QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Abbott Government Priorities

Mr SHORTEN (MaribyrnongLeader of the Opposition) (14:08): My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister made two policy choices yesterday. He reintroduced knights and dames to the Australian honours list and his government voted in the House yesterday to cut $211 payments from the children of orphans. Prime Minister, don't these choices reflect the government's cruel and twisted priorities? Mr ABBOTT (WarringahPrime Minister) (14:08): It is nice to get a question from the Hon. Bill Shorten, who has on his frontbench the Hon. Mark Dreyfus, Queen's Counsel. Opposition members interjecting The SPEAKER: There will be silence on my left! Mr ABBOTT: This government's priorities are very clear Mr Snowden interjecting The SPEAKER: The member for Lingiari! Mr ABBOTT: we want to take the burdens off families that members opposite put on them. Mr Thistlethwaite interjecting The SPEAKER: The member for Kingsford Smith! Mr ABBOTT: We want to get rid of the carbon tax. Last week, Labor voted to keep the carbon tax. Mr Thistlethwaite interjecting The SPEAKER: The member for Kingsford Smith is warned! Mr ABBOTT: We want to get rid of the mining tax. Yesterday, Labor voted to keep the mining tax. We want to get rid of some 10,000 redundant regulations and acts of parliament, and I bet you this, Madam Speaker, Labor will vote to keep them. Mr Champion interjecting The SPEAKER: The member for Wakefield! An opposition member interjecting

Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. All day, the parliament has been saying that was bipartisanall day! The SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, and the member will not abuse the standing orders. Mr ABBOTT: We want to restore the rule of law in the construction industry, and Labor has voted against that. We want to clean up corruption inside the union movement, and Labor is opposed to that. This is a government which is focussed on doing the right thing by the families of Australia Mr Burke interjecting The SPEAKER: The member for Watson will desist! Mr ABBOTT: 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.

Economy
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde) (14:11): My question is to the Prime Minister. How will cutting red tape Honourable members interjecting The SPEAKER: Order! There is a wall of noise starting to mount. This is not to be tolerated. The member for Forde has the call. Mr VAN MANEN: My question is to the Prime Minister. How will cutting red tape ease the

compliance burden on small business and help create jobs? And how have the government's plans to remove red tape been received by business and community groups? Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister was unable to hear the question because of the pathetic noise coming from the opposition. I would ask that the member for Forde be allowed to ask his question again, and for the opposition learn to behave like adults. Opposition members interjecting The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House has in fact made a perfectly valid point. There will be silence on my left, or some people might leave us. The member for Forde will repeat his question. Mr VAN MANEN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Prime Minister. How will cutting red tape ease the compliance burden on small business and help create jobs? And how have the government's plans to remove red tape been received by business and community groups?

Mr ABBOTT (WarringahPrime Minister) (14:12): I do 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 Mr Clare interjecting The SPEAKER: The member for Blaxland with desist! Mr ABBOTT: These changes will save the businesses and the people of Australia $720 million a year, every year. That is real money thanks to the real reforms of this government. Honourable members interjecting Mr ABBOTT: Scrapping the carbon tax will not just save a $9-billion tax hit on the economy, it will not just save every household $550 a year, but scrapping the carbon tax will remove $85 million$85 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 Mr Watts interjecting The SPEAKER: The member for Gellibrand will desist! Mr Danby: Execute him! The SPEAKER: The member for Melbourne Ports will withdraw those remarks! Mr ABBOTT: 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

Honourable members interjecting

The SPEAKER: We seem to have a new tactic of having an outburst of infectious laughterwhich I suspect may become disorderlyand I suspect it might begin with the member for Franklin. The member for Franklin is warned. Mr Burke: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. The SPEAKER: It had better be a proper point of order. Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, are you ruling people out of order because they are laughing? The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. The member for Franklin will leave the chamber under standing order 94(a). The member for Franklin then left the chamber. Mr Shorten interjecting Mr Abbott: The Leader of the Opposition referred to what he called 'the royal comedy channel'. I think that is offensive and he should be asked to withdraw. The SPEAKER: To assist the House, the Leader of the Opposition will withdraw. Mr Shorten: I withdraw the comment. I did not mean to offend the Prime Minister. I completely withdraw. Opposition members interjecting The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister has the call, and you can regard yourselves as universally warned. In accordance with practice, I will not hear the Manager of Opposition Business. He has abused the standing orders twice already. The Prime Minister has completed his answer.

Education Funding
Mr SHORTEN (MaribyrnongLeader of the Opposition) (14:17): My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has chosen to break his pre-election promises on educationcutting money from schools, trade training centres and research and development. Prime Minister, don't these choices reflect the government's lack of vision and its twisted priorities? Mr ABBOTT (WarringahPrime Minister) (14:17): 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 preelection 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.

Budget
Mr PORTER (Pearce) (14:19): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline the challenges for the budget over the medium term? Treasurer, how will fixing the budget assist families in Western Australia and elsewhere? Mr HOCKEY (North SydneyThe Treasurer) (14:19): I thank the honourable member for his

question. He is a former Treasurer of Western Australia and he is well aware of the challenge of inheriting a budget mess from Labor, as he did. The fundamental point is that if you get on with the job of fixing the budget, you have a chance of fixing the economy. When you have a weak budget that is consistently running deficits, that is constantly accumulating debt for the nation, then that, over time, can unquestionably weaken the economy. There have been many different surveys on this, but the truth is that it is good to have a strong budget. That is why we have to get back to surplus and a sustainable surplus at that. The Labor Party is in denial. They left behind deficits totalling $123 billion and debt increasing to $667 billion. They left a time frame that shows not a single surplus over the next 10 years. That is Labor's legacy. The fact is that they did not know how to control spending. Opposition members interjecting Mr HOCKEY: Don't believe me if you don't want to, but believe the IMF, which released a report in February this year that found that Labor's spending would rise to 26.5 per cent of GDP by 2023. That is up from today's 25.9 per cent, so it would increase as a percentage of GDP. The IMF said:
health and disability spending are expected to increase over the next decade by percent of GDP each, and education, assistance to the aged and pensions by 0.2 percent each.

That is the equivalent of an extra $32 billion a year in spending in today's dollars. That would take the budget deficit this year to well over $70 billion. Labor can be in denial about this, but it is a fact identified by the Treasury, by every credible commentator, by the IMF, by those people who are determined to tell the truth.

Mr Swan: That's another lie! Mr HOCKEY: The truth is your greatest stranger, I say to the member for Lilley. The fact is you never delivered it. The SPEAKER: unparliamentary. Mr Swan: I withdraw. The member for Lilley will withdraw. He knows that that language is

Paid Parental Leave

Mr SHORTEN (MaribyrnongLeader of the Opposition) (14:22): My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has chosen to splurge $5 billion annually on a paid parental leave scheme which will give well-paid executives an extra $75,000 to have a baby. At the same time, the government will delay the rollout of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which will hurt 460,000 people with a disability and their families. Prime Minister, don't these choices reflect the government's twisted priorities? Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The opposition has been given great licence with these questions. We understand that most of the cards are stacked on this side of the deck. Although questions sometimes may contain argument, the phraseology of the Leader of the Opposition is clearly not in order in a question. He should not be allowed to ask a question with that phraseology included. Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: the Treasurer used the unparliamentary term 'lie' by implying the member for Lilley failed to deliver the truth. The SPEAKER: Did the Treasurer use that term? Mr Hockey: I withdraw. The SPEAKER: The Treasurer will not remain seated. He will come back to the dispatch box and withdraw. Mr Hockey: I withdraw. The SPEAKER: On the question of argument in questions, strict interpretation of the standing orders does say there should not be argument. However, traditionally, Speakers have given members some latitude and the standing order has been interpreted rather liberally. I consider, in this week, when we have had so much stress on the question of freedom of speechparticularly coming from the oppositionI will let the question stand.

Mr ABBOTT (WarringahPrime Minister) (14:24): 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.

Minerals Resource Rent Tax

Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (14:26): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline the importance of repealing the mining tax? How will repealing the mining tax assist families in Western Australia and elsewhere? Mr HOCKEY (North SydneyThe Treasurer) (14:26): It is hugely important to repeal the mining tax. The mining tax represents sovereign risk to potential investors in Australia. It has been a disastrous tax from its very inception. The mining tax has been one of the great financial disasters of modern times. In its original form it was meant to raise $12 billion in this current financial year, but it has barely raised a dollar. The most insidious part of all this is that the Labor Party committed $16 billion of expenditure against a tax that raises no money. They were spending money they were never going to receive. That is the fraud the Labor Party has imposed on the Australian people, including the people of Western Australia who rely so heavily on the resources and mining industry. The Labor Party are the architects of the worst tax in modern times; a tax that hits everyday Western Australians and everyday Australians. It is a terrible tax. Yesterday, I said in 100 years time they will be writing about the mining tax as the worst tax that was ever designed. I did not know how apt it was for me to make that reference at the time, so I went back to the budget papers of a hundred years ago. Opposition members interjecting The SPEAKER: There will be silence on my left.

Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting The SPEAKER: The member for Gorton will leave under standing order 94(a). The member for Gorton then left the chamber. Mr HOCKEY: The mining tax, designed by the member for Lilley, actually raised 95 per cent less than was forecast. In 1914, it was also a Labor Prime Minister and Treasurer, Andrew Fisher, who designed a tax for the introduction of probate and succession duties that was meant to raise one million pounds but raised just 39,000 pounds96 per cent less than what was forecast. So Labor introducing a tax raising no money seems to be a once in a hundred years event. But I bet Andrew Fisher did not have the hide to spend money he never received.

Abbott Government
Mr SHORTEN (MaribyrnongLeader of the Opposition) (14:29): My question is to the Prime Minister. How does the Prime Minister explain the following priorities: breaking election promises by cutting health and education, cutting payments to orphans of veterans but paying some Australians $75,000 to have a baby, cutting protections against bigotry but not fighting for Australian jobs, awarding knighthoods but cutting the wages of cleaners? Mr ABBOTT (WarringahPrime Minister) (14:30): 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 Mr Burke: Madam Speaker The SPEAKER: Order! The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. Please refer to people by their correct titles, Prime Minister. Mr ABBOTT: 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 Mr Thistlethwaite interjecting The SPEAKER: The member for Kingsford Smith will leave the chamber under standing order 94(a).

The member for Kingsford Smith then left the chamber. Mr ABBOTT: because it was not a question; it was a statementnot one of them is true. I will tell you what our priorities are. Mr Champion interjecting The SPEAKER: The member for Wakefield will also leave the chamber under standing order 94(a). The member for Wakefield then left the chamber. Mr ABBOTT: Our priorities are helping Australian families by scrapping the carbon tax. Labor wants the carbon tax to stay. Our priorities are helping Australian jobs by scrapping the mining tax. Labor wants the mining tax to stay. Our priorities are restoring peace in our workplaces by restoring the ABCC. Labor wants the ABCC to go. Mr Shorten interjecting The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will desist. Mr ABBOTT: Our priorities are those of the Australian people. What the Australian people want is less tax, less regulation, more freedom and more prosperity, and that is what they will get from this government.

Climate Change
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (14:32): My question is the Minister for the Environment. Ronald Reagan said that the first duty of any government is to protect its country's people. However, since you became minister in September, you have raised the issue of climate change on only four occasions in this House. Do you accept that this government has a duty to protect the Australian way of life from the impacts of climate change and do you accept that you are failing miserably to meet this responsibility? Mr HUNT (FlindersMinister for the Environment) (14:33): You know, as the days go on, I miss Peter Garrett more and more. He was the one, of course, who acknowledged that at least he had a short memory. This is the crossbencher, and this is the opposition, that in government took a real axe to the Australian way of life. They are the people who imposed a tax of $550 a year, when they went to an election saying that they would not. If you worry about Australian life, the first thing that you would worry about is truth in government. Truth in government would be fundamental. Ms Butler interjecting

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Griffith will desist. Mr HUNT: What we heard throughout the course of the last term was a government built on a fundamental deception. As the member for Melbourne would remember, the opposition, when they were in government, went to the election pledging that there would be no carbon tax under the government they led. They pledged there would be no carbon tax. Mr Bandt: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. My question was about the use of the term 'climate change'. We are a minute into the answer and the minister still has not mentioned climate change. Will you ask him to be relevant to the question? The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. It was a very wide-ranging question full of argument, to be honest. Mr HUNT: In terms of the Australian way of life, starting with truth in government, starting with your commitments, starting with the fundamental contract with the Australian people would be an absolute essential for good governance in this country. The member for Melbourne struck a compact which caused the government of the day to breach their fundamental pact with the Australian people. Do you know the worst thing about it? Apart from the fact that it was a $550 tax, apart from the fact that it was an increase in electricity prices, apart from the fact that it was an increase in gas prices, it did not do the job on climate change. If you want to have an impact you would think that you would actually want to reduce emissions. The latest figures are that after a multibillion- dollar tax the decrease in Australia's emissionsthese are not our figureswas 0.1 per cent from this great tax over the first year. So a multibillion-dollar tax, with a $550 a year impact on Australian families, came at the cost of a fundamental compact between Australian families, Australian pensioners, Australian voters and the government of the day. We are concerned about protecting Australian families. We are going to take actions which actually reduce our emissions, rather than a 0.1 per cent impact from a multibillion-dollar tax. I welcome this question from the member for Melbournecome on down with morebut at the end of the day, if you want to do something for the Australian way of life, stand up for truth and stand up for the compact between the Australian people and the government. Mr Conroy interjecting The SPEAKER: The member for Charlton is warned!

Carbon Pricing
Mr WILSON (O'Connor) (14:36): My question is to the Minister for the Environment. I refer to figures released by the Clean Energy Regulator that show the carbon tax has hit Western Australia with at least $627 million in higher costs in the last financial year. How will repealing the carbon tax assist families in Western Australia and elsewhere and why has it not been repealed? Mr Conroy interjecting Mr HUNT (FlindersMinister for the Environment) (14:37): You are a geniusjust a genius. We have a new Mensa! The SPEAKER: The member for Charlton will leave under 94(a). The member for Charlton then left the chamber. Mr HUNT: I can understand why the member for O'Connor would want to know why a $550-a-year hit on Australian families has not been repealed and why the opposition would stand in the way of repealing something which they themselves have said they would want to terminate. It is a very interesting story this, because on the weekend, on Sunday morning, I was watching one of Labor's luminaries and guiding lights being interviewed. Here is what the interviewer said to this luminary: 'Explain this: I just cannot understand why Bill Shorten would defend a carbon tax for which Labor had no mandate and which it promised to get rid of. Why would you do something that idiotic?' 'Well,' says Bruce Hawker, 'it defeats me somewhat. I think one of the very few decent things about losing an election is you can say: "All right, that's over. The electorate got it right and now we're focusing on the future." I am lost for words as to why we'd do it.' Ms Butler interjecting The SPEAKER: The member for Griffith will leave under 94(a). The member for Griffith then left the chamber. Mr HUNT: Just to repeat Bruce Hawker: 'I am lost for words as to why we'd do it.' But why do they do it? The answer is very simple. They said one thing before the electionthey said they would terminate the carbon taxand did the other thing afterwards. Interestingly, Prime Minister, they said one thing in Western Australia only last Thursdaytheir leading Senate candidate said they were going to scrap the carbon taxand did another thing in Canberra four hours later.

In terms of what they said before the election, let us remember that Kevin Rudd said, 'We will terminate the carbon tax.' He was flanked by the member for Port Adelaide, who went on to say, 'Labor supports terminating the carbon tax.' But they did not. He was flanked by the member for McMahon, who, very interestingly, on the cost of living said, 'We think this is an appropriate thing to do in the face of cost-ofliving pressures faced by the Australian people'and he was right. A $550 a year cost-of-living pressure, a nine per cent decrease in electricity prices, a seven per cent decrease in tax, a decrease in refrigerant coststhese are the things which will come from repealing the carbon tax. In terms of Western Australia, what is very interesting is that the Western Australian Senate candidate Louise Pratt said in the Senate, 'We are committed to scrapping the carbon tax,' and then they voted to keep the carbon tax. We have had Joe Bullock, their leading Senate candidate, make the statement only last Thursday that Labor is scrapping the carbon tax. So they say one thing in Western Australia in the morning, and four hours later they do the other thing here in Canberra. When it comes to the carbon tax, you cannot trust Labor, but you can trust the coalition.

Honours and Awards

Mr SHORTEN (MaribyrnongLeader of the Opposition) (14:40): My question is to the Prime Minister. Why does the government have a plan to bring back knights and dames, but no plan for Australian jobs? Prime Minister, why is the Abbott government's priority a plan to bring back knighthoods? Mr ABBOTT (WarringahPrime Minister) (14:40): Well, Madam Speaker, this is Opposition members interjecting The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition's question was listened to in silence by those on my left. You will listen similarly to the answer. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr ABBOTT: This is a government which is capable of doing several things at the same time. But our priority is lifting the burdens on Australian families, and last week we tried to scrap the carbon tax, and Labor made the carbon tax stay. Yesterday we tried to scrap the mining tax, and Labor made the mining tax stay. We are trying to clean up the building and construction industry; Labor is trying to stop that. We are trying to get rid of union rorts, rackets and rip-offs, and corruption of the sort that the former member

for Dobell was engaged in; Labor is still protecting that kind of wrongdoing. These are our priorities; I am proud of them. Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If there was ever a breach of standing order 104(a), it is what we just heard. The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister has the call.

Education
Mr RANDALL (Canning) (14:42): My question is to the Minister for Education. I remind the minister of his recent visit to the Ocean Road Primary School in my electorate, one of more than 240 independent public schools across Western Australia. What lessons can we learn from the educational policies in Western Australia and what is the government doing to help students achieve good outcomes at school? Mr PYNE (SturtLeader of the House and Minister for Education) (14:42): I thank the member for Canning for his question. I am happy to tell him that, in fact, there is much to be proud of in the Western Australian school education system, and, if the voters of Western Australia on 5 April return enough coalition senators to make sure that the Senate is a workable Senate for the government, we will be able to continue to support the Western Australian government in the good work that they are doing for school students in improving their outcomes. Contrary to the shadow minister's wrong assertions and her misinformation, the Western Australian state government have increased their spending on schools by 7.8 per cent this financial year. In fact, Western Australia has the highest level of funding per student in a government school of any state or territory in the country. In fact, Western Australia leads the country in school autonomy, with independent public schools giving more autonomy for principals, which we know improves the outcomes for studentsso much so that Queensland and the Northern Territory are following their leadand this is paying off, because they have the best results in the latest PISA data. The best results in Australia are in Western Australia in science, maths and reading. In all three of the things that PISA tests, Western Australia is leading the nation. So they are themselves investing in their schools rather than demanding Canberra does so, they are introducing independent public schools, and we are helping them with a more robust curriculum and with an independent public schools policy to expand independent public schools, and by putting $120 million back into Western Australian schools that the

Leader of the Opposition ripped out in the PEFOthe Pre-Election Fiscal Outlookwhen he was the Minister for Education. In fact, Labor ripped $1.2 billion out of schools before the federal election, but thanks to the Treasurer and the Prime Ministerwe found the money to support Western Australian education. The shadow minister cannot even be bothered turning up to question time because Mr Shorten interjecting The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will desist. Mr PYNE: she is in Western Australia when the parliament is sitting, continuing to spread her misinformation, her deceit and her dishonesty in Western Australia. Her job is here in Canberra, doing her job as the member for Adelaide, but she cannot be bothered. She would rather be Mr Burke: withdrawn. Mr Pyne: 'Lie' is unparliamentary; 'dishonesty' and 'deceit' are not unparliamentary. An opposition member: That is not right. Withdraw! Mr Pyne: I will not have you bullying the Speaker by sounding off. Mr Fitzgibbon: Madam Speaker, a point of order: the minister's responsibility in this place is to answer questions. If he wants to attack individual members, he should do so only by way of substandard motion. The SPEAKER: What is the point of order? Mr Fitzgibbon: That is my point of order, Madam Speaker. He is not entitled to use answers to questions to attack members The SPEAKER: The member for Hunter will resume his seat. I have a good memory, and I remember when the opposition was in government and using language which was stronger than that and which was allowed. Opposition members interjecting The SPEAKER: Indeed there was. Madam Speaker, a point of order: it was unparliamentary language. It should be

Ms Burke: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am loath to take this point of order. As you well know, it is within the direction of the chair as to what is unparliamentary besides the word 'lied'. If you want to impute my reputation in this previous place, then I think that is fairly baseless. Mr Pyne: I am happy to withdraw that. The SPEAKER: The minister has withdrawn. I gave leeway to the member for Chisholm; I think as a former Speaker she is entitled to have expression, particularly in this week of freedom of speech. Mr PYNE: Madam Speaker, I am very proud of the record of this government in school education, and I look forward to continuing to work with the Western Australian government, which is achieving the best results in the nation through the policies that we support, like independent public schooling. I look forward to working with them in the future.

Age Pension
Ms PLIBERSEK (SydneyDeputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:47): My question is to the Prime Minister. Given the Prime Minister ruled out scrapping his $5 billion gold-plated paid parental scheme in question time on 27 February, will the Prime Minister now give senior Australians the same certainty, and rule out any cuts to the age pension? Mr ABBOTT (WarringahPrime Minister) (14:48): What the opposition is attempting to do here is to spread fear in our community. The priorities of this government are clear, and for the pensioners of Australia, the priorities are very, very clear indeed. We will scrap the carbon tax and we will keep the compensation The people who are trying to prevent a benefit to pensioners are members opposite, who want the pensioners of Australia to keep paying the carbon tax. If we are talking about benefits to pensions, we want to take the carbon tax off the pensioners of Australia, and Labor is voting to keep it on them. Shame, Labor, shame! Give the pensioners of Australia a fair go by voting to take the carbon tax off their power bills.

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:49): I would like to acknowledge that we have in the chamber with us today the Honourable David Bradbury, the former member for Lindsay and former minister. We also have with us the 8th Australian Political Exchange Council Delegation from the Philippines. We make you very welcome, as we do the Honourable David Bradbury. Honourable members: Hear, hear!

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Road Infrastructure

Ms PRICE (Durack) (14:49): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. How will the government ensure that local councils continue to receive funds to upgrade and maintain local roads? How important is sound infrastructure to families and businesses in Western Australia and in my electorate of Durack and elsewhere? Mr TRUSS (Wide BayDeputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (14:50): May I compliment the member for Durack in her representations to deliver better roads to northern Western Australia. This government has responded with a substantial program of new roads and new construction projects in the region. Indeed, about half a billion dollars is being committed to new roadworks in northern Western Australia, and that includes $307 million to upgrade the Great Northern Highway and $174 million to upgrade the North West Coastal Highway. Once more, this is real money. This is money that is budgeted for and fundedunlike the commitments that were made by those opposite, which the member for Lilley and the member for Grayndler said were conditional on funding from the mining tax. Labor was talking about projects, but they were never there to deliver them, because the funds were not availablethey were conditional on money coming from the mining tax. But I am sure the member for Durack and the 47 councils that she represented would have been horrified earlier this week when they saw the Labor Party and the Greens combining in this House to oppose the continuation of the Roads to Recovery program. The Roads to Recovery program is vital for upgrading local roads and local streets, especially in the large areas represented by the member for Durack. Labor and the Greens voted against this program. I find that just incredible. The member for Grayndler was not able to be here yesterday, but it did not stop him issuing a press release after the debate. In it he went to great lengths to say that Labor had actually funded Roads to Recovery into the future. It may have been on the expenditure side of the budget, but on the other side it was only debt. The reality, and one would have thought the member for Grayndler would have known this, is that Labor's 2009 legislation terminates the Roads to Recovery program on 30 June this year. Their legislation terminates the Roads to Recovery program. This legislation is absolutely essential to implementing this side of the House's commitment to five more years of Roads to Recovery funding.

The councils of Australia need to be aware that if Labor and the Greens combine in the Senate to vote against this legislation again then there will be no Roads to Recovery program. There will be no vital funding to support their roadworks and street works around the country. It is a clear choice. You vote for senators who will approve the Roads to Recovery program if you want this vital program to continue.

Privatisation
Ms MacTIERNAN (Perth) (14:53): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to reports that the Treasurer will meet with state governments on Friday to discuss federal demands for state asset sell-offs. Will the Prime Minister rule out attaching conditions to funding that would encourage the privatisation of West Australian assets, including the Mandurah railway line, or our power and water assets? Mr ABBOTT (WarringahPrime Minister) (14:54): 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 The SPEAKER: The member for Perth on a point of order? Ms MacTiernan: I would like to raise a point of order on the question of relevance. We really want to know about the asset selloff. Which ones are being targeted in Western Australia? The SPEAKER: The member will resume her seat. I am listening very seriously to the answer given by the Prime Minister. The question was about the meeting being held, and the Prime Minister is addressing what is to be discussed at that meeting. Mr ABBOTT: If we can help the states to deploy resources from a lesser priority to a higher priority, that is a very smart thing to do. The resources of this nation, whether they are held by national or state governments, should be optimally deployed. That means rebuilding our infrastructure and unclogging the great economic arteries of this country. That is what this government wants to do. Frankly, if members opposite had any sense whatsoever they would support it.

National Broadband Network

Ms MARINO (ForrestGovernment Whip) (14:55): My question is to the Minister for

Communications. Will the minister update the House on the rollout of the NBN in Western Australia? How important is affordable broadband to families in Western Australia and elsewhere? Mr TURNBULL (WentworthMinister for Communications) (14:56): member for her question Opposition members interjecting The SPEAKER: There will be silence on my left! Mr TURNBULL: The Abbott government inherited a shocking mess in the NBN everywhere in Australia, but nowhere worse than in Western Australia. At the time of the election there were only 75 premises in the whole state connected to the broadband network. Opposition members interjecting The SPEAKER: The member for Rankin will desist. Mr TURNBULL: Members opposite said that since the election the coalition has stopped the rollout of the NBN. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is that in Western Australia there are not 5,482 premises connected to the fibre, which if my calculations are correct is an increase of 7,300 per cent on the Labor Party's effort. There are also now 34,582 premises that are actually serviceable. Opposition members interjecting The SPEAKER: The member for Chifley will desist. Mr TURNBULL: I spoke yesterday in the House about the colossal failure in the Interim Satellite Service5,600 residents who use that service are only getting dial-up, at a cost to the taxpayer of $7,300 each. I talked about how we are seeking to remedy that. Another matter we have been left with, which is a shocking and extremely difficult to solve mess, is the fact there are over 16,000 premises in Western Australia alone in areas that were promised broadband delivered by fixed wireless. The NBN Co, at the time those promises were made and now, does not own the radio frequency spectrum capable of delivering that service. Opposition members interjecting I thank the honourable

Mr TURNBULL: So that was a complete falsehood. It was a totally false promise. The 'Conrovian' promise had no basis at all. It was a complete fantasy. We are working on a solution to that. As I have said many times the messes that Senator Conroy left us are not susceptible to easy solutions. He is a master at making difficult messes for his successors. Yesterday the former deputy chair Diane Smith-Gander was asked about Senator Conroy. She was asked if the former board had recommended that he conduct a costbenefit analysis, and she said Opposition members interjecting The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat. The member for Isaacs on a point of order. Mr Dreyfus: Relevance is an important part of the standing orders. This part of the answer has nothing to do with the question that the minister was asked. The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat. The minister has the call. An honourable member: Everything in parliament is an important part of the standing orders! Mr TURNBULL: I am really surprised that one of Her Majesty's counsels, learned in the law, would not have been able to pick that up. But Diane Smith-Gander said, 'think about the notion of suggesting anything to Minister Conroy'. Opposition members interjecting The SPEAKER: There will be silence on my left. Mr TURNBULL: I am a committed republican, but I did not see you on the barricades. You were missing in action. Mr Shorten interjecting The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition! The SPEAKER: The Minister will resume his seat. Mr TURNBULL: You were missing in action! Honourable members interjecting

The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat forthwith. The honourable Leader of the Opposition clearly lost control in that instance. To date, there has been a constant barrage and obviously a campaign is

being waged today. The Leader of the Opposition is warned against another outburst. To the member for Watson, I know he has a motion coming up and I know he would like to be in the chamber to move it, so I think he should comply with the standing orders. Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, a point of order. The SPEAKER: On? Mr Burke: I am asking whether or not a similar warning will be given to the minister who continued to talk while you were on your feet. The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Mr Burke: There is. Madam Speaker, if the standing orders matter, there actually is. The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. The member for Bass has the call.

Asylum Seekers
Mr NIKOLIC (Bass) (15:00): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on the number of days that have elapsed since the last successful people-smuggling venture to Australia? Mr Bowen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Minister for Communications still had time left for his answer. I do not believe he had concluded it and the member for Bass rose, presumably, to take a point of order and has now asked a question. The SPEAKER: Had the minister completed his answer? The minister had completed his answer and the member for Bass was on his feet. Mr Bowen: No. Madam Speaker, on a point of order. The member for Bass rose while the member for Watson was still on his feet making a point of order. If he was standing to raise a question then he was out of order at the time. In accordance with precedent, Madam Speaker, you should have called a member of the opposition to ask a question. The SPEAKER: The fact of the matter was that the member for Bass was on his feet when there was no member from the opposition standing to ask a question. The member for Watson had already resumed his seat when I called the member for Bass. Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. The minister was interrupted during his answer for a point of order. You ruled on the point of order and at that point the minister has the call again. You did not

call the minister, but after ruling he was entitled to the call. You simply moved on with no notice to the House. We are entitled to know whether the minister has concluded. Normally, the moment the Prime Minister concludes, we stand up! We had no reason to believe the member for Wentworth, the Minister for Communications, had concluded. The SPEAKER: I am sorry that the Manager of Opposition Business seems to think that there is a need for clairvoyance to understand when a minister has finished his question. Quite clearly, he has indicated that he knows when the Prime Minister has finished but he does not know when the Minister for Communications has finished. The fact is the member for Bass has the call. Mr NIKOLIC (Bass) (15:03): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on the number of days that have elapsed since the last successful people-smuggling venture to Australia? What level of support exists for the government's strong border protection policies? Mr MORRISON (CookMinister for Immigration and Border Protection) (15:03): I thank the

member for Bass for his question. In answering it, I would like to refer to a speech today by the Leader of the Opposition at the Press Club. I want to quote from a section that was 7 minutes in. You may have already switched off by then and you may not have picked it up. Maybe the member for Lilley had switched over to MasterChef. They were doing reruns on ONE HD. This is what the Leader of the Opposition had to say:
I do not look at policy through the prism of left-wing or right-wing ideology Im interested in what works

I am pleased to let the Leader of the Opposition know that Operation Sovereign Borders is working. I can back that up by referring to the comparative performances of those who sat in the role of ministers for immigration under the previous government, and I referred the House to this last week. Under the previous government, the largest number of cumulative days achieved by previous ministers for immigration where there was no successful venture to Australia was 61 for Senator Evans, for the member for McMahon it was 23 days, for the member for Gorton it was just six dayshe could not get through a weekand the now Manager of Opposition Business could only get six days as well. What is interesting about that is if you lay all of that failure end to end, from one end of failure to the other end of failure, it is 96 days. If you add all of their cumulative efforts together, it is 96 days. I fear that the only honour those on that side of the House who served in that role would qualify for is services to

people smuggling. Compare their record of 96 days cumulative to this side of the House. We have 97 days andguess what?we did it with one minister, one Prime Minister and just six months in office. For those on the other side, it was 96 days. They had three prime ministers, they were in there for 5 years after their failures and they had four ministers, three of them in just six months. I am asked about the support for these policies. The support for the coalition's consistent approach over the years has principally been from those who came to Australia the right way. Those who came to this country the right way were offended and remain offended by the failure of the previous government's policies that rewarded those who came to Australia the wrong way and continued to penalise those who sought to come the right way. People who came to this country where everything was offered and who had to ask for nothing were all the beneficiaries. Those opposite gave the green light to illegal entry to this country for six years and they should be ashamed of themselves.

Economy
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (15:06): My question is to the Treasurer. Why has the Treasurer chosen to double budget deficits over the next four years in his mid-year economic statement by adding $68 billion in new spending and changes to economic assumptions? Mr HOCKEY (North SydneyThe Treasurer) (15:06): The fact is our numbers tell the truth and Labor's did not. Labor's last attack on costings did not go too well. Remember the election campaign? Remember Labor came out and attacked our costings? I have another book from the library. I am becoming quite the accomplished library customer. Mr Bowen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question was about the Treasurer's $68 billion fiddle. It was about his mid-year economic statement. The SPEAKER: The member for McMahon will resume his seat. There is no point of order, and you will not use the standing orders in that way. Mr HOCKEY: I cite this book by Bruce Hawker, The Rudd Rebellion it is titled. It says: 'When Rudd, Bowen and Wong held a joint press conference attacking the opposition costings'that is our costings 'and in doing so used out of date information, the response by the Treasury and Finance department CEOs was devastating. They said it was an invalid comparison and suddenly our costings attack on the opposition was in tatters.' So that was Bruce Hawker. And I thought to myself: surely Labor would learn

the lesson that, if they are attacking our numbers, they have to be credible. Of course, the credibility of the Labor Party was lost when on more than 300 occasions they promised to deliver a surplus and they never did. I came across the budget newsletter from Bill Shorten MP. And it says here Mr Dreyfus: Your 68 billion! The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs will desist. Mr HOCKEY: This is his newsletter and it says 'Moonee Ponds', and it has got a nice photoa much younger looking Bill Shorten, I might say. This is Labor. It says, 'This budget' Mr Dreyfus: Your 68 billion! Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order under standing order 104(a). The Treasurer is clearly not being directly relevant to the question that was asked. The SPEAKER: The question was about budget figures and was very wide ranging. I am listening attentively to the Treasurer's answer, and the Treasurer has the call. Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, on the point of order, the standing orders are very clear that the opposition can only take one point of order on relevance in each question and answer. That was designed to stop this kind of disruption of question time. Mr Dreyfus: You'd know all about disruption of question time! The SPEAKER: Order! That was the second point of order on relevance. Only one is permitted. Mr HOCKEY: And, of course, the newsletter from the now Leader of the Opposition said:
This budget ensures that the benefits of the boom are spread to all corners of our country. We have brought the budget back to surplus on time, as promised

Mr Dreyfus: The question was about your 68 billion! The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Isaacs will desist. Mr HOCKEY: And just in case you missed it on the front page, it is on the back page as well. Mr Dreyfus: The question was about your 68 billion! The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs will desist. Mr HOCKEY: 'Back in surplus on time, as promised. We have delivered a surplus on time, as promised.' Now, the Labor Party has been out in the last 24 hours talking about their budget rules,

suggesting that if we kept to their budget rules we would have the budget coming back in surplus. The problem is that Labor never kept to their budget rules. Therefore, they never delivered surplus. Mr Dreyfus: How about your 68 billion? The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs is warned. Mr HOCKEY: They would never deliver a surplus. They have no economic credibility. They got every single number wrong, and they left the Australian people to pick up the bill from a very bad Labor government. The SPEAKER: I call the member for McMahon.

Economy
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (15:10): I have another question to the Treasurer The SPEAKER: I beg your pardon, the member for Tangney. Mr BOWEN: Madam Speaker, you called me. I was on my feet first. The SPEAKER: Yes, I did. Mr BOWEN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have a question for the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to the fact The SPEAKER: Will the member just pause for a moment. Mr BOWEN: Certainly. The SPEAKER: It is the same principle that applied before, and the member for McMahon was on his feet before the member for Tangney. Mr BOWEN: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to the fact that budget deficits have doubled on his watch, adding $68 billion across the forward estimates. If the Treasurer believes we are in a budget emergency, why have you doubled the deficit? Mr HOCKEY (North SydneyThe Treasurer) (15:11): Because it is your deficit$123 billion of Labor deficit! And the numbers tell the truth. Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Treasurer should be directing his comments through the chair. The SPEAKER: It is getting very close. I call the Treasurer.

Mr Burke: On the point of order, Madam Speaker, you just indicated that the point of order that I had raised was very close as though there was a problem with raising the most basic point of parliamentary behaviour, which is to refer to The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. He is not entitled to put argument. Mr Burke: We have made points of order. Mr Pyne: Stop bullying the Speaker! Don't you like having a woman in the chair, Tony? The SPEAKER: The Treasurer has the call. Mr HOCKEY: Let us be very, very clear: this is the last economic statement from the member Mr Bowen interjecting The SPEAKER: The member for McMahon will remove himself under standing order 94(a), and resume some sensibility. The member for McMahon then left the chamber. Mr HOCKEY: That has just increased the IQ of the Labor Party. Mr Swan: It's your number! Mr HOCKEY: And if the member for Lilley goes out, that will double the IQ of the Labor Party. The bottom line is the Labor Party Mr Swan: It's your number! The SPEAKER: The member for Lilley will desist. Order! There will be silence on my left. Mr HOCKEY: The Labor Party and the member for Lilley must be incredibly proud of the legacy. It was the member for Lilley that promised a surplus. Mr Swan: It's your number! Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the member for Lilley is red-faced and screaming across the chamber, and we cannot hear the Treasurer's attempts at answering the question. I would ask you to get the member for Isaacs and the member for Lilley under control. Mr Fitzgibbon: On the point of order, why wouldn't members on this side be excited when the Treasurer has conceded the assertion

The SPEAKER: The member for Hunter will resume his seat. There has obviously been a concerted effort of noise and an attempt to disrupt the proceedings of the House today, which is no doubt a precursor to the motion which the member for Watson is so anxious to move. I have been very careful to allow the member for Watson to remain in the chamber, because I would not want to deprive him of his opportunity. So we will have no more of the screaming and yelling. We will have quiet for the rest of question time. I notice that the questions from the opposition are listened to in silence and then the ruckus begins. So we will have some proper demeanour and some proper behaviour back in the chamber. Mr HOCKEY: If economic performance is based on actually delivering a surplus, the Labor Party failed at every count. It was the member for Lilley that delivered a $27 billion deficit, then a $54 billion deficit, then a $47 billion deficit, then a $43 billion deficit Mr Dreyfus: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question was about the $68 billion that this Treasurer has added to the deficit, and there needs to be relevance in the answer. The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs knows he must not abuse the standing orders. The question was wide ranging, and the answer is in order. Mr HOCKEY: So he must be immensely proud of his record of $190 billion of deficits. You are a winner, old Swannie! Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask the Treasurer to direct his remarks through the chair. The SPEAKER: The Treasurer has the call and will kindly address his remarks through the chair. Mr HOCKEY: What an incredibly proud moment it must have been for the member for Lilley to have overseen, as Treasurer, every single year in deficit and then to have left a legacy of $123 billion of deficit Mr Swan interjecting The SPEAKER: The member for Lilley will desist. Mr HOCKEY: How about throwing him out?and $667 billion of deficit. Mr Dreyfus interjecting

The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs will leave the chamber, under the provisions of standing order 94(a). The member for Isaacs then left the chamber. Mr HOCKEY: The member for Lilley is a genius! He should have been the world's worst Treasurer, because that was the decision of the Australian people. There was one consistent theme across the whole Rudd-Gillard government. It was that Wayne Swan was the Treasurer. The member for Lilley was the Treasurer. He was unquestionably the worst Treasurer. He designed taxes that never raised any money, he kept chopping and changing policy and he left a legacy that we have to fix. Well, we are determined to fix the budget, we are determined to undertake the repair job, we are determined to grow the Australian economy and we are determined to help the Australian enterprises and businesses out there to create the jobs of the 21st century. Mr Abbott: I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.