opposite persisted in unaffordable spending sustained by borrowed money. I accept that there
are some payments that were made by the former government which are not going to be
continued by this government. I absolutely accept that. We were up-front pre-election that
there were payments that would not be paid by this government that had been paid by the
previous government. The point we made again, again and again is that the Australian
government cannot continue to live beyond its means. It did live beyond its means under
members opposite. That is why members opposite intended to saddle our children and our
grandchildren with unsustainable debt, with debt and deficit stretching out as far as the eye
can see. That will end under this government. I don't know what the Deputy Leader of the
Opposition has got against the women of Australia. I really don't know what she's got against
the women of Australia. Why does she thinkthat a system which is right for public servants
is somehow wrong for other people in the Australian workforce? I do not wish to be personal,
but members opposite, and indeed members on this side of the House, if they take parental
leave, get paid at their wage. What is wrong with that? Why is it right for the member who
asked the question to get parental leave at her wage and wrong for the rest of Australia to get
it? I want a system which is fair. I want the same system which appliesto public servants to
apply to people right around Australia. That is why the government's fair dinkum Paid
Parental Leave scheme is a watershed reform. It is good for families, it is good for
businesses, it is good for the economy and it should be implemented by this parliament. On
indulgenceand I suspect the Leader of the Opposition will want to join meit is good to
have all of our distinguished former members here in the House today, but it is particularly
good to have the members of the imams council here in the House today. We are all
determined to build a more inclusive and more cohesive society. We are all determined to
build a country which is a beacon of hope and optimism for people from right around the
world. I welcome and I cherish your contribution to that. As the pensioners of this country
understand, this government inherited a debt and deficit disaster, thanks to the incompetence
and the untrustworthiness of members opposite. We said that we would not change pensions,
and pensions do not get changed until after the next election. They do not get changed until
after the next election. What we propose to do after the next election is to apply the same
indexation to pensions as members opposite applied to family tax benefit. If it is right for
members opposite to apply this particular indexation to family tax benefit, how can it be
somehow grievously wrong to do it for the pensions? Let me repeat for the benefit of
members opposite and for the benefit of people right around Australia who members opposite
are seeking to deceive: the pension goes up every six months every year. When members
opposite changed the indexation method that applies to the family tax benefit, no less a
person and no less a guardian of ethics and morality than the member for Jagajaga herself
said in this House: The removal of the link to earnings ensures that government expenditure
on this particular social security benefit
is more sustainable in the long term. That is what Jenny Macklin, the member for Jagajaga,
said. She said that they were changing indexation to make that particular social security
benefit 'more sustainable in the long term'. The difference between this government and
members opposite is that we want the pension to be sustainable. There are no pie-in-the-sky
promises from this government. There are no cash splashes with borrowed money from this
government. What there is from this government is decent, sensible, prudent government, and
I think that pensioners of Australia understand that. I do accept that there are changes in the
budget. Obviously, there are changes in the budget. There have to be changes in the budget to
ensure that we address the debt and deficit disaster that members opposite created. The
member who asked this question I believe used to work for the member for Lilley. Why were
members opposite incapable of delivering on the four years of surpluses that they claimed to
deliver in the 2012 budget? Why, indeed? The problem is that members oppositesimply
could not be trusted with public money. That is the problem. The member has asked me about
a single income family with two children. I can inform the member who asked me the
question about a single income couple with two dependent children aged from six to 13.
When one of them earns $60,000, this couple will continue to get in 2016-17 $8,348 from the
taxpayer. The difference between the members opposite and this government is that under
this government benefits are sustainable because they are being paid from a budget that is
back in balance, and not from a budget which is simply out of control. That is the problem
with the member for Rankin: he obviously was not much good at advising the member for
Lilley because the member for Lilley was incapableutterly incapableof delivering us a
balanced budget, let alone a surplus. This government will undo the damage created by its
predecessor to the enduring benefit of every single Australian. I am very happy to inform the
Shadow Treasurer that the single-income couple with two dependent children aged between
six and 13 where one of the couple is earning $60,000 will continue to receive $8,348 from
the taxpayer in social services benefits. It is very important that we continue to be a generous
society, but we can only be a generous society if we have a sustainable budget. The tragedy is
that thanks to the incompetence and the untrustworthiness of members oppositewe faced a
debt and deficit disaster. I can hardly hear myself think because of the caterwauling from
members oppositeWe can only continue to have a generous social security system if we
have a sustainable budget. Unfortunately, thanks to members oppositewe had a debt and
deficit disaster. We had debt and deficit stretching as far as the eye can see. It had to end.
Even with the changes that this government has made, even with the changes that members
opposite are denouncing as cruel and immoral, we still only get to balance in four years time.
That indicates the scale, the absolute scale of the debt and deficit disaster which members
opposite created. I say again to the Leader of the Opposition that this government has had the
integrity and the decency to say to the Australian people exactly how we are going to deal
with Labor's debt and deficit disaster. We have told the Australian people how we will fix the
problem the Leader of the Opposition created. Now the Leader of the Opposition needs to tell
us how he will fix the problem that he and his colleagues did create. I thank the member for
Dobell for her question. I regret to inform her that members opposite, the Labor Party, gave
Australia the world's biggest carbon tax and, thanks to members opposite, the world's biggest
carbon tax just goes up. It just goes up by five per cent next Tuesdayunless, of course, the
Leader of the Opposition has a change of heart and it is repealed. This is the carbon tax that
the Labor Party was never going to introduce in the first place. This is the carbon tax that
members opposite said they were going to terminate before the election. This is the carbon
tax which is just going to go up by five per cent next Tuesday unless, of course, it is repealed
in the meantime. For the people of Dobell, the carbon tax is a nine per cent impost on their
power bills. It is a $9 billion handbrake on our economy. And it is a $550-a-year hit on every
single household in Dobell and on every single household, on average, right around Australia.
Repealing the carbon tax will be good for every single business and every single household in
the electorate of Dobell. I can say that the carbon tax repeal legislation does provide the
ACCC with new powers to ensure that consumers immediately benefit from the repeal of this
toxic tax. This government has given the ACCC an extra $10 million to police the price
effects of the repeal of this tax. The Chairman of the ACCC, Rod Sims, has said, 'What went
up will clearly come down when you take away the carbon tax.' Mr Sims went on to say:
Electricity prices went up fairly quickly on the way up and they will go down fairly
immediately on the way down. And Origin Energy said: If and when the carbon price is
removed as an input cost to energy bills, then Origin will pass on this benefit to consumers as
soon as practicable So get rid of the carbon tax and power prices go down. There is only
one person standing in the way of lower power bills, and that is the Leader of the Opposition.
Every time your power bill goes up, the Leader of the Opposition has a smile on his face
because that is just the carbon tax doing its job. Every time you turn on the heater this winter,
there is the Leader of the Opposition trying to make it more expensive unless, of course, he
has a change of heart, finally gets the message and votes to repeal this toxic tax. The tax I
want to repeal is the carbon tax, which is a $9 billion hit on households. It is a $9 billion hit
on households and that is the tax that is belovedabsolutely belovedof the Leader of the
Opposition. He said before the election that he was going to terminate the carbon tax, a $9
billion hit on households. Every time it comes before this parliament the Leader of the
Opposition is the vacillator not the terminator. If the Leader of the Opposition is concerned
about tax, why doesn't he vote immediately to repeal a $9 billion hit on every Australian
household? If the Leader of the Opposition is so concerned about what he says is a $2.2
billion tax, what about a $9 billion tax? This is a government that will absolutely deliver on
its commitments to reduce the taxation burden on the Australian people. The Leader of the
Opposition should know, if he studied the budget as carefully as he claims that there is an
overall $6 billion reduction in tax as a result of decisions this government has taken. It is very
hard to take the Leader of the Opposition seriouslyabout a $2.2 billion tax when he keeps
voting in favour of a $9 billion tax. There is the King Kong of taxes, the carbon tax, which
the Leader of the Opposition loves. Notwithstanding having promised to terminate the thing
before the last election, he keeps voting in favour of it after the election. It is simply
impossible to take this Leader of the Opposition seriously. How on earth can he promise,
before the election, to terminate the carbon tax and yet consistently vote in this parliament to
keep the carbon tax? I repeat: every time your power bill goes up, there is the Leader of the
Opposition with a smile on his facebecause that is his pet carbon tax just doing its job.
Every time you turn on your heater this winter, there is the Leader of the Opposition standing
beside you saying, 'Your power bill is higher than it should be.' Your heating is more
expensive than it should be, thanks to his beloved carbon tax. He also asked me about paid
parental leave. As the Leader of the Opposition well knows, members on this side of the
House stand for wage justice. We do. If it is right for public servants to be paid at their wage
when they go on parental leave, it is right for every single person to get paid at his or her
wage when he or she goes on parental leave. Why does the Leader of the Opposition have
this terrible double standardthis terrible and hypocritical double standard? He thinks that
public servants should get access to their wage when they get paid parental leave, but not the
rest of the economy. I am sure, in order to avoid hypocrisy and double standards, what the
Leader of the Opposition wants to see is paid parental leave for public servants paid at the
minimum wageat a welfare wagebecause, if there is to be any consistency and any
integrity from the Leader of the Opposition, that is the obvious conclusion to draw. He wants
public servants to go on parental leave; he wants people like his own staff to go on parental
leave at a welfare wage, not at their real wage. I want every single Australian who goes on
paid parental leave to be paid at his or her wage. That is fair, that is right, and that will be
delivered under this government. I think, if I may say so: Increasing the age pension age is a
responsible reform to meet the challenge of an ageing population Australia
must move towards a higher pension age over the next decade. That was what the member for
Jagajaga said when members opposite raised the pension age. I might also say: in order to
make the pension system is sustainable in the long run, we also made the hard decision to
raise the qualifying age for the age pension. There is a lesson in that decision and the lesson
is this: when we make policy we need to have the courage to adapt to changing demographic
trends. It simply was not feasible to continue with a pension age drawn up a century ago.
That was the former Treasurer, the member for Lilley. Following on from the decision by
members opposite to raise the pension age to 67, we think it is perfectly reasonable to raise
the pension age to the age of 70 by 2035. In 21 years time the pension age will be 70. Given
the changes in life expectancy, given the changes in healthy life expectancy, given the
additional support that this government is going to give to older workers, including the
Restart wage subsidy, we think this is right and proper. We think older people should be
economic contributors, not just social and cultural contributors. We want to giveThere are
changes to the pension, and they will take place after the next election. Our commitment not
to change the pension in this term of parliament is absolutely honoured in the government's
budget. The member who asked the question is a relatively new member of parliament and
she may have forgotten what her own government did when it was in power between 2007
and 2013. What this government has done is put in place the same indexation for the pension
after 2017We have put in place the same indexation for the pension after the next election
that the shadow minister, now shaking her head, put in place for the family tax benefit. If the
indexation system is fair for family tax benefits, it is fair for other social service benefits. If it
is fair for people who depend upon the family tax benefit, it is fair for people who depend
upon other social security benefits. Is the member opposite who asked the question seriously
saying that, on top of the $40 billion of savings measures that the Labor Party are now
opposingon top of opposing $40 billion worth of savings measuresthey are now
proposing to spend the extra billions and billions that will be required to restore MTAWE
indexation to the family tax benefit? Is that what she is seriously saying? If she isand,
frankly, she must be if she is trying to be consistentit just proves, again and again and
again, that you just cannot trust the Labor Party with public money. They created the debt and
deficit disaster which the budget that the Leader of the Opposition loves to hold up is fixing.
They created the debt and deficit disaster which the budget that they love to hold up is fixing.
They just have not learned. They just do not get it. They do not understand that governments,
like families, cannot keep on living beyond their means. We understand this, and that is why
the budget that we have brought down is right, it is fair and it will end the intergenerational
theft which members opposite inflicted on the Australian public. Under this government, the
pension goes up every six months, every year. The pension goes upI am so pleased to have
them waving around the budget, because the budget that they wave around is the budget
that corrects that debt and deficit disaster that they created. The budget that they wave around
is the budget that fixes the debt and deficit disaster that they created. They have the solution
to their problem in their hands! That is what they do. They have got it in their hands. A
government member: If only they could read! If only they could read, indeed! And, if they
could read, if only they could understand! Understanding, I fear, is lacking from members
opposite. They have ears that do not hearthey have eyes that do not see and they have
brains that do not work. That is the problem. Let me repeat, for the benefit of the shadow
minister who asked the question: pensions go up every six monthsevery single year under
this government. But, from September 2017, after the next election, they will go up with the
same rate of indexation that the member who asked the question thought was fair for other
social security benefits. It is exactly the same indexation that, when she was the minister, she
thought was right and fair and proper for social security benefits. If it was fair for the family
tax benefit, it is fair for other benefits. If it was fair for the former government to bring in that
particular form of indexation, it is surely fair for this government to do exactly the same
thing. There are more than 10 million households in this country and each and every one of
them, on average, will receive $550 of benefit by the abolition of the carbon tax. The 10
million-plus households of Australia will each receive $550-plus by the abolition of the
carbon tax. The Leader of the Opposition has been complaining and grizzling about a $2.2
billion tax over four years. What about the $36 billion carbon tax that he loves so much that,
despite having promised to terminate it again and again before the election, he votes in favour
of again and again, and again and again, after the election? You cannot take this Leader of the
Opposition seriously when it comes to cost-of-living pressures, because if he was fair dinkum
he would not be smiling every time your power bill goes up. He would not be smiling every
time your power bill goes up, but he is smiling because that is just the carbon tax doing its
job. I think he's got irritable Bill syndrome. I think that is the problem that the Leader of the
Opposition has at the moment. I do apologise. We should not engage in levity in this
chamber. I accept that. The point this government madeover and over againbefore the
election is that this country could not afford cash splashes with borrowed money. What this
government has done is ensure that periodic payments, occasional payments, that this country
can no longer affordsuch as the schoolkids bonus, such as the low-income supplement and
such as the seniors supplementare no longer being paid. I believe that the decent people of
this country do understand, even those who are doing it tough, that the government cannot go
on loading up our children and grandchildren with unsustainable debts. I notice that members
opposite have stopped waving around the budget, because they did not like having in their
hands the solution to the problem they created. They do have, in their hands, the solution to
the problem they created. We did not create the problemLabor created the problembut
we will solve the problem. We will take responsibility for getting the budget back under
control. And we have. There are a number of decisions in the budget which, in a better world,
this government would not have taken. But unfortunately we have to live in the world that we
inherited from our predecessors. What we inherited from our predecessor was debt and
deficit, as far as the eye can see. We inherited a debt-and-deficit disaster and we are taking
the necessary decisionsthe tough decisions; the very difficult decisionsto address the
debt-and-deficit disaster we were left with. No-one likes doing what is necessary to ensure
that our country can live within its means. No-one likes doing what is necessary to ensure
that our children and grandchildren are not loaded up with unsustainable debt. But it has to be
done, and if it were not done now it would be even harder in a few years time. We have taken
difficult decisions, now, to avoid even more difficult decisions in a few years time. For some
years, they do go into the Medical Research Future Fund. And why should they not? The
research of today is the treatments and cures of tomorrow. The research of today provides us
with the treatments and cures of the future. This is a budget for saving, but it is also a budget
for building. This is a budget for living within our means, but it is also a budget for building
on our strengths, and one of our great strengths is the health and medical research community
of this country, and I am happy that they are being supported by this budget. Unlike members
opposite, who never consulted with anyone when they were in government, this is a
consultative and collegial government. I made it absolutely crystal clear that this government
is committed to a modest price signal for GP services. I say to members opposite: if it is right
and fair and proper to have a modest co-payment for the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme,
how can it be wrong to have a modest co-payment for Medicare? If it was right for Bob
Hawke to introduce a modest co-payment for Medicare, if it was right for the member for
Jagajaga to support a modest co-payment for Medicare and if it is right for the member for
Fraser to support a modest co-payment for Medicare, why is it wrong to have a modest co-
payment? I know that the Labor shadow Assistant Treasurer over there knows that something
has to be done to make Medicare sustainable. He knows that a modest co-payment is a
perfectly reasonable way Bob Hawke knew that the Medicare system was unsustainable,
the member for Jagajaga knew that the Medicare system was unsustainable, the member for
Fraser knows that the Medicare system is unsustainable, without a modest co-payment. The
AMA knows that a modest copayment would improve our Medicare system, and that is why I
am perfectly happy to work with the AMA to ensure that Australia has the best possible
Medicare system. On this historic occasion today we welcome to this parliament a great
friend of Australia, the Prime Minister of Japan, Shinzo Abe. Leaders from the United States,
China, the United Kingdom, Canada, Indonesia and New Zealand have addressed both
houses of the Australian parliament. So it is fitting that we should now hear from the Prime
Minister of Japan, in recognition of our special relationship, built on shared interests and
common values: democracy, human rights, the rule of law, more open markets and freer
trade. During one of our parliament's early debates, Prime Minister Deakin noted the 'high
ability', 'inexhaustible energy' and 'endurance' of the Japanese people that, he said, 'made
them such competitors'. At some times, it is true, Australians have not felt as kindly towards
Japan as we now do, but we have never ever underestimated the quality and capacity of the
Japanese people. Even at the height of World War II, Australia gave the Japanese
submariners killed in the attack on Sydney full military honours. Admiral Muirhead-Gould
said of them: Theirs was a courage which is not the property or the tradition or the heritage of
any one nation He said it was patriotism of a very high order. We admired the skill and the
sense of honour that they brought to their task, although we disagreed with what they did.
Perhaps we grasped, even then, that with a change of heart the fiercest of opponents could be
the best of friends. Just 12 years after World War II, Japan's Prime Minister Kishi, Prime
Minister Abe's grandfather, visited Australia and paid his respects to Australia's war dead at
the War Memorial in Canberraas you, Prime Minister, have done yourself today. Prime
Minister Kishi also signed the commerce treaty between Australia and Japan which helped to
spawn the iron ore and coal industries that have done so much for both our countries. Prime
Ministers Menzies and Kishi allowed history to be their teacher not their master and, in so
doing, provided a lesson in magnanimity for all times and for all peoples. Since 1957,
Australian coal, iron ore and gas has powered Japan's prosperity; and Japanese cars,
consumer goods and electronics have transformed Australians' lives. Australians are grateful
for the Japanese trade and the Japanese investment that has helped to build our modern
prosperity. Above all, we appreciate the mutual respect and trust that has underpinned the
commercial relationship. Later today, Prime Minister Abe and I will sign the Japan-Australia
Economic Partnership Agreement, a new and perhaps equally historic agreement to further
liberalise trade between our countries. This is the first free trade agreement that Japan has
made with a major developed economy. For Japan, it means even better access for its
manufactured goods. For Australia, it means better access for our beef, dairy, wine,
horticulture and grain products. For everyone, everywhere, it means that two significant
countries are prepared to put their hopes above their fears and declare their confidence in the
future. Freer trade means more efficiency, more efficiency means more wealth and more
wealth means more jobs. This is the message that both Japan and Australia will bring to the
G20 leaders meeting in Brisbane in November: freer trade means more economic growth, and
more economic growth means more prosperous people and fairer societies. Both Australia
and Japan are serious about boosting economic growthAustralia through lower taxes and
less regulation and through shifting spending from short-term consumption to long-term
investment, and Japan, with the third arrow of Abenomics, through less regulated health care,
greater female participation, openness to foreign investment and better corporate governance.
Because it takes rare courage to challenge entrenched ideas, even ideas that are holding your
country back, Prime Minister Abe is making his mark on history. Also on this visit our two
countries will conclude an agreement on the transfer of defence equipment and technology,
similar to the agreements that Japan already has with the United States and the United
Kingdom. For decades now Japan has been an exemplary international citizen. So Australia
welcomes Japan's recent decision to be a more capable strategic partner in our region. I
stress: ours is not a partnership against anyone; it is a partnership for peace, for prosperity
and for the rule of law. Our objective is engagement, and we both welcome the greater trust
and openness in our region that is exemplified by China's participation in this year's RIMPAC
naval exercises. Australia and Japan are approaching the 100th anniversary of the first
significant occasion when our two counties worked together. The Japanese xruiser
Ibuki helped to escort the 1914 ANZAC convoy to the Middle East, and I am grateful that a
Japanese warship will be present for the centenary event in Albany later this year. More
recently, Australian soldiers worked together with Japanese engineers to help rebuild war-
torn Iraqand I am pleased to say that the Australian commander in that mission, former
Brigadier Andrew Nikolic, is now the member for Bass in this parliament. Under Prime
Minister Gillard, Australia was one of the first countries to dispatch assistance to Japan after
the devastating 2011 earthquake and tsunami. This is the Australian way. We are true to our
word, we threaten no-one, we are an utterly reliable partner and we go out of our way to help
when trouble strikes. We helped Indonesia after the Indian Ocean tsunami, the Philippines
after Typhoon Haiyan, and the search for flight MH370, which saw Japanese, Korean and
Chinese aviators operating together from an Australian base to try to solve the greatest
mystery of our time. It was Prime Minister Chifley who spoke of a 'light on the hill': to work
for the betterment of mankind, not just here but wherever we can lend a helping hand.
Australia is at the service of the wider world as an affordable energy superpower, as a
plentiful supplier of good food and as a safe place to get the best and most affordable
education. We hope that all the countries of our region will look to us to provide the energy
security, the resources security and the food security that all seek. Over the past two
generations Australian resources have helped to drive the economic miracles of Japan, of
Korea and, most spectacularly of all, of China. What has happened in Asia over the past 50
years is a transformation unparalleled in human history. Hundreds of millions of people have
been lifted from poverty into the middle class. It is the greatest and swiftest advance in
human welfare of all time. Great credit belongs to the people and the governments of Asia,
but Australia is proud to have played our part. We should also be grateful to the United States
for its work to guarantee the peace and stability that has made this progress possible. The rest
of the world has watched these marvels with awe and admiration. It is the reason these times
have already been dubbed the Asian century. But we cannot take a better future for granted.
For all the opportunities we have, success still has to be earned. It would be a tragedy for
everyone and a disaster for us were these achievements to be put at risk. History teaches us
that issues between nations should be resolved peacefully in accordance with international
law, because the alternative is in no-one's best long-term interests. The lesson of the last
century is that the countries of our region will all advance together or none of us will advance
at all. Prime Minister Howard frequently said that Australia did not have to choose between
our history and our geography. My version of this has been to say that you do not win new
friends by losing old ones. This government is determined to improve all Australia's
friendships by focusing on the things we have in common. Australia and Japan have forged
one of the world's firmest friendships and most practical of partnerships. But it was not
always thus. Our partnership began from the ashes of the most destructive war in history,
because our peoples and our leaders have consistently refused to let the past blight the future.
Every country's situation is different, of course, but what a compelling example our two
nations have provided of what is possible when we all are our best selves. We are honoured
to have Prime Minister Abe in our parliament todaythrilled and honouredand we all look
forward to his address. I move: That the House record its deep regret at the death of the
Lance Corporal Todd Chidgey on 1 July, in Kabul, Afghanistan and place on record its
appreciation of his service to the country and tender its profound sympathy to his family in
their bereavement. Lance Corporal Chidgey from the 2nd Commando Regiment was born in
Gosford and he enlisted in the Army on 28 March 2006. His death in Kabul brings to 41 the
number of Australian soldiers who have died in Afghanistan since 2002. At the time of his
death, Lance Corporal Chidgey was on his sixth tour of Afghanistan and had previously seen
operational service on Operation Slipper in Afghanistan on five occasions. His postings
included the 4th Battalion (Commando), the Royal Australian Regiment, and the 2nd
Commando Regiment. He was a fine Australian soldier who had dedicated his life to serving
his country. He has been described as 'a consummate professional and a dedicated soldier,
one of the hardest working members of the regiment'. Lance Corporal Chidgey's colleagues
remember him as 'a brilliant bloke to know and work with, who was loyal to the core and
would do anything for his mates'. He was also known for his professionalism and his strong
work ethic and his composure under fire. His family have described him as a 'true gentleman'
and 'champion of the underdog'a man for whom family was everything. To Lance Corporal
Chidgey's family I express my deepest sympathy and condolences. I also extend my
condolences to the members of the 2nd Commando Regiment who have become part of
Lance Corporal Chidgey's extended family. On behalf of the government and, I am sure, all
members of the House, we offer our thoughts and prayers and support to the family and
friends of Lance Corporal Chidgey, now and during the difficult times ahead. I certainly
stand by my statements that, on average, this is a $550 hit on Australian households every
single year. I absolutely stand by my statements. I certainly do not necessarily stand by the
distortions of my statements from the Leader of the Opposition. But I do make this point
that is, the Leader of the Opposition loves the carbon tax. He just loves it. He's got this smile
on his face because every time people's power bills go up there he is, happy that the carbon
tax is doing its job. I make these fundamental points to the Leader of the Opposition. The
carbon tax is a nine per cent impost on power bills. It is a $9 billion handbrake on our
economy and it adds $550 a year to the cost of the average Australian household. So every
single Australian should be better off when the carbon tax is gone. The Leader of the
Opposition is in denial about the impact of the carbon tax on Australian families. He is in
denial about the result of the last election. The Leader of the Opposition should just, for once,
be fair dinkum. He said and all his colleagues said that they would terminate the carbon tax.
The chance to terminate the carbon tax is now, and the Leader of the Opposition should make
an honest politician of himself and take it. I am conscious of the fact that Rockhampton,
which the member represents, is the beef capital of Australia and beef will certainly be one of
the biggest beneficiaries from the free-trade agreement we have signed with Japan. Last week
Prime Minister Abe and I did, in fact, sign the Economic Partnership Agreement that the
member refers to. For 40 years Japan was Australia's biggest trading partner. It is still, by a
wide margin, our second-biggest trading partner, and two-way trade between Australia and
Japan is worth $70 billion every single year, and Japan is also our third-biggest inbound
investor. Japan has been central to Australia's post-war prosperity. Our iron ore, our coal and,
more recently, our gas industries would not have happened but for Japanese buyers and
investors; in a very real sense, our post-war prosperity has been made in Japan. This free-
trade agreement we have just signed with Japan is good news for businesses and for
consumers because freer trade means more jobs and lower prices. It is, in fact, the first
comprehensive free-trade agreement that Japan has signed with a major developed economy
and, under it, 97 per cent of Australia's exports to Japan will enter duty-free or at a
preferential rate when the agreement is fully enforced. Beef, cheese, horticulture and wine
will particularly benefit. Beef tariffs will almost halve, with a big drop immediately. That is
why the red meat council thinks that our beef exports to Japan will increase by some seven
per cent a year under this agreement. The BCA said: The Australian Government has been
focused and pragmatic in concluding the highest-quality bilateral trade agreement Japan has
ever signed. This agreement will give Australian exporters better access to the $5 trillion
Japanese market than Japan has provided under any other of its trade agreements.
Obviously, I thank the trade minister, Andrew Robb, for his tireless work to bring this about.
This is a government which seeks to deliver on its commitments. We said before the last
election that within 12 months we wanted to finalise free-trade agreements with Korea, with
Japan and with China. Two of those agreements have, indeed, been finalised and we have
high hopes of a third, thanks again to the good work of Minister Robb. Why won't the Leader
of the Opposition stand by his promise and terminate the carbon tax? What kind of a fibber is
the Leader of the Opposition when he refuses to terminate the carbon tax he repeatedly
promised? When the carbon tax goes I withdraw. I simply ask the Leader of the Opposition
to do what he said he would do pre-election and terminate the carbon tax. Let me quote, for
the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition, the Chairman of the ACCC, Rod Sims, who said
of the repeal of the carbon tax: What went up will clearly come down when you take away
the carbon price. And for the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition, again let me quote Rod
Sims: It's not a massively complicated process. Electricity prices went up fairly quickly on
the way up and they will go down fairly immediately on the way down. So there it is: what
went up with the carbon tax will come down when the carbon tax comes off. And I say to the
Leader of the Opposition: come out of denial, do after the election what you said you would
do before the election and terminate the carbon tax. Madam Speaker, of course I stand by my
statements, and, yes, the cost of building a new home will fall very significantly once the
carbon tax is abolished. The Leader of the Opposition knows this very well because before
the last election, the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues put out a brochure all
around Australia. 'Kevin Rudd and Labor remove the carbon tax'. It is like they ended the
deficit as well. They abolished the carbon tax like they ended the deficit. But here it is, a
document that the Labor Party distributed right around Australia, and they make all sorts of
claims. Interest rates, they say they reduced thoseI doubt that. School expenses, they say
they reducedwell I certainly doubt that! Child care they claim is '50 per cent off'; in fact,
childcare costs rose by 73 per cent during the life of the former government. And then it says,
'Carbon tax abolished'.' I am not making it up. Here it is in black and white; a brochure from
Kevin Rudd and the Labor Party. It is here in red, white and blue in fact! It is here in red,
white and blue from Kevin Rudd and the Labor Party: 'Carbon tax abolished'. Kevin Rudd
and Labor removed the carbon tax! Well, I do not know what they have been doing since the
election. If they removed the carbon tax since the election, why have they been voting for it
after the electionthree times? Methinks I thought the cock crowed! Three times this
morning! Really and truly, hypocrisy, thy name is Labor: in denial about the election result,
in denial about the debt and deficit disaster and in denial about the damage the carbon tax
does. I table, for the benefit of members opposite, this document. Madam Speaker, you would
think that this would be a man who would be too embarrassed to ask a question after the last
answer. This is the tax that he had already abolished. This is the tax that members opposite
claim to have abolished, but, far from abolishing the carbon tax, members opposite are
consistently voting to keep it even though they know that it is adding massively to the costs
of businesses and significantly and substantially to the costs of every household in Australia.
This is the problem: the Labor Party just does not get it. I absolutely guarantee that the
farmers of Australia will be massively better off without this tax. Some of them will benefit
by much more than $12,000. What hypocrisy we see from members opposite. They are now
supporting a tax cut that they abandoned in government, they are opposing savings that they
supported in government and they are supporting the tax that they thought they had abolished
in government. Really and truly, no-one can take this Labor Party seriously. They do not
believe anything, they do not stand for anything, they have no confidence or competence in
saying or doing anything Once upon a time there were Labor leaders who did stand for
things, who did believe in things and who did do good things for our country. This particular
Labor Party were wreckers in government and now they are wreckers in opposition. I invite
the member who asked the question to vote this week to terminate the carbon tax, because
certainly that should mean that the price of a leg of lamb will come down. If members
opposite keep voting to keep the carbon tax and, if the carbon tax stays under members
opposite, the carbon tax would just go up and up and up and eventuallywho knows?may
be there would have been a $100 leg of lamb. I am inviting members opposite to do the right
thing by the lamb consumers and producers of Australia and vote to terminate the carbon tax.
I am delighted to get a series of questions from the opposition on the carbon tax, because
when it comes to the carbon tax we are against it and after the election we are doing what we
said we would do before the election. They are for it and they are acting completely contrary
to what they said they would do before the election. Let's be absolutely crystal clear: if you
get rid of the carbon tax, you remove a nine per cent impost on power prices, a $9 billion a
year hand break on our economy and a $550-a-year hit on the average household. We want to
save the average household money; that is why we want to terminate the carbon tax. We will
not just claim that we will terminate the carbon tax, we will. We will not rest until this toxic
tax is gone. Even if it does go this week as it should, members opposite will want to bring it
back. They will want it back because they are so convinced that this carbon tax is good for
you, Madam Speaker. It is very, very clear that we are against the carbon tax and we want
lower prices The member interjecting loves the carbon tax, and just wait until she has got
rid of the Leader of the Opposition, she will be telling us every day how good the carbon tax.
If they win the next election, the carbon tax will be back with all its toxicity, all its ugliness
and all its damage to the Australian jobs and the Australian cost of living. No. We said we
would abolish the carbon tax, and that is exactly what we are doingwe are putting the
abolition bill through the parliament. Members opposite keep saying that the government
should honour its commitments, and that is exactly what we are doing. No thanks to the
opposition, thoughnot only is the opposition trying to stop us from honouring our
commitments, but it is trying to stop us from honouring their own commitmentsthe tax cut
that they had abandoned; the savings that they promised and are now opposing; and of course
the carbon tax that they said they had abolished, and that they now love. We are being
absolutely faithful to the commitments we made to the public pre-election, and it is high time
the Labor Party was, too. As the member who asked the question knows, those amendments
were actually withdrawn. The matter has been reworked over the weekend, and I am
confident that we have got the balance right. A whole range of people have been consulted
over the weekend, including the Australian Industry Group On that basis I am confident
that the carbon tax repeal legislation will not only be massively beneficial for business costs
and will massively reduce business costs, but it will very substantially reduce household
expenses, and substantially reduce red tape and compliance. That is what this government
wants to dobring business costs down, bring families' cost of living down and bring red
tape down. That is why the sooner we terminate the carbon tax, the better for everyone. I am
absolutely delighted to get question after question from the Labor Party on the carbon tax,
because they support the carbon tax and we oppose it. We want to scrap the carbon tax; they
want to keep it. We told the truth about the carbon tax before the election and they did not.
They claimed not just that they had terminated the thing but that they had abolished it. Let me
say again, the Labor Party abolished the carbon tax in the same way that the Labor Party
abolished the deficit. Absolute, total, complete frauds, that is what members opposite are on
this matter. Let me be absolutely crystal clear, yet again Let me be absolutely crystal clear,
every time cabinet meets we reiterate our opposition to the carbon tax and our determination
to see the back of the carbon tax as quickly as possible, because the carbon tax is a nine per
cent impost on power prices, a $9 billion a year handbrake on the economy, a $550 a year hit
on the average household's cost of living. For all these reasons, every time the cabinet meet
we say, 'Lets get rid of the carbon tax.' Unlike members opposite, when we meet we do not
say to ourselves, 'Will we terminate or abolish it?'. We do it. We do not play games with the
carbon tax. We do not say we are against it before the election and love it after the election.
We always thought the carbon tax was absolutely toxic. It was bad policy based on a lie. That
is what it was; that is what it is. We are against it; Labor are for it. We will get rid of it as
soon as we humanly can. The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The
Government does not propose to amend or extend the current terms of reference for the Royal
Commission's inquiry. The Royal Commission has an existing significant and far reaching
inquiry to undertake. I am advised that The answer to the honourable member's question is as
follows: The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has no knowledge of any Medal
of the Order of Australia luncheons at Parliament House. thank the member for Lyons for his
question and I can assure him that the safety of the community will always be the first
priority of government. It has been the first priority of governments of all political
persuasions; it will certainly be the first priority of this government. I think all Australians,
and I am sure every member of this House, have watched events unfolding in northern Iraq
and eastern Syria with growing horror. We have seen with our own eyes on our screens and
on the front pages of our newspapers beheadings, crucifixions and mass executions of
innocent people. We have beheld the holding hostage, as it were, of tens of thousands of
minority people on Mount Sinjar, and I am pleased and proud to say that the Royal Australian
Air Force has been part of humanitarian relief efforts there. What we have seen in recent
weeks is medieval barbarism, perpetrated and spread with the most modern of technology.
Regrettably, what might otherwise be horrific events in a faraway country have, because of
the interconnectedness of the modern world, ramifications here. What happens somewhere
these days tends to have ramifications everywhere. And, regrettably, some 60 Australians are
known to be fighting with various terrorist organisations in Iraq and Syria. Some 100
Australians are known to be supporting and facilitating these same terrorist organisations.
The vast majority of these people are Australians born and bred. At some point in time at
least some of the 60 will seek to return to Australia. We need to be able to deal with them
when they return to their home. A few weeks ago the government announced there will be
$630 million in additional support for our intelligence and security agencies. In addition,
there will be three pieces of legislation to strengthen agency powers to make it easier to
detain and jail people returning from terrorist activities and to ensure we keep the necessary
telecommunications metadata. I want to make it absolutely crystal clear that the enemy here
is terrorism. It is not any particular faith; it is not any particular community. But I do have a
clear message to people thinking of going overseas to join in terrorist activity: do not go
because if you do, and if you return, you will be arrested and you will be jailed. I thank the
member for Melbourne for his question. It is a very serious matter and it deserves to be taken
seriously by the House. Certainly I take it seriously and the government takes it seriously.
Australian forces have already been deployed, as the Leader of the Opposition and I have
acknowledged, as part of the humanitarian relief efforts in northern Iraq, and they stand ready
to engage in further humanitarian relief work in northern Iraq. As you know, President
Obama, witnessing the atrocities unfolding before our eyes, witnessing what he called a
'potential genocide' of the Yazidi people and others in northern Iraq, has deployed United
States forces. Thanks to the air strikes carried out by United States forces, the ISIL advance
has for the moment been halted and the siege of Mount Sinjar was lifted. I think the world
should be grateful to President Obama for effectively deploying United States forces for this
essentially humanitarian purpose. Australia is a very close and very supportive partner of the
United States, as are other countries such as the United Kingdom, France and Canada. Talks
are going on between the United States and its close partners on what can best be done to
continue to relieve the humanitarian situation in northern Iraq. I assure the member that this
government will not commit forces without the fullest possible consideration, without the
consideration of cabinet, without consultation with the opposition. That is the way it always
has been and that is the way it always will be. I move: That this House: (1) express its outrage
and condemnation at the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 over Eastern Ukraine on
18th July 2014 AEST; (2) extend its deepest and heartfelt sympathy to the families, friends
and loved ones of the 38 men, women and children aboard MH17 who called Australia home;
(3) offer its condolences to the family and friends of all those lost on Flight MH17, which
also included citizens from the Netherlands, Malaysia, Indonesia, the United Kingdom,
Germany, Belgium, the Philippines, the United States, Canada, New Zealand and South
Africa; (4) condemn the perpetrators of this terrible crime; (5) note the Australian
government has committed to work with the international community in accordance with
United Nations Security Council resolution 2166 to ensure a full, thorough and independent
international investigation into the crash, to identify the cause of the crash and those
responsible, and (6) support the Australian governments cooperation with other countries in
bringing the perpetrators of this barbaric crime to justice. When this parliament last met,
news was just breaking that flight MH17 had been shot down by Russian backed rebels over
eastern Ukraine. This was not just a tragedy; it was an atrocity. Two hundred and ninety-eight
innocent people, including 38 Australians had been murdered. I now report to the House what
we know, what we have done to help bring our people home, and what we are continuing to
do to support the bereaved and to seek justice for the victims. It was a scheduled international
passenger flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur, so basic humanity should have
safeguarded its passage. Instead, it was shot out of the sky. Children lost parents, parents lost
children, and an aching void opened in hundreds of lives, made worse by the wanton cruelty
of shooting down a passenger jet. We could not bring them back but we here in this
parliament promised to bring them home and to seek justice for their families. I believe that
the Australian response has been both swift and compassionate. By nine o'clock on the
morning of the atrocity, the government's crisis centre, working out of the Department of
Foreign Affairs and Trade, was operational, giving information and support to the families of
the lost. And throughout the families' long ordeal, our officials in the Department of Foreign
Affairs and Trade and in the Australian Federal Police have done tireless, efficient and
compassionate work. At 10 o'clock on that fateful Friday, the National Security Committee of
the cabinet met and decided that the Russian ambassador should be called in and an assurance
demanded that Russia would fully cooperate in the investigation and recovery operations.
Later that day I started calling overseas leaders to register Australia's shock and anger. In the
course of the following fortnight I had many conversations with many leaders around the
world. The next day, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Julie Bishop, set off for the Security
Council in New York, and our Special Envoy, Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, set off for
Kiev. Both Foreign Minister Bishop and Air Chief Marshal Houston have done extraordinary
work over the last few weeks, and I thank them both. Our nation thanks them both. The
Security Council resolution that Australia sponsored was adopted unanimously, thanks not
just to the skill of the foreign minister, but to the skill and hard work of our diplomatic team
in New York. I should also thank the Leader of the Opposition for his support throughout this
whole issue, as I thank him for his ongoing support for the government's efforts to bring our
people home and seek justice for the victims. It is important to acknowledge in all of this the
leadership of Prime Minister Rutte of the Netherlands and also the help, support and
leadership of Prime Minister Najib of Malaysia. No country lost more of its people than the
Netherlands. After the chaos and pandemonium on the ground in eastern Ukraine, the way
our deadall the deadwere received in the Netherlands was so dignified and so gracious; it
sent a message of reassurance and support to everyone affected by this tragedy. The airline,
its crew, and many of its passengers were, of course, Malaysian. I also acknowledge the
cooperation and support of President Poroshenko of Ukraine, who has demonstrated goodwill
and decency during a difficult time for his country and for ours. He has Australia's enduring
gratitude. Operation Bring Them Home eventually deployed over 500 Australian personnel,
including about 250 military personnel to work with the Dutch and the Ukraine to recover,
identify and repatriate the remains of the Australian victims. In extremely difficult conditions
Australian, Dutch and, subsequently, Malaysian experts spent six days searching the crash
site under the auspices of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. They
recovered further remains and a substantial amount of personal effects, but regrettably the
war was sweeping over the area, and conditions were simply too dangerous for them to
continue. But I do advise the House that when security conditions improve, and if we judge
there are more remains to be recovered, recovery efforts will resume. I should also thank our
Governor-General Sir Peter Cosgrove, who travelled at very short notice to the Netherlands
and performed a sad duty with grace and dignity. Disaster victim identification is a very, very
slow process. Only this week the first Australian victims are coming home to their families. I
say to all the families: you have the deepest sympathy of all of us in this parliament. Some
families will want to share the difficulty of this grim time, others will want it to be entirely
private but, either way, the families' wishes should be respected. Australians have rallied
around the bereaved, sharing their shock and sorrow. The national memorial service in
Melbourne a few weeks ago was a reminder of the ties that bind us as Australians and I thank
all who participated and organised that service. I can announce today, Madam Speaker, that a
memorial will be erected in the parliamentary gardens to all who perished, especially the 38
Australian victims. I thank you and the President of the Senate for your agreement to this. It
will be established for the first anniversary and as a reminder that we will never, ever forget
them. Two investigations are underway: an aircraft accident investigation under the
Convention on International Civil Aviation led by the Dutch Safety Board and a
multinational criminal investigation led by the Dutch Public Prosecution Service. These
investigations will take some time. Australia has contributed experts to both of them. Our
nation will continue to support all who lost loved ones on flight MH17. We will do
everything in our power to ensure that this horrific act is investigated and its perpetrators
brought to justice. I inform the House that the Minister for Trade and Investment will be
absent from question time today and for the remainder of the week. He is in Burma where he
will participate in the East Asia Summit and ASEAN related trade ministers meetings and the
Minister for Foreign Affairs will answer questions on his behalf. I thank the member for
Gilmore for her question and I can reassure her and all members of the Australian community
that the safety of our nation is the first priority of government. It is the first priority of this
government. It was the first priority of the former government. It has been the first priority of
every Australian government as it should be. But, regrettably, at least 60 Australians are
known to have gone overseas to fight with terrorist groups in Syria and northern Iraq,
including with the ISIL movement, and about 100 Australians are known to have been
supporting or facilitating these terrorist groups. We know what these people can do. We have
seen it on our screens and we must make sure that it never happens here in this country of
ours. We need the capacity to deal with people, preferably to stop them from going overseas
to join terrorist groups in the first place but, certainly, to stop them, should they seek to return
to this country. The government has recently announced a further $630 million in new
funding for the Australian Federal Police, for the Australian Security Intelligence
Organisation, for the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, for the Office of National
Assessments and for the Customs and Border Protection Service. I am pleased to remind the
House that soon there will be biometric screening at all our international airports. I want to
stress that extremism is our enemy, not religion, and that it is terrorism that is being targeted,
not the members of any particular community. I make a further announcement today that late
last week the Customs and Border Protection Service began operating counter-terrorism units
at Sydney and Melbourne international airports, and similar units will shortly be established
at all international airports in Australia. There will be an additional 80 Border Force officers
stationed at international airports to monitor the movements of people on our national
security watchlists. I am advised that these new units have already intercepted at least one
person of interest. I do want to assure the House that this government will doI am sure this
parliament will doeverything that is reasonably necessary to keep our country safe. The
answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: a) The following information is
sourced from the Report on Government Services 2014. Data is provided for each year level.
The rate of school attendance (a)in Government, Independent and Catholic schools in
Victoria in 2012 for each year level is as follows: b) The Australian Government is taking the
following steps to ensure that all children throughout Australia attend school each day:
Working with jurisdictions to progress school attendance measures agreed by the Council of
Australian Governments on 13 December 2013. Proposing to add a new Closing the Gap
target for school attendance to the existing Closing the Gap targets, with the aim of closing
the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous school attendance within 5 years.
Implementing the Remote School Attendance Strategy. Rollout to 40 schools in NT, WA,
SA, QLD and NSW commenced in Term 1 2014, with the programme to be expanded to a
further 30 schools in Term 2 2014. Using the improving School Enrolment and Attendance
through welfare reform Measure (SEAM) in the Northern Territory. c) This is not a matter
of Commonwealth responsibility. I suggest that you contact the Victorian State Government
for this information. d) This is not a matter of Commonwealth responsibility. I suggest that
you contact the Victorian State Government for this information. I inform the House that the
Minister for Foreign Affairs will be absent from question time today. She is in Indonesia to
sign the Australia-Indonesia joint understanding on a code of conduct with Indonesian
foreign minister Marty Natalegawa. The Deputy Prime Minister will answer questions on her
behalf and on behalf of the Minister for Trade and Investment. I thank the Leader of the
Opposition for his question, and I do appreciate the spirit in which he asks it. I appreciate the
support that he and the opposition have given to the government as we do our bit to deal with
the humanitarian disaster now unfolding in northern Iraq. We have all seen atrocity after
atrocity on our TV screensbeheadings, crucifixions, mass executions. This is as near to
pure evil as we are ever likely to see. As President Obama pointed out a week or so back,
what is at risk in northern Iraq is potential genocidea humanitarian catastrophe on a scale
unparalleled in recent times. To his great credit, President Obama has authorised air strikes
against the murderous hordes of ISIL. Those air strikes have lifted the siege of Mount Sinjar.
They have apparently stopped the advance of ISIL forces into Kurdish areas. There are
obviously discussions going on between the United States and its friends and allies about
what more can be done to avert further disasters in this part of the world. I have to say that
Australia has not been officially asked for military assistance. If we were asked for military
assistance there would be the standard approvals process, which would involve cabinet
decision-making, and consultation with the opposition. Should we be asked, we would want
to look at any request in the light of achievable objectives, a clear role for Australian forces, a
full risk assessment, and an overall humanitarian objective. But I do wish to say that I am
sure that no-one in this parliamentno human being anywherewould wish to stand by and
watch the preventable slaughter of innocent people. None of us would wish to see a
preventable slaughter of innocent people. I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition would
not, in this context, mind me echoing the words of Ben Chifley in his 'light on the hill'
speech, when he said that our objective is to work 'for the betterment of mankind not only
here but anywhere we may give a helping hand', because that is the Australian wayto keep
our country safe and to do what we can to build a safer world. I thank the member for
Robertson for her question. I reiterate to this House today, as I have on earlier days, that the
safety of the community is our first duty. It is the first duty of government, and I
acknowledge the commitment of this parliamentboth sides of this parliamentto
upholding that duty by supporting strong national security laws and strong national security
agencies. As this House knows, there are, regrettably, a growing number of Australians who
are fighting with terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq. There are 60 that we know of, who are
fighting with these murderous groups. There are 100 that we know of, who are working with
and facilitating the work of these murderous groups. There are people who are killing without
compunction in these countries, and the fear is that there would be at least a predisposition to
kill without compunction should they return to Australia. That is why we need more
resources for our security agencieshence the government's commitment of an additional
$630 million. We need stronger laws to deal with people returning from terrorist activity
overseas, to boost agency powers, to strengthen anti-terrorist offences and to retain access to
telecommunications metadata for crime-fighting purposes. This is why we need counter-
terrorism units at our international airports, such as those units that became operational late
last week. I can inform the House that yesterday the government signed an agreement for
data-sharing between the United States and Australia, which will make it easier to monitor
people on national security watch lists. I stress that data-sharing will take place in conformity
with both countries' privacy laws. I further stress that it is terrorism that is being targeted, not
members of any particular community. It is extremism that is our enemy, not religion. I wish
to stress to this House and to the Australian people that this government and this parliament
will do everything that is reasonably necessary to keep our community safe. I suspect the
Leader of the Opposition might know, while small travelling exhibitions will not be funded
over the next few years, a very large travelling exhibition is going to be funded. While
$800,000 for small travelling exhibitions has not been paid, $10 million in seed funding for a
very large travelling exhibition has been paid. This very large travelling exhibition will be at
the very heart of our Centenary of Anzac commemorations right around our country. There is
scarcely a centre of any size around Australia that will not receive a visit from the Centenary
of Anzac travelling exhibition. In addition, my advice is that the War Memorial funding will
be up from some $40 million last year to $47 million this year, because the Australian War
Memorial is the keeper of a sacred flame. It is the place where we cherish the memory, the
example and the inspiration of all who have served our country, who have worn our country's
uniform. In time of peace and war we honour them, we salute them and we will suitably fund
them over the Centenary of Anzac period. As I think I made it clear in answering the last
question, we have not cut support for the War Memorial. A series of small travelling
exhibitions are giving way to a much larger travelling exhibition that we have already funded
to the tune of $10 million and that will be the centrepiece of the Centenary of Anzac
commemorations. Surely, rather than complain, members opposite should be saying: 'Isn't it
good that the government is continuing the plans that were put together by the Centenary of
Anzac committee, which was put in place with the support of both sides of the parliament.'
The travelling exhibition that was put together by the Centenary of Anzac committee with the
support of both sides of the parliament is going ahead. It will very substantially enable
millions and millions of Australians right around our country, in centres big and small, to
appropriately learn the history of our great Yet again senior members of the opposition are
simply wrong. They are simply, simply wrong. Pensions go up every six months every year.
They go up this year, they go up next year, they go up the year after that, they go up the year
after thatthey always go up and they always will go up every six months under this
government. The opposition have, day in and day out, made claims about public hospital
funding and school education funding that are simply, simply wrong. For the benefit of
members opposite let me repeat: this year public hospital spending goes up nine per cent
next year it goes up nine per cent, the year after that it goes up nine per cent and in the final
year it goes up six per cent. For the benefit of members opposite, public hospital funding goes
up nine per cent this year, nine per cent next year, nine per cent the year after that and six per
cent in the final year. School funding goes up eight per cent this year, eight per cent next
year, eight per cent the year after that and six per cent in the final year. So every single year
school funding goes up, public hospital funding goes up. The Leader of the Opposition likes
to wave around our budget documents. I am pleased that he likes to wave around our budget
documents, because that is the closest he will ever get to fiscal responsibilitywaving
around our budget documents! Because, I tell you what: you will never, ever get fiscal
responsibility from members opposite. Remember in 2012 when the absent member for
Lilley stood up in this parliament and said, 'The four years of surpluses I announce tonight '
Let me repeat that. In the 2012 budget he said, 'The four years of surpluses I announce
tonight ' The Leader of the Opposition even claimed it had already happened. The budget
that the Leader of the Opposition waves around is this government's document to address the
mess that members opposite created. We have told the Australian people how we will address
Labor's budget mess. Now we need to know what Labor will do to address its budget mess.