Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I suggest that the order agreed to by the Federation Chamber for the consideration of proposed expenditures be varied as shown in the revised schedule that has been circulated to honourable members.

The schedule read as follows—

Communications

Attorney-General's

Attorney-General's—Arts

Attorney-General's—Justice

Finance

Foreign Affairs and Trade—Foreign Affairs

Foreign Affairs and Trade—Trade

Employment

Social Services

Social Services—Human Services

Industry

Immigration and Border Protection

Prime Minister and Cabinet

Prime Minister and Cabinet—Indigenous Affairs

Defence—Defence

Defence—Veterans' Affairs

Education

Environment

Agriculture

Treasury

Treasury—Small Business

Infrastructure and Regional Development

Health

Health—Sport

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the suggestion of the minister agreed to? There being no objection, that course will be followed.

Attorney-General ' s Portfolio

Proposed expenditure: $3,651,808,000

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with great pleasure that I rise in this consideration in detail on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2015-16, specifically in relation to the Attorney-General's portfolio, because this portfolio encompasses a key priority of the Abbott government, which is to protect the safety and security of our citizens and our interests. That is why this budget has included $205.2 million within the Attorney-General's portfolio for key measures that support the government's national security, border control and criminal justice priorities.

The measures in this budget will help to protect us from terrorism, protect our national borders and continue the ongoing fight against people-smuggling while promoting a stable, peaceful and prosperous community. We will do this by contributing $131.3 million to industry to help us with the up-front capital costs of data retention. This will ensure that law enforcement and national security agencies have the information that they need to keep the community safe. This has been a key priority that has been consistently raised with us by our agencies. We will invest $40 million in initiatives that counter violent extremism, including $21 million to limit the impact of terrorist narratives on domestic audiences. The vast majority of that money will be spent in the online environment, where we know that people are receiving these messages.

We will provide an additional $12.9 million over four years to the Australia Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity to fight corruption enabled border crime. This will double ACLEI's investment capability. We will also provide them with $2.9 million over four years so that they can continue their important work in relation to AUSTRAC, the CrimTrac agency and the Department of Agriculture. We will also be creating a dedicated, multiagency, serious financial crime task force, which will build on the success of Project Wickenby, which has collected over $865 million worth of outstanding revenue and led to a Commonwealth operational response to high priority serious financial crimes. We will also spend $12½ million over three years for the continuation of the disruption and deterrence task group, which forms part of the Operation Sovereign Borders policy, a policy that has been so successful in helping us deal with Labor's failed legacy on our borders, where we saw over 50,000 people arrive illegally into our country.

This budget is also focused on ensuring an efficient and effective civil justice framework as part of the government's ongoing commitment to improving law and justice outcomes for all Australians. The government is bringing forward a number of measures to ensure that resources are targeted to where they are needed most and to protect the most vulnerable members of our society. These key measures include $3.1 billion in funding for legal aid commissions and community legal centres over five years delivered through a new national partnership agreement. This agreement will support an integrated, accessible legal assistance sector that is responsive to the legal needs of the most disadvantaged people in our country.

Also, to ensure sustainable access to justice, we will be delivering an additional $22.5 million into our court system over four years to enhance capability to provide services in areas such as family law, with $16.5 million to be injected into the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court and $5.9 million to be injected into the Federal Court. Injections into each court will remain as per the budget papers for 2015-16, but the following years will be adjusted as necessary when the courts become a single administrative body from 1 July 2016. This also includes $30 million in funding for critical infrastructure maintenance for works on our court buildings.

In this budget, very importantly, we will also be allocating $5.8 million over four years to continue to support native title respondents to resolve the interests of native title claims. This extends an election commitment that we made in 2013 to provide increased financial assistance for native title respondents beyond 31 December this year. Finally, the Attorney-General's portfolio is contributing $76.6 million over five years in savings for this year's budget. The portfolio is also providing over $100 in additional revenue over four years. (Time expired)

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While I would be interested in pursuing the 'cash for tow-backs' matter, I am instead going to focus on my part of the shadow portfolio dealing with the Family Court of Australia. I note that, in the minister's opening remarks, where he talked about where the expenditure for Appropriation Bill (No. 1) would be going, he mentioned the safety and security of our citizens. As I am sure the minister is well aware, unfortunately there has been a significant number of domestic violence victims this year. I would turn the minister's attention to, in particular, the money being appropriated to the Family Court of Australia. The Family Court of Australia is approaching its 40th birthday. It was always designed to deliver services for children, families and parties when they are going through a difficult time. When families are separating, it is never an easy time, it is always a difficult time. The minister referred to $16 billion being injected into the court system. But I would turn the minister's attention to the proposed changes to family law fees which come into place in 15 days time. I am not sure how familiar the minister is with family law. I m not sure whether he has been in the Family Court and seen the process. For example, there is a change in the fee for amending an application. Previously the cost was zero, but the new fee will be $120 for every amendment of an application. I wonder if the minister has ever seen such a proceeding. Where a husband is being tricky and hiding information, every single time a wife has to amend an application it will cost $120. I have seen cases where the woman has no access to money in any event. Subpoenas are a very important part of child abuse and family violence matters. Subpoenas are often used in those matters. The charge used to be $55, but in 15 days time it goes up to $120. So, with the injection of money that is coming into the court system, you are taking blood from the desperate and those who are experiencing dire straits and are in their darkest moment and saying that that is an injection of funds from the Attorney-General, whereas you are actually imposing a divorce tax on those in society who are experiencing the most difficult time.

The Federal Circuit Court of Australia is supposed to be a cheaper option if you are applying for a divorce. If you went for a divorce today you would pay $845 as a filing fee, but now there has been a 40 per cent increase, overnight, to $1,195. So, we actually have divorce lawyers, family lawyers, advertising, 'Come now and get a divorce done before 30 June'—before the divorce tax kicks in. This was actually in the weekend paper in Brisbane.

We know it is already difficult if you are going through a divorce. If your marriage breaks down at the moment and you file in Brisbane it will take you until not next year but probably at least the year after that before your matter is heard. And as you know, Minister, when there are children involved, and property matters, there can be further delays—all delays compacted by the fact that these fees have been hiked up and there is an absence of Family Court judges prepared to hear matters.

I notice that it took 580 days for Justice Bell to be replaced, and now in Brisbane, where we are still down a Family Court judge, barristers are already complaining that we are awaiting an appointment. If we have to wait another 580 days for a Family Court judge to be replaced in Brisbane, that would take us through to 29 September 2016. So, I ask the minister whether he can explain this hike in fees in the Family Court of Australia and also the Federal Circuit Court and whether there is any proposal to appoint a Family Court judge. (Time expired)

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for that series of questions. On the final question he asked me, about the appointment of a Family Court judge in Brisbane, I will try to get him some advice about that before the close of this session. But on the main point he was making, about fees in relation to Family Court matters, I first want to remind the member of what I said at the outset in my opening statement, and that is that we are actually injecting a significant amount of money into the Federal Court system: $22½ million is being injected over four years, and of course that will go to enhancing services in family law. In fact, $16.6 million will be injected into the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court and then $5.9 million into the Federal Court. Also, $30 million is being provided to the courts for critical maintenance and infrastructure works. We are merging the back office functions of the Federal Court, the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court, and that will provide efficiencies. But unfortunately it does not provide enough efficiencies for us to move forward with the other elements of this package. The elements of this package in total are designed to avoid any cuts in services. I think the very important point to make here is that only those who can afford to pay will be levied these fees. It is not the case that everybody who appears before the Family Court, particularly if they cannot afford it, will be levied these fees. That remains a vitally important point.

The member invited me to comment on the Family Court system in general. I personally have not experienced any matters in the Family Court, for which I am deeply grateful. But obviously as members of parliament we are exposed to people who are involved in Family Court matters on a regular basis, and I think most members would agree with me that they can be some of the most difficult meetings we take. And people who do find themselves involved in protracted Family Court matters can often come to us in great degrees of distress, because the Family Court system is a difficult system.

When you are going through a difficult divorce it can be extraordinarily hard, particularly where it involves the distribution of assets or, more significantly, access rights to children. We are very mindful of our responsibility to make sure that the family justice system works well, but we do need to make sure that the funding available to that is appropriate. We do not want to cut services to people who are involved, particularly in protracted Family Court disputes, so we do need to make sure that the court's funding is on a sustainable footing. That is what this package is designed to do. It comes with significant investments that we are making in the Federal Court system and, in particular, the Family Court system. Overall, we have got the balance right.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I call the member for Bass.

Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy Speaker.

David Feeney (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Justice) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. It is, of course, impossible that another government member speaks at this juncture, because Minister Keenan very proudly boasted from opposition that he would not be in the business of taking any Dorothy Dixers in this session. I assume that is a promise that he intends to keep.

Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy Speaker, this is not a point of order.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for his point of order. It is not a point of order.

David Feeney (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Justice) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was just seeking to bring the government back to its commitment.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will sit down. I call the member for Bass.

Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I just reflect on that intervention from the honourable member: to think that there are not people in my electorate who are very interested in what this minister has to say about resurgent terrorism, who are not interested in what this minister has to say about law and order issues. I am personally offended by that and I know that members of my electorate would be offended by the suggestion, because the minister, this excellent minister, has not only visited many places around the country; he visited my electorate on 30 April. He had an opportunity to listen to people in my electorate about what their concerns are—things in his area of portfolio responsibility. As you know, Honourable Member, strategy without resources is an illusion. So the funding required to respond to those concerns is absolutely essential.

Thank you for the call, Deputy Speaker. I will now take this opportunity to speak to the minister about the concerns in my electorate. He will recall from his visit to Launceston on 30 April—which was a very well attended ice forum—that a number of people also expressed to him their concerns about resurgent terrorism. When we talk about terrorism today, what we are saying is that about a quarter of the arrests that have happened in the last 15 years have happened in just the last 18 months. We are talking about resurgent terrorism as something that is a concern to everyone in our community, including people in my electorate of Bass. There is a very strong view in northern Tasmania that we need to act resolutely.

An honourable member interjecting—

The honourable member interjects, but I can remind him that, during six years of Labor government, when one piece of legislation was passed in response to terrorism, including requests from our defence and security agencies and requests from our police, what did those opposite do to respond to resurgent terrorism? One piece of legislation. We have passed four in the last 18 months. They cut funding for counter-terrorism operations by a third. When I stand up here and say that people in my electorate are concerned, they are not only concerned about what we are doing today but are also very concerned about the fact that, during six years of Labor and Labor-Greens government, funding for counter-terrorism operations was cut by a third.

What the people told the minister in Launceston on 30 April was that we need to do more to target those who engage in terrorism. We are talking not just about those people who make that decision to go overseas to Daesh-held areas in Iraq and Syria; we are talking also about people here in Australia who inexplicably recruit and provide funding for some of these acts. That is why their requests to this minister were that we do more in that area, and that is exactly what we have been doing. They talk about border security matters, Minister, and I know that it is in your portfolio, but resurgent terrorism is at the forefront of their thinking. What they are looking for is strong leadership; what they are looking for is substantial legislation to be passed, and that is exactly what has happened. Also, as terrorism adapts, as it impacts more in our community, they are asking us to do more. They are saying that we need to respond in a very positive way to those police and security agencies—

Mr Perrett interjecting—

The member says 'police state'.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I didn't!

Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind him that the legislation that we have passed to date has been bipartisan legislation.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. The member for Moreton will sit down.

Mr Perrett interjecting—

There is no point of order.

Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I am very proud to have worked with other honourable members across the chamber in delivering the legislation that our people demand. We are talking here about listing terrorist organisations. We are speaking here about prescribing areas like Al-Raqqah and Mosul. We are talking here about enhancing the agency powers so that they can respond to the needs of our community and keep us safe. The need for that is very, very clear—passports suspended, cancelled and refused; arrests, sadly, using those new powers; and too many citizens fighting with Daesh. It is important to me, and that is why I have responded in the way that I have. I talked about reinvigorating citizenship in my maiden speech. I have written opinion pieces on this issue. It is a huge concern to my community, and I ask the minister: what decisions have been made in the budget on counterterrorism and how will they assist our agencies in keeping our community safe? (Time expired)

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Bass for that question. I appreciate his deep interest in matters in relation to national security but also, importantly, the experience that he brings to this parliament from an enormous number of years serving in the Australian military—and in conflict zones, of course, during that period.

This government takes its responsibilities for national security extremely seriously. Indeed, keeping the Australian people safe is the primary consideration of this federal government. As the member said, we have taken significant legislative measures, in conjunction with the opposition, to make sure that our legislative regime is now fit for purpose—because the threat that we are facing now is very different to the threat that we have faced in the past. What we have found, due to a significant deterioration of the security situation in Syria and Iraq, is that terrorist organisations there, even though they are mediaeval organisations, are using modern social media to reach into the lounge rooms and bedrooms of our young people in particular and radicalise them. Part of that radicalisation process is in urging them to go and commit a terrorist act using the materials that are available to them. Some are just referred to as lone-wolf attacks—we do not always use that terminology, but the point is that the security situation has been significantly degraded. The threat is different than it used to be and we need to now respond appropriately by making sure we have the legislative balance right but also by making sure, as the member suggests, that our agencies have the resources that they need to do this job.

The parliament has done a good job in updating the legislation. We will continue to monitor that and update it as required based on the operational advice, in particular, that we get from our agencies. But the government must also provide the resources that our agencies need, and this budget has certainly done that. One point three five billion dollars has been provided to keep Australians safe from the threat of terrorism. One point two billion dollars, which is part of that $1.35 billion, supports our efforts specifically to combat terrorism, comprising $450 million in this budget to strengthen our intelligence capabilities and to counter extremist messaging; $296 million to strengthen the capabilities of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, including updating its IT systems; and $22 million to counter terrorist lies and propaganda online. We need to make sure that, when that propaganda is out there, we are working with Twitter, Google, Facebook and other internet service providers to tear that propaganda down as quickly as we humanly can. We also need to make sure that, if you are getting propaganda online, other, more positive messaging is available to you. One point three million dollars will assist telecommunications providers to upgrade their systems so we can retain a limited set of metadata for a prescribed period of time, in this case two years. We are doing that, of course, to make sure that our agencies have certainty about the information that they need to access in pursuit of both national security investigations and also other criminal matters such as rapes, murders and child online exploitation. This metadata is an absolutely vital part of the investigative methodology that law enforcement, both federal and state, is required to use.

In this budget we are spending $152 million to strengthen border security against terrorism, crime and other threats, which comprises an $88.5 million rollout of the latest biometric identification eGate technology so that our border officers can rapidly identify departing extremists and returning foreign fighters. We are also spending over $50 million to equip the Australian Border Force officers and give them the specialist training they need to do their job. There is $13 million to improve risk assessment capabilities and develop options to enable the rapid biometric identification of suspect travellers. This additional funding builds on the $630 million that we announced last August, which is already making a significant difference to our counter-terrorism capability, and there is a further $96 million for deployable secure communications and protective security arrangements, some of which, of course, is applicable to Parliament House.

In addition to these CT capability enhancements, the parliament has, as I have said, passed four tranches of legislation that modernises the tools that are available to our agencies to deal with this threat and the way this threat has evolved. This threat is new and we need to respond appropriately. This government is making sure that our agencies can do that.

David Feeney (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Justice) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it is fair to say that, in his time as a minister of the Crown, this minister has carved out a very formidable reputation for himself as an enabler of Labor legislation and Labor ideas.

Mr Keenan interjecting—

Notwithstanding his feigned hilarity, again and again he has come before this parliament with Labor legislation and, of course, in that vein bipartisanship is very easy indeed. We find it very easy on this to support legislation that was written by the previous Labor government. When the member for Bass makes his appeal for substantial legislation to be passed, let him rest assured that substantial legislation has been passed, that it was authored by the previous government and that it was very happily supported by both sides of parliament in this place.

But not content with simply bringing Labor legislation to this parliament and having it pass, this minister has also rushed to embrace other key Labor initiatives. I wish to talk to him about Operation Polaris. Operation Polaris was the first multiagency waterfront task force to combat organised crime on the waterfront in New South Wales. It was a joint task force which included the New South Wales Police Force, the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, the Australian Crime Commission and the New South Wales Crime Commission. It was of course established in 2010 under the former Labor government. Operation Polaris was commissioned to carry out waterfront-related investigations and to respond to organised crime in the maritime port areas. This was of course a critical initiative. Due to the success of Operation Polaris and the success of that model—

Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker—

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I call the member for Bass.

Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This does not appear to be a question; it appears to be Labor propaganda. I am not sure what point—

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask the member to sit down.

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! The member will be seated. Thank you. I call the member for Batman.

David Feeney (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Justice) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You would have some credibility arguing for higher standards if it had been reflected in your earlier speech.

Mr Nikolic interjecting—

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Bass, there is no point of order.

Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, it is a new point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member is reflecting on other members' speeches.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will be seated. There is no point of order. I call the member for Batman.

David Feeney (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Justice) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The success of Operation Polaris is known to all and, on the basis of its success, similar models have been replicated across the eastern seaboard—Taskforce Trident established in Melbourne in July 2012 and Taskforce Jericho established in Brisbane in July 2013. Forget this being a matter of Labor propaganda. This is a model that has been successful; indeed, so successful that, consistent to type, the minister has rushed to embrace it. Only a few months ago, the Minister for Justice, Michael Keenan, said:

Operation Polaris is vital in the Coalition Government's ongoing commitment to detect and disrupt and undermine the business models of organised criminal syndicates … The Polaris Taskforce has been successful in identifying significant vulnerabilities in the criminal supply chain and has achieved major seizures of drugs, guns and other contraband resulting in numerous arrests and the disruption of organised crime syndicates.

And 'Hear, hear!, I might say, Minister: you are precisely right, and it is tremendous that you speak so highly of an initiative under the previous Labor government.

That of course brings me to the key point here and that is the future of Operation Polaris, because I noted with some concern that in March Channel 10 reported that the government was not committed to continuing its funding for Operation Polaris. So this of course means that a very successful multiagency approach, embraced by you and used now in other states, faces the very real threat of being crushed under your watch.

I note that, on 15 May 2015, the most recent Illicit Drug Data Report, drawing on data from law enforcement, health services and academic material, concluded that for amphetamine-type stimulants, which include crystal methamphetamine, drug arrests are up 18 per cent and seizures of the drug are up 27 per cent—the number having doubled in the last five years. There were some 112,000 illicit drug arrests in the reporting period—the highest on record. Over 27 tonnes of illicit drugs have been seized nationally—the highest on record. The purity of ice in Victoria was the highest ever recorded in Australia, with the price having dropped by as much as $100,000 per kilogram.

So, Minister, given the success of this program, given the success you have trumpeted, I would like to hear from you about what the future of Operation Polaris is. Have the AFP received any indication that Polaris will have its funding renewed in the post-2015 period? Have there been any discussions with your office regarding the future of Operation Polaris; and, if so, can you please provide the parliament with details? When does the AFP expect to receive confirmation that Operation Polaris will continue to be funded? And do the AFP believe that the continuation of Operation Polaris is essential for fighting organised crime across Australia?

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to rise to talk about Operation Polaris. We have just seen a very good indication that this is a shadow minister who does not have any idea about what he is doing. This is quite remarkable for him to get up and waste five minutes telling me about the importance of Operation Polaris—an operation that I am very committed to supporting, an operation that I have supported very publicly in the past, an operation that I have discussed with my New South Wales counterpart—when it was Minister Ayres and now with Minister Grant—on several occasions, and an operation that I have been very pleased to announce over a month ago that I was going to continue to fund. We made the announcement in a letter to the New South Wales Deputy Premier that was actually reported in the paper, but it does show you that this shadow minister has absolutely no idea what is going on. Three million dollars will be allocated to Operation Polaris, as per the announcement that was made and as per stuff that appeared in the media.

What do you do in your office? Do you actually have anyone helping you who might advise you on these matters before you walk into this chamber and put on such an embarrassing display? You had no idea that the government had already addressed this question over one month ago, even though we had done it a very public way.

Operation Polaris exists to make sure that our waterfront is secure. One of the reasons that we have problems on our waterfront—obviously, airports and ports remain very significant vulnerabilities for any country—is when we came to government that the Labor Party had savaged the resources that were available to Customs to screen cargo and do their job at our ports and airports. On top of that, of course, because some of the unions involved in ports in particular are constituent members of the Labor Party, the Labor Party has its hands tied about taking action against people on our waterfront who, quite frankly, should not be there because of their criminal history.

An honourable member: You are walking on very thin ice with that.

This is from a shadow minister who apparently has no idea what is going on in the justice portfolio whatsoever, who comes in here and spends five minutes lauding Operation Polaris, which we have already announced that we are going to fund via a $3 million injection.

The point I was making is that our ports are vulnerable, because of the cuts that were made by the Labor Party when they were in office. This is the point that the NSW police have made to me repeatedly, and they were very concerned during the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years that the resources available to Customs to protect our ports from infiltration from organised crime were consistently being degraded in budget after budget by the incompetence of the Labor government that preceded us. The funding cuts that were made to Customs were not just money—700 staff were cut from Customs at a time when their responsibilities were increasing because of Labor's border protection debacle. What happened was that, in the north-west of the country, Customs officers had their attention diverted to dealing with the people-smuggling crisis that had been precipitated by Labor's policies. Then we had Customs trying to backfill, dealing with the savage cuts that had been made by the Labor government to their funding and to their personnel.

An opposition member: Talk about Polaris!

I am very happy to continue to talk about Polaris. After that incredibly embarrassing display where you would walk in here and say, 'Are we going to continue funding Polaris?' when we made a public announcement a month ago that we were going to do exactly that. Seriously, if you have no idea what is going on within the Justice portfolio, then for goodness sake relinquish your responsibility and give it to somebody else who shows an interest.

Jason Wood (La Trobe, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I heard with great interest Labor members saying that they have always been firmly committed to countering terrorism and supporting the police. Sadly, back in 2007, when I was the shadow parliamentary secretary for law enforcement, I highlighted the major cutbacks to the AFP when it came to counter-terrorism and also the Australian Crime Commission. One of the big issues I had back then was that state police were no longer getting the funding to be seconded to the Australian Crime Commission, which left it as a toothless tiger. Moving forward, tragically we have now seen terrorist attacks in the Lindt Cafe and also the awful incident outside Endeavour Hills police station where two police members were stabbed by Numan Haider, a young person who had been radicalised. It was amazing that one of them was not killed.

First of all, I congratulate the member for Holt, Anthony Byrne, who has been truly strong on the issue on countering terrorism not only in his electorate of Holt but also in La Trobe. Jointly, we have been fighting for the cause right across Victoria. Sadly, in the outer suburbs of Melbourne we have had planned attacks for Anzac Day and Mothers Day and young Australians who have been radicalised travelling overseas where they believe they are becoming martyrs by blowing themselves up to support the awful cause, the pursuit of Daesh.

One of the great concerns I also have is outlaw motorcycle gang members who are now being converted in Barwon Prison in Victoria, where we have extremists who have been convicted of terrorist related activities, patching over with the Mongrels Motorcycle Club. This is of great concern to me and to members of Victorian police. This will bring the might of the outlaw motorcycle gangs together with the extremists where anything can happen, so I strongly support the laws when it comes to dual citizens and those who are dual citizens being removed from this country. Also, when it comes to community protection intervention orders, Labor members are raising that they are opposed to kicking out dual citizens involved in terrorist related activities. Is that what you are saying?

An opposition member: I asked you if you have read the legislation.

I am supportive of when the legislation comes in, and I find it hypocritical of Labor members espousing that they are strong on counter-terrorism when they make allegations like that. The other issue I have raised is community protection intervention orders, and I am sure the Labor members—

An opposition member interjecting—

Are you saying you are not supportive of these, too? The situation is this: we now have young Australians being radicalised. To me that is a very serious issue. The situation is that we need community protection intervention orders. This is the missing gap between control orders and where police have no powers to stop young people being radicalised on social media and then going towards extremist preachers. One of the issues I have raised with Dr Anne Aly is a proposal to have what is called a MYHACK program in my electorate. This will involve a hackathon where young people engage with other young people to come up with ideas and concepts to stop them from being radicalised. We will have this program in place. I again thank the member for Holt, who has agreed to be a judge with me on this program. It will be right across the state, and this is something I greatly look forward to.

But, in contrast, I am greatly concerned about the Labor candidate in my federal seat of La Trobe. When I announced this program, in a very run-of-the-mill speech in parliament, he came out and said that it was 'irresponsible scaremongering'. Well, we have had these awful incidents with the planned Anzac Day attacks in Melbourne, the Mothers Day attack and the Lindt cafe attack and two police officers stabbed. So, for him to say that is totally irresponsible itself. He has since come out and said I made false and misleading statements. Well, he made those statements to the journalists; I did not. He is now backtracking. It just shows that he is weak on terrorism. Finally, I ask a question of the minister: Minister, what measures have we included in the budget to counter violent extremism? Thank you.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for La Trobe for that question, and I acknowledge that he is somebody who is very experienced in these matters through his former life as a police officer. It is very deeply concerning to hear about his Labor opponent denigrating the Countering Violent Extremism program that this government is pursuing. The Hackathon initiative that he mentioned, which I know he has hosted in his electorate and will continue to host, was actually demonstrated to the group of international delegates who came to the Countering Violent Extremism regional summit in Sydney last week. It is a program that I know he is deeply committed to, and I congratulate him for that.

It is very important that we do all we can to counter the violent narrative that is coming out of Daesh in the Middle East and the way they utilise modern social media to send their propaganda deep throughout the Western world, really in quite a remarkable way—100,000 pieces of social media per day emanating from Daesh, which is quite extraordinary. Both the Australian government and our partners—in the region as well as our traditional security partners—need to find innovative ways to tackle this. We are investing in this budget to allow the Australian government to respond to this. We have situations, as have been mentioned by the member for La Trobe—sadly, very close to his electorate; in fact, I think it was in the electorate of Holt—where we have had two home-grown terrorist attacks since September last year, at Endeavour Hills police station, and in December, in Martin Place. But I think what is less well understood is that there have been a further six plots within that time—six plots since September—that were disrupted by our authorities. That is a rate of one every five weeks. It is a great testament to the skill of our police and our intelligence community that they have the wherewithal and the ability to disrupt these plots. But clearly they need support from the government, and this government is determined to provide that support.

The member for La Trobe asked about our CVE program. We will allocate $40 million for that, which will be allocated to countering the violent narratives that young people in particular can be exposed to online. This has tripled what the Labor government funded through CVE programs, and it is in addition to the extra $650 million that I have already referred to in my previous answers, which supports social services and social cohesion. The $5.2 million specifically will go towards the diversion team, and $13.4 million will go to the Living Safer Together diversion program. That program seeks to identify young people who might be at risk of radicalisation or be susceptible to these violent ideologies. The idea behind it is that, in a targeted way, we intervene to mentor, counsel and do everything we can to put that young person back on the right path. That is not an easy process, and unfortunately there is not a template anywhere in the world that we can use that has been 100 per cent effective. But we do need to keep trying different things within this Countering Violent Extremism program to make sure that where it is identified that people are moving down a very dark and violent path we can correct their behaviour. And we are investing very significantly to be able to do that.

We are also allocating money to the Living Safer Together program, and the Attorney-General announced recently that 34 community groups were funded to the tune $1.6 million. I was very pleased to update the House that we were allocating another $400,000 to a further eight organisations through the Living Safer Together program. The idea behind that program is that we allow community groups to develop the skills they need to move people away from these ideologies of violence and hatred.

As I also mentioned, we will be spending $21.7 million specifically to counter violent propaganda online. We know that it is in the online environment that terrorists can recruit vulnerable young people, in particular. They literally do it like a paedophile would groom a young person. Sadly, we are finding that the people being groomed are getting far younger. Initially we were concerned about people in their 20s, then we were concerned about people in their late teens and now, sadly, we are concerned about people in their young teens. We know—and it is a matter of public record—that some of the people our agencies have had to deal with recently have been as young as 14.

So, I thank the member for La Trobe for that important question. These investments in CVE programs have— (Time expired).

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

) ( ): In my travels, due to my shadow responsibilities, I have met with family lawyers and barristers from Cairns to Adelaide and everywhere in between. Many family lawyers are complaining of these increasing delays in the Family Court that I touched on in my earlier question. In fact, Family Court judges have apologised to litigants in their judgements because of these delays. I read from Justice Forrest where he says: 'My judgment in this matter has been reserved for almost a year. I attribute that to the obligation to hear and determine so many other matters in this court in that time. I regret any distress the delay in delivering the judgment may have caused to the parties additional to that which they would likely already be experiencing being involved in parenting proceedings in this court.'

Obviously delay causes stress, heartache and perhaps even damage to children. I note that tomorrow the Honourable Rob McClelland, the former Attorney-General, will commence his work with the Family Court, 580 days after the vacancy was created in Sydney. I am a big supporter of the Honourable Rob McClelland. I wish him well in his new endeavours. But I am giving you the opportunity to respond to my earlier question about when there will be a replacement to the vacancy in Brisbane. The Chief Justice of the Family Court, in Family Court Bulletin issue 13, in December 2013, said that there was a full complement of the Family Court judges and that a full complement of judges would enable the court to work effectively and efficiently. Any gap means that there is greater delay. There has not been that full complement for a long time. As I said, we wish of Rob McClelland well tomorrow, but 580 days is an incredible time for an Attorney-General not to make a decision. I am sure that he is not waiting for someone in Brisbane. I am sure he will be able to find someone from the distinguished ranks in Brisbane to fill that vacancy. But I have a couple of questions. Has there been a decrease in the final and interim orders that was finalised in the Family Court last financial year? Has the workload, reflected by the amount of applications filed, increased? What percentage of litigants appearing in the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court are unrepresented? As I am sure the minister will know, matters where the parties are unrepresented can take longer, be more complicated and involve extra guidance provided from the bench. What percentage of litigants appearing in the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court are legally aided? Is the percentage of unrepresented litigants who appear in the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Courts increasing? What percentage of cases that come before the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court involve children? What percentage of the cases that come before the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court involve family violence? As I touched on earlier, that combination of family violence and children means that delay can compound decisions and the implications of decisions. How many judges sit on the Family Court of Australia? Has the workload of the of the Family Court been increasing over recent years? If a judge retires and then is not replaced, what is the impact on the court's capacity to hear cases in a timely manner and to give timely directions?

I take you back to your earlier comments, Minister, where you said there was an injection of money such that it would put the courts on a sustainable footing. But it is my understanding that the fee increases that will flow—this so-called divorce tax, as written up in the media—will actually go back into consolidated revenue, not to services in the Family Court. So the people who are divorcing and the people who are trying to amend some applications will actually be sending money to the Treasurer rather than the services in the Family Court. Minister, could you respond to these questions?

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, welcome.

Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very happy to respond to the member for Moreton's questions, although a lot of the issues that he raised were similar to the issues that he raised in his first intervention, and the answers remain substantially the same—that is, we are making a significant investment in the Federal Court system, including into the Family Court system, in this budget: $22.5 million. That is a significant sum of money and obviously will enhance the capacity of the court to provide services. We are making a significant investment in the capital budget for the Federal Court system so that they can do important maintenance.

In terms of the timeliness of court matters, clearly that is vitally important. People who are involved in Family Court matters need to get their matters resolved in a timely way. I have been advised that, in the 2013-14 annual report of the Family Court, 87 per cent of applications were finalised within six months and 93 per cent were finalised within 12 months. So the delay that the member referred to would be an extraordinary delay, based on the annual report that the court has provided about the timeliness with which it deals with matters before it. The Federal Circuit Court, in the same, reported that 82 per cent of applications were finalised within six months and 94 per cent were finalised within 12 months.

It is the case in family law, as I am sure the member will be very aware, that some matters are intrinsically very complex, and therefore they can take a longer period of time to reach conclusion. The Family Court does specialise in dealing with what can be extraordinarily difficult matters to adjudicate. It is a matter for the Chief Justice of the Family Court and the Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit Court to allocate judges resources to meet the workloads in the different registries.

I appreciate the question that the member has again raised with me about a Family Court judge in Brisbane. I am just awaiting some advice from the Attorney. I hope the member appreciates that this is not the general part of the portfolio that I deal with on a day-to-day basis. I will endeavour to get back to him with a sensible answer. But of course the appointment of judges to the Family Court or to any court around Australia does require careful consideration. I am afraid I do not even have the background for that matter, so I am not suggesting that we are necessarily doing this, but I will get him a sensible answer—but, if we are looking for judges, then clearly we need to make sure that we are going to find the right person. We do not want to make rushed appointments. We need to make sensible appointments. I am sure that, if the Attorney is looking at appointments at this stage, he is proceeding in his usual careful and deliberative way.

Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I call the member for—

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Canning.

Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Canning, sorry.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. It is nice to be recognised so promptly!

Honourable members interjecting—

Well, I have only been here for 16½ years.

Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My apologies, Member for Canning!

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I say to the minister that Australia is a bountiful country, but we suffer from many natural disasters. As you would be aware, Deputy Speaker, whether it be cyclone, fire or other natural disasters that we are confronted with, this government is very aware of its need to help where possible.

In my electorate, for example, Minister, we have had a number of fires over the last few seasons. The Kelmscott-Roleystone bushfire was the prime example, and just recently we have had the fires in Oakford and of course down in Waroona and further. In fact, the fire in Waroona came to the town and actually burnt out some houses in the town, having come from the bush. And, of course, along the Darling scarp there are many fires. So, Minister, what is our government doing to improve the way we fund national disasters in Australia? It is very important to the people receiving that help that we know how we are going to improve our funding mechanism.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Canning for that question and compliment him on the robust way that he always represents his constituents in this place and has done so for 16½ years. It is a very important question about the way we fund natural disasters in Australia, because there is a consensus among anyone who has ever looked into these arrangements that we are not doing them as well as we can. In Australia, we spend billions of dollars every year on dealing with the after-effects of natural disasters. Unfortunately for Australia, we are uniquely vulnerable to natural disasters of all types—fire, cyclone and flood. Nature has a way of getting at us in many different ways in this country, and we need to make sure that we have arrangements in place that can appropriately respond to that.

Of the billions of dollars that we spend on natural disasters, we spend 97 per cent on dealing with the after-effects of a natural disaster—so dealing with rebuilding infrastructure and payments to individuals—and we only spend three per cent on actually trying to mitigate the effects of a disaster before it occurs—for example, building a fire shelter to actually save people from the effects of fire rather than just dealing with the after-effects and building a flood levee that stops things from being flooded in the first place rather than just rebuilding the infrastructure time and time again after it is washed away in floods. Often, the same infrastructure can be washed away on a yearly basis.

When we came to office, we recognised the problems with our arrangements and we asked the Productivity Commission to have a look into them and to give us some advice about how we can do it better. They found what we generally knew—that our current disaster funding arrangements are inefficient and ultimately unsustainable. They also suggested a whole series of measures that we might be able to take to address that issue. I thank the Productivity Commission very much for this work. It is very useful work and it has provided a very good framing of the problem for the government. But the government will be responding in a way that does not take into account some of the harsher aspects of the recommendations that the Productivity Commission made, particularly in relation to funding cuts. We will not be cutting funding to the states in the wake of a natural disaster. Indeed, the government proposes to implement a system that will actually make sure that no state will be worse off—in almost every case, an individual state afflicted by disaster will be better off—while still making sure that we address the fundamental concern, which is that we are spending all of our money on recovery and a tiny fraction on resilience and mitigation.

I have been consulting with the states and territories about how we are going to implement the recommendations from the Productivity Commission and also reassuring them that they will not be disadvantaged by what the Commonwealth will be doing. What we have proposed to do is to shift to a model where we fund the states up-front. At the moment we have a model that is mired in red tape and in constant arguments with the states after a disaster about who should pay for what. We want to move to a model that we can establish over the next few years. When a disaster occurs, we price the infrastructure that has been destroyed or damaged up-front and we make a payment to the states on a one-off basis so that they can then spend the money in the way that they see fit in remediating after a disaster. For example, if a bridge in Queensland is washed away, we have already priced what that is going to cost in advance. We pay that money to the Queensland government. We think that they are best placed to decide how that money is spent. So they could build that bridge back better, safer and stronger if they wanted to. They could build that bridge back in a different location if they thought doing so was appropriate. But that expenditure will not be micromanaged by the Commonwealth anymore in the way that it currently is, which requires constant oversight, constant red tape and constant duplication of effort. We believe that that money can be better spent at the state level with this new up-front assessment model that we will, in a collaborative way, establish with state governments.

We also want to make sure, though, that more money is being spent on betterment and mitigation, and not just spent remediating after a disaster. The way that we are going to ensure that is by quarantining part of the funding that we give to the states to actually spend on mitigation. In the case of a disaster—and members will know this—the Commonwealth funds based on a scale. At least 50 per cent is funded by the Commonwealth after a disaster, while in the most severe cases we fund 75 per cent. We want to quarantine part of that money to explicitly be spent on mitigation and betterment projects that we have worked with the states in identifying. In that way, as I hope the member for Canning appreciates, we will improve the way we fund natural disaster arrangements in Australia.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Finance Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $676,496,000

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to participate in the consideration in detail on the Finance portfolio with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and colleagues from both sides of the House. One of the best things about economic policy is that it is measurable, so when one side of the House promises, for example, to improve consumer confidence or business confidence, and they promise an adrenaline surge, it is measurable after that when confidence does not go as the government promised. It is the same for unemployment, for example. The government promised to improve the unemployment situation in Australia, and we know that unemployment is higher now than during the dark days of the global financial crisis.

The same goes for fiscal policy, and one of the reasons that the budget is so eagerly anticipated each year and that the colleagues from the Department of Finance and the Treasury put so much effort into the annual budget is that it gives us a good opportunity to see in black and white how the government is travelling when it comes to commitments like the Treasurer's original commitment that there would be a surplus in every year of an Abbott government, for example, or all the other various commitments that have been made—all the rhetoric around budget emergency and all of that. We can see it in black and white in the budget documents, so it is a good chance today to confirm and clarify some issues that jump out at us from the budget.

The first one relates to the underlying cash balance—or, in the parlance of the debate in this place, the situation around the deficit in the budget. So I want to ask a series of questions about that. I will go through them all for the parliamentary secretary, and then he can respond in detail after that. The first one is: after promising that the deficit would be fixed or improved by the Liberal government, will he confirm that the deterioration from the last budget, the first Hockey budget, to the second Hockey budget is something like $56.1 billion across four years, which is constituted by a deterioration in 2014-15 of $11.3 billion; a deterioration in 2015-16 of $18 billion, which represents a doubling of the deficit in the coming year; a deterioration in 2016-17 of $15.2 billion; and a deterioration in 2017-18 of $11.6 billion? That is how we get that enormous deterioration from one Hockey budget to the next—not from a Labor budget to a Liberal budget but from the first Hockey budget to the second Hockey budget. Can he confirm that even from MYEFO, the mid-year update, there has been a $12.5 billion deterioration in the budget deficit over those same years?

The same goes for debt. Can he confirm that the debt situation has deteriorated substantially? Can he also confirm that, after the Liberals promised to decrease the tax burden in Australia, the tax-to-GDP ratio—tax as a proportion of the economy, which is the commonly accepted measure of the level of tax in this community—is higher every single year of the Abbott government, in this budget in black and white, than it was in any year of the former Rudd and Gillard governments and, indeed, is at the highest level since the Howard government? Also, when it comes to spending, can the parliamentary secretary confirm that the level is the highest level of government spending in the budget since the darkest days of the global financial crisis?

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is interesting to take the very first question from the member for Rankin, who in a previous life was chief of staff to none other than the former Treasurer and member for Lilley. The member for Rankin would know that under the six sorry years of Labor from 2007 to 2013 we experienced six of the worst budget deficits in our nation's long history. And what we inherited from those opposite were cumulative deficits as far as the eye could see—$123 billion—that is, debts which if left unchecked were going out and potentially reaching $667 billion and, of course, interest that we had to pay back amounting to many millions of dollars a day—interest that we had to pay back to overseas countries.

We have had to keep that in check. We have had to take measures—and drastic measures: last year's budget, I acknowledge, was necessarily tough. This year's budget, however, has an infrastructure program which is the largest in this nation's history. It has a small business package which is going to reinvigorate the confidence which was so sorely lacking when Labor were on the government benches. Small-business people tell me that they are now confident to be able to hire staff. They now have the confidence that they did not have from 2007 to 2013. And when we took over in September 2013, it was not the Liberal-National government but the taxpayers of the nation; the small businesses, the families, the farmers—they were the ones saddled with Labor's legacy of debt and deficit. They were the ones who were going to have to pay back this debt. And it was not just them, it was their children, and their children's children—and had we not been elected in 2013, goodness knows how far that debt was going to go out.

We are getting on with the job—the very difficult job—of fixing up Labor's mess. That is what good coalition governments do. That is what the Howard government did when it was elected in 1996—and what was Labor left with when they resumed government in 2007? They were left with a bank balance which read: black. They were left with a bank balance; they were left with reserve funds to be able to avoid those headwinds of the global financial crisis. And look, I recognise and I acknowledge that the GFC had an impact on Australia's bottom line. But without the shrewd financial stewardship of John Howard, and a succession of National Party leaders, as well as Peter Costello as Treasurer, we would have been in a far more parlous situation than we were. As a consequence, we were able to cushion the blow of the GFC and to get on with the job of governing Australia.

Peter Hendy (Eden-Monaro, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Parliamentary Secretary, I recall that when we came to government we were faced with the prospect that we would eventually have a debt burden of some $667 billion, and that we were faced in the short term with $123 billion in cumulative deficits—and the government has been able to address those issues in the past two budgets; in fact, the deficit that we inherited on coming to government was some $48 billion, and the deficit for the budget year is now estimated to be $35 billion. We have able to address the $123 billion in cumulative deficits that were in the forward estimates, and we have been able to reduce Labor's legacy by some $40 billion, and in the out years we have been able to address the issues that the Intergenerational report raised, which is the significant megatrend challenge that we have in Australia—that is, an ageing population. If you go to the Intergenerational report, back in 1975 there were 7.3 people of working age that were providing tax income for those who were aged over 65—that is, there were 7.3 people of working age for every person who was aged over 65. The projections are that that will fall to some 2.6 persons of working age for every person over the age of 65 by the year 2055. It is a significant issue and it means that we need to address the deficit problem that we inherited from the former government.

I have been conducting listening posts in my electorate of Eden-Monaro over the last few weeks. An issue that comes up all the time is the debt problem that needs to be addressed. Another is the problem of the Senate, which has been through the obstructionism of the Labor Party and the Greens. They have been blocking some tens of billions of dollars in proposals that will get the budget into a much better position.

With respect to the portfolio of Finance, which you look after, Parliamentary Secretary, I note that my electorate has a large number of public servants. Queanbeyan, which is just over the border from the ACT, has some 2,335 workers in what is classified by the ABS as 'central government'. That is some 11.1 per cent of the working population of Queanbeyan. That is a very large percentage when you consider that for New South Wales as a whole in that category the number is only 0.9 per cent and that for Australia as a whole the percentage is 1.3. In Queanbeyan it is 11.1. Across the whole of the electorate of Eden-Monaro some 2,000 people work in defence. I am very interested in how things occur in Canberra in your portfolio. So I ask you, Parliamentary Secretary, whether you can explain how the government is taking action to get better value from its leased office accommodation in Canberra. What are some of the expected financial and non-financial benefits of this approach? What steps will the government take to progress the divestment of properties in the parliamentary triangle and what are the potential benefits to the Commonwealth and the local community of this decision?

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the outset I acknowledge the tremendous role that the member for Eden-Monaro is playing in his electorate. I have had the good fortune to visit his electorate and to be with him on those listening posts. I attended a tourism conference in his electorate and saw the warmth with which he was greeted at that conference, given the fact that finally people in Eden-Monaro are seeing some real action being taken by their member. The one he replaced was missing in action. I can tell you that the breath of fresh air that he has brought to his electorate is very welcome, as well as many of the policy ideas that he has brought to the coalition.

I know that the member for Eden-Monaro has a very diverse electorate because I am one of his near neighbours. He points out that he has 2,000 defence people in Eden-Monaro. I too understand the unique responsibility that comes with representing defence personnel. He does a very good job just of that. He also talked about the Intergenerational reportand what an important document that was in establishing the time frame and what we need to do as a government and as a nation to understand the challenges that we will face over coming years, indeed over decades. What we need to do now is make sure that the economic decisions we take acknowledge the great impost on future generations.

The good member asked me what action the government is taking to get better value out of its leased office accommodation space. That too is very important for him because of the number of public servants he represents. I can tell him that the Commonwealth currently leases around 30,000 square metres of office space in the Australian Capital Territory surplus to its long-term needs. Filling existing surplus Commonwealth lease space before committing to new long-term leases is a sensible use of Commonwealth property resources. By reviewing upcoming leases of Commonwealth agencies, it has been possible to identify opportunities for selected agencies to move into this vacant surplus office space as current leases expire. This approach has the potential to save an estimated $200 million over the next decade. There are likely to be other benefits, such as the potential for increased collaboration between agencies and the sharing of facilities in the areas of ICT platforms and property service providers. I understand that discussions between the Department of Finance and their agency counterparts are progressing very well and that, in almost all cases, agencies will be moving into buildings with a high commercial quality.

The amount of underutilised office space across government is constantly changing as organisational needs change. When major leasing decisions are taken on a whole-of-government basis—that is important, and I know the member for Eden-Monaro in his various roles on committees and in his discussions with me has always stressed the need for whole-of government decision making to take place—and they involve coordination between agencies, there is a greater scope to reduce underutilised office space. Our smaller government agenda will see the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Migration Review Tribunal, the Refugee Review Tribunal and the Social Security Appeals Tribunal merged into a single Commonwealth merits review tribunal. I will shortly be referring to the public works committee a project to fit out office accommodation for the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in Sydney in the same building where the Migration Review Tribunal and Refugee Review Tribunal are already located. This will give the amalgamation, which has already occurred in law, an appropriate physical dimension. I will also be referring to the public works committee a project which will see the ATO relinquish excess accommodation in Penrith, New South Wales and undertake a new fit-out on a reduced footprint at the same site. These are important measures. The smaller tenancy in this case is estimated to save the Australian Taxation Office $38.9 million in operational costs over 10 years.

These are just some of the ways in which we are striving to obtain better value from our leased office accommodation. The job is by no means finished. When we announced this initiative on 11 May, the minister and I also stated that agencies will be required to consider local impacts when assessing options to meet their future accommodation needs.

Tim Watts (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to have the opportunity to engage with the parliamentary secretary today because there are a few points of confusion that I would like to have cleared up. One relates to tax as a percentage of GDP and the other is with respect to the Asset Recycling Fund. I heard the parliamentary secretary talking earlier about the government's commitment to lowering taxes and it jogged my memory of the 'Real Solutions' policy pamphlet that came out before the last election. I have a trusty copy of it in my desk downstairs because I wave it about quite a bit. I wave it about because there seems to have been a bit of collective amnesia from those on the other side. That document talked about the coalition being committed to no new taxes and lower taxes. Indeed, when waving this document around during the 2010 election campaign, the Prime Minister said at one point that his very reason for being in politics was lower taxes and that this was a creed of the conservative side of politics.

My point of confusion here is that you look at the budget papers and they tell a very different story to the 'Real Solutions' policy pamphlet. In fact, the budget papers say that the level of tax as a percentage of GDP has not been this high since the time of the Howard government. From 2007 to 2013-14, during which time Labor was in government, tax as a percentage of GDP averaged 22.8 per cent, as the member for Rankin was outlining earlier. Let me go through the figures in the budget. In 2014-15, it will be 23.5 per cent of GDP; in 2015-16, it will be 24 per cent; in 2016-17, it will be 24.2 per cent; in 2017-18, it will be 24.7 per cent; and, in 2018-19, it will be 25.2 per cent. They say on that side of the House that we do not know much about numbers or budgeting, but I am pretty sure that it is going up. In opposition, they talked themselves into a bit of a hole on tax policy. Unfortunately, when they got into government they were not digging themselves out of the hole; they were digging up—they are not getting anywhere.

Can the parliamentary secretary confirm that the government's own budget projections show that taxation receipts as a percentage of GDP will be higher than in any year of the previous Labor government and that taxes are projected to rise to levels not seen since the Howard government? Can the parliamentary secretary advise when the government projects to get back to the level of tax that existed when it came to office?

The second bucket of questions I have goes to the question of the Asset Recycling Fund. I am pleased the parliamentary secretary is here today, because it goes to a difference of opinion between the Liberal Party and the National Party. I hear they occur sometimes. Usually, they are behind closed doors; they do not usually fight in public. I understand this fund is still being set up and the details are being worked through, so I will not go to the financing of this fund—although there are legitimate questions there. My questions go more to the funding guidelines and what projects will be eligible for funding under the Asset Recycling Fund. I ask this because the member for Wide Bay, the Deputy Prime Minister, Warren Truss, was in my electorate on Sunday.

An honourable member: He was lost!

He was not lost. He was doing what he does quite a bit these days: claiming credit for a Labor infrastructure project. That is how we knew he was not lost. He has plenty of form there. That weekend, when asked whether the federal government would consider funding the Melbourne Metro Rail Tunnel Project, the very important project being led by the Victorian state Labor government, he said: 'We will probably receive approaches in relation to that project. If we receive these approaches then we will have them assessed by Infrastructure Australia and make a decision.'

This is very confusing to me because, recently, the Prime Minister told 3AW, in Victoria: 'We do not fund urban rail projects. We fund roads of national significance. We fund nationally significant freight-rail projects but we do not fund commuter rail.' We have heard this kind of confusion before. During the last Victorian election, then-Premier Napthine—desperate for some credibility on public transport infrastructure after three years of doing nothing—tried to claim that he had talked Tony Abbott around on funding public transport. He said: 'I've certainly have had some discussions about Tony Abbott's issue with the rail tunnel and he has softened. He has indicated to me that they are prepared to have an ongoing discussion on key infrastructure, like the Melbourne Metro Rail Tunnel.'

Despite this being an election campaign the PM was not gentle and he corrected this miscommunication, that very day. He said: 'I would dispute that that is the case. What I say in public and what I say in private is the same: we will not be contributing to the Melbourne Metro Rail Scheme. I have made that absolutely clear.' Can the parliamentary secretary clear this up? Will funds from the Asset Recycling Fund be available for the Melbourne Metro Rail Tunnel?

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member has been set up by the member for Grayndler and the shadow minister for infrastructure. He has been set up to come in here and talk about projects in Victoria. The member for Grayndler, being a New South Welshman, has set him up. No Victorian should come in and talk about or ask questions about funding projects when we have just seen Daniel Andrews and his new Labor state government refuse to proceed with the East West Link, a billion-dollar project—hundreds upon hundreds of jobs going by the wayside and Victoria having no shovel-ready projects to commence. This is quite perplexing. He has been set up to come in here and—bald faced—ask a question like that.

He talks of lowering taxes. I do not know whether he was listening to the member for North Sydney, the Treasurer, on budget night, 12 May. The Treasurer announced that we will be reducing the company tax rate for small businesses, by 1.5 per cent, to 28.5 per cent. That will be the lowest company tax rate since 1967. That is nearly half a century. That is lowering tax rates. He talked about numbers. He said: 'I don't think the coalition acknowledges the fact that we know numbers.' Those opposite do know numbers—the trouble is all their numbers were in red. We are trying to get the numbers back in black, because that is so important for our nation's future and prosperity.

He also asked about the Asset Recycling Fund. The government remains committed to the fund and is continuing to deliver its commitments under the Asset Recycling Initiative and Infrastructure Growth Package. I am glad that the Deputy Prime Minister, the member for Wide Bay, the Nationals leader—and minister for rolling out infrastructure across Australia—visited your electorate on the weekend with the shadow minister in tow. You might be interested to know that I bumped into the member for Grayndler, as I came in here late last night, and we discussed the Deputy Prime Minister's visit to Melbourne. The Deputy Prime Minister is rolling out the largest infrastructure package this nation has ever seen: $50 billion. But get on board—convince your Labor Premier down there to get on board.

Going back to the Asset Recycling Fund, as the legislation to establish it remains before the parliament, the government has made provision for its infrastructure commitments through the annual appropriation bills. Our intention remains to establish the funding in legislation, and the budget papers reflect that. We hope to have it established by 1 January next year. As can be seen in the table on page 60 of Finance's portfolio budget statements, the uncommitted balances of the Building Australia Fund and the Education Investment Fund will be transferred to the Asset Recycling Fund from New Year's Day 2016, with the proceeds from the sale of Medibank Private credited on 1 July 2016. Subject to the passage of legislation, the full proceeds of the sale of Medibank Private will be credited to the Asset Recycling Fund on 1 July.

These are good initiatives. Our government is getting on with the job of making sure that the books balance. Those opposite left us with books which were a complete mess. It was so unfair, because when they took government in 2007 their books were in the black. They had money in reserve to help cushion the blow of the GFC. They had money in reserve to help roll out the sort of initiatives that Labor wanted to get on with. One of them was Building the Education Revolution, in principle a great idea. In practice, it led to some—let's say many—school halls being built right across this nation which were not fit for purpose or which schools did not want. And then we saw that dreadful pink batts program—again, probably in theory a good idea but in practice completely all at sea from what the nation expected. We saw some very dodgy dealers trying to stuff pink batts, fluffy stuff, into ceilings. Unfortunately, we saw four deaths, and that was just such a sad outcome from that particular program.

Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Parliamentary Secretary, just over the harbour from my beautiful electorate of Solomon is the Cox Peninsula. I am sure that you are aware that parts of the Cox Peninsula are subject to a land claim by the Larakia people. The claim, known as the Kenbi land claim, was lodged in 1979 and to this date, some 36 years later, remains unresolved.

One of the major sticking points in this claim has been a section of land used by the federal government. Some 4,750 hectares of the Cox Peninsula was used as a maritime defence communications base. One legacy of this facility is contamination of some areas, including with PCBs, pesticides, heavy metals and asbestos. It is a matter of public record that there was a previous effort to remove contamination from this site, but that effort fell well short of what was required. The Commonwealth has obligations, both legal and ethical, to provide remediation of the site. I would therefore like to ask the following questions: can you, Parliamentary Secretary, provide an update on the Cox Peninsula Remediation Project, and could you also explain why the Cox Peninsula Remediation Project is important and what are the particular benefits to the local communities?

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Solomon for her question and her interest in this very important project. She is interested because she is doing a wonderful job of representing the people of Solomon, and this, as she points out, is a project which has had a long history. It is something that has not been resolved to this date, but we are getting on with the job of doing something about this very important Cox Peninsula Remediation Project.

As the member for Solomon is aware, the Commonwealth currently controls and manages land holdings on the Cox Peninsula, subject to the longstanding Kenbi land claim, under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. The Minister for Indigenous Affairs obviously has the lead on the land claim itself, but I know that the Commonwealth, the Northern Territory government and the Northern Land Council are working closely to finalise arrangements.

There is no getting around the fact that one of the reasons that the Kenbi land claim remains unresolved is that a portion of the land on the Cox Peninsula to be transferred to the traditional owners includes heavily contaminated areas, as pointed out by the member for Solomon. This requires remediation, which represents a significant Commonwealth liability. She pointed out that this does not come cheap.

Remediation of these contaminated sites is a Commonwealth responsibility. The mess was made over many, many years, and we need to clean it up. Setting aside $31.5 million in funding for the remediation works demonstrates the Commonwealth's bona fides in wanting to bring the claim to a satisfactory resolution for all concerned. That kind of commitment has been a long time coming, as the member for Solomon correctly pointed out.

I have met with people and I have spoken to them about the project. There is a slight sense of suspicion, I have to say, that the money is not quite secure. There is a suspicion there, but I can assure the member for Solomon and my colleagues opposite, as I have assured others, that we have set aside the funding for this project, for this purpose, and we are committed to seeing it completed.

The need for these works and whether or not they represent value for money has recently been the subject of an enquiry by the Joint Standing Committee on Public Works. The committee has issued its report, and I am delighted to be able to inform the member for Solomon that it has absolutely endorsed this project—that is good. All that remains is for a motion to be moved in the House that it is expedient for the works to be undertaken—to use the somewhat antiquated language of the Public Works Committee Act 1969—and I am pleased to inform the member for Solomon that I hope to be able to do this later in this sitting week.

All remediation works will be completed to a national standard, as you would expect, and this will support the land's useability and future development potential. Whilst specialist expertise will be needed to complete the remediation, there will be opportunities for Indigenous employment—that is tremendous—and participation. We have already had a model for ensuring community participation from some priority remediation works which were undertaken late last year.

Deputy Speaker Irons, I know you, being an AFL follower, will be interested to know that they had a wonderful gala day in conjunction with those priority works where they got the local Indigenous players and the local AFL team and got a lot of the kids involved. It was a great day.

Work was undertaken on the Cox Peninsula between September and December 2014 to mitigate risks associated with asbestos-containing materials, hazardous materials, dilapidated buildings and various waste stockpiles prior to the onset of the 2014-15 wet season. The project involved moving 867 bags of contaminated waste—most containing ACMs and each one weighing in excess of 1300 kilograms—from these dilapidated buildings to shipping containers brought to the site. The buildings were then decontaminated and demolished. A secure but temporary staging area was constructed on site where contaminated material and other waste that could not be recycled offsite is being held until the commencement of the 2015 dry season. Other tasks involved clean-up of informal waste tips, removal of old transformers, improved fencing and security of the site.

As well as mitigating the environmental and human health risks posed by the unsecured contaminants, those early works provided significant employment opportunities for the local Aboriginal community, particularly the Kenbi ranger group, the Kenbi Rangers. The Kenbi Rangers were actively engaged and involved in several facets of the project, including provision, land management, rehabilitation services, cultural monitoring and security services. These are not token gestures or make-work activities; these are real jobs.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would just ask the parliamentary secretary a few questions about Australian Hearing. To give the chamber some background on Australian Hearing, it was one of the great achievements of the Chifley government. It was formed first as the Australian Research Laboratory to provide hearing services to World War II veterans like my grandfather, who returned home after military service with hearing problems obviously from the effect of munitions, the 25-pounders and all the other loud noises that go on in ancient battlefields—and in new ones. It was expanded after that to take care of those who were victims of the 1939-41 rubella epidemics. It has been around for 67 years. It has traditionally had bipartisan support, including a significant expansion to pensioners in 1968 by the Liberal government, which I suppose would be the Holt or perhaps the Gorton government. It has survived all of these governments, including the Howard government, and has remained in public hands up until today.

We know that it is subject to the threat of privatisation, having been mentioned in the government's Commission of Audit and recommended for privatising. We know that the Department of Finance has a scoping study. We know that the health department has been consulted. We know that there has been very little consultation with the deaf community or the parents of deaf children.

This is a very important public institution. It has the Australian Hearing Hub at Macquarie University, which includes the National Acoustic Laboratories. I am very interested in the National Acoustic Laboratories' future in any potential privatisation. At the moment it is a model, I think, of how the public sector, the university sector and the private sector can all work together to create not just great hearing services and technology but also great medical exports for this country.

This is a very important institution. My questions would be: at what point will a scooping study conclude? If the government intends to privatise this, what would be the time line for consultation? How much consultation with the deaf community industry and service providers will occur before privatising? Will there be universal service obligations that will be put on any hearing providers that might purchase Australian Hearing? Similarly, will there be any universal service obligation or any universal service commitment to the Commonwealth on the National Acoustic Laboratories, if that was to be privatised? Particular, would researchers, universities, industry and the community have access to the National Acoustic Laboratories in the event of privatisation? If the parliamentary secretary could inform the House—and indeed the community about this very important publicly owned organisation that has been around since 1947 and has had up until this point a large degree of bipartisan support to remain in public hands—about this government's intentions regarding this valuable public institution, that would be a good thing.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One thing I can guarantee the member for Wakefield is that when this government makes a decision, we will consult fully. We are not a government which, bang, brings in legislation, policy decisions or knee-jerk reactions as his government did for six years. When we do make a decision, we will fully consult with stakeholders. The government will consult further with hearing impaired Australians, their families and other key stakeholders before making a decision on ownership options for Australian Hearing.

I do thank the member for Wakefield for his question. I appreciate the fact that his grandfather did military service—he must be very proud of that—and I take on board his comments about the rubella outbreak which also led to the establishment of this organisation, which he quite correctly has pointed out is a public institution that has done some great things for this nation.

The relevant minister put out a media release about this on 8 May this year. I will inform him that the government has deferred making decisions in response to the scoping study to allow sufficient time for consultation with hearing support groups and industry about any impacts of the National Disability Insurance Scheme on the delivery of hearing services and what that could well mean for Australian Hearing. While the government had indicated that we would take decisions in light of the scoping study in the 2015-16 budget, it was clear to us that more work needs to be done to ensure that stakeholders understand what the delivery of hearing services through the NDIS would look like. And that is important—that the implementation details for the NDIS and hearing services have been worked through. Were the government to consider privatisation—I will repeat that: 'were' the government to consider privatisation, and I do stress that the Commonwealth has not made any decision to privatise Australian Hearing—then access to hearing services would be enshrined in a community service obligation.

And I do note that some 70 per cent of Australian Hearing's funding already comes from the provision of services for which it has to compete with others in the sector. Regardless of its future ownership structure, Australian Hearing will need to focus on building its capacity to perform and to deliver services in an environment of increasing contestability. The government has announced consultation with the hearing community about the findings of the scoping study, amongst other things. It is appropriate that the sector learns first the key findings of the scoping study, directly from the government, and that is important. As I said, consultation is important. We saw all too often knee-jerk reactions, policy on the run, from the last government. We do not want to be a government that falls into that trap.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to rise and put a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance. And it is interesting to come in here and hear others. I applaud the member for Wakefield for asking a question that has some content and some actual genuineness in it, fearing for an organisation that has been around for a long time. It was good to hear the parliamentary secretary answer and also talk about the consultative process that the coalition will take and has been known for taking.

The member for Rankin mentioned AFL before, and mentioned that he used to work for the member for Lilley. I have an interesting story.

Dr Chalmers interjecting—

I hear the member for Rankin applauding the fact that I am going to mention his previous boss. I wonder why he is not in here tonight to question the parliamentary secretary for finance. Maybe he has no credibility in this area to ask the question. It is good to see that he is still here, though.

But the story the parliamentary secretary reminded me of and that you might be interested to hear about is that the member for Lilley, when he went with the economic conservative genius of our time, Kevin Rudd, to New York in 2006, they rocked up to one of the major finance corporations in the US. A mate of mine, who I played football with at East Perth, was one of the head members there. They were called into this room, and they said, 'Come and meet these two politicians who are here from Australia.'

Dr Chalmers interjecting—

I hear the member for Rankin say, 'Tell me more'; he wants to hear more of the story. And the member for Wakefield is even smiling as well. So, they were called into this room, where they met these two politicians, and they spoke for about an hour and a half. And as they walked out, the people from this finance corporation in the US said, 'Thank God those two aren't in charge of the Australian economy.' And guess what happened? They got in charge, and look what they did: six years of absolute disaster.

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They saved the country from recession.

Lucy Wicks (Robertson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Member for Rankin!

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did I hear the member for Rankin say it was an absolute disaster? Is that right? We heard the parliamentary secretary mention the pink batts.

Dr Chalmers interjecting—

Lucy Wicks (Robertson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Swan has the call and will be heard in silence.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to remind those on the other side, when they talk about their economic credibility, of the $900 cheques. We had those going out everywhere.

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, a point of order: I put up with this for three minutes. He has not even gone near the current budget, which is the whole point of consideration in detail. If he wants me to read it to him, if he wants to explain it to him, I am happy to do that.

Lucy Wicks (Robertson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Rankin can sit down. The member for Swan has the call.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to remind the member for Rankin that when his people were in government we had similar questions going on. I would also like to remind him about the $900 cheques. Pink batts was brought to the coalition by the previous government and they knocked it back; it was ripped up. But it was grabbed by the Labor government—and look what they did. They made an absolute disaster of it.

Going back to that speech the parliamentary secretary made last year, he talked about the divestment of Defence Force assets. He recently did divest the Lady Gowrie childcare centre from the Commonwealth, which was a win-win for the government and the local community. Can the parliamentary secretary provide an update on how this government is working to better align the government's non-Defence property portfolio with current and future needs? Also, how are the interests of local communities being taken into consideration in the government's property divestment program?

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Swan for this question, and can I say what an absolute delight it was to visit the member for Brisbane's electorate last Thursday. I am delighted to inform the chamber that the government is committed to realising the value of Commonwealth property through its property divestment program, and I know that the member for Swan is very interested in that. One of the things we found on coming to government was that the Commonwealth still owns a range of properties which reflect things we did in the past rather than what our current needs are or what our future needs are likely to be. That does not make any sense. The Lady Gowrie childcare centre is a classic example of that. The Lady Gowrie childcare centre was established by the Commonwealth in the 1940s. In fact, they are just about to celebrate their 75th birthday. They have served disadvantaged communities in inner Brisbane and they have facilitated research in early childhood development.

The Commonwealth is no longer in the business of running child care centres—it is not our core business!—but we understand the practical needs of families in inner Brisbane and elsewhere throughout Australia and the importance of child care. Despite that, we continued to own a child care centre in the form of the Lady Gowrie child care centre in Brisbane. The transfer of this property to the current operator, Gowrie Queensland Inc., is a great outcome for both the Commonwealth and the local community. This meets the government's objective of realising the value of an asset we no longer need, and it is good for the Gowrie centre as they now have certainty about their future on the site. Let me tell you that they were absolutely delighted when we did the handover of the title deeds last Thursday—and particularly delighted was the member for Brisbane, Teresa Gambaro.

As the minister and I announced in the 2014-15 budget, our property divestment program will better align the Commonwealth's property holdings with current and future needs, reduce the costs to taxpayers associated with ongoing Commonwealth property holdings such as the costs of building maintenance and also contribute to budget repair. As part of the announcement, we indicated that the program would start with around 40 properties, including vacant blocks and facilities no longer in use. With the winding up of the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation at the end of 2014, we have expanded the program to include the sale of about 120 properties—residential and commercial—formerly owned by the corporation. I have been to Albury and Wodonga, which are just down the road from my electorate, and I have met with local councils to reassure them that, while the Commonwealth is a motivated seller, we are not interested in a fire sale which would disrupt the local market—and that is so important. As far as the Lady Gowrie centre is concerned, it is a win-win situation. It is certainly very pleasing for the childcare centre operators and a great result for the member for Brisbane, who is a passionate advocate for better childcare services.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the parliamentary secretary. Obviously one of the other privatisations recommended by the Commission of Audit is that of the ASC Corporation in Port Adelaide. It is a very important institution for South Australia. It built the Collins class submarine, which, despite the Howard government's blackguarding, is an excellent submarine and helps to protect our country and our national interest.

The Prime Minister promised before the election to make, construct and manufacture submarines in South Australia. There are subsequent comments by the previous Defence minister, who said he would not trust ASC to build a canoe. It is widely rumoured that the National Security Council has signed off on a Japanese manufacturer—I do not know which one—manufacturing what would be submarines to go into Australian service, in Japan, which would entail the building of an entire new facility in Japan. Today's The Australian Financial Review stated:

Japan is favoured to win the contract to build 12 new submarines for the navy, which would mean most of the jobs in the project would be offshore, at least in the construction phase. Some systems work and long-term maintenance would be carried out in Australia.

That same story talks about Austal and its chief executive, Mr Bellamy, who said it is a myth that building ships in Australia costs 40 per cent more than elsewhere. He referred to the effect of the dollar and said that with the dollar at 75 to 80 cents it is not more expensive building vessels in Australia. He is quoted as saying, in terms of the destroyers, that the delays and cost overruns were not the fault of the workforce, which are as skilled as any in the world.

Given the Prime Minister's promise, given the importance to the national interest of having a submarine that is at least capable of doing what the Collins class submarine is capable of doing, given that we have a very skilled workforce in South Australia, and there has been a significant investment by the South Australian government in facilities in anticipation of these projects, what can he tell us about the potential privatisation of ASC, including what would be an acceptable level of foreign ownership? What protections would be put in place for the existing workforce, including their enterprise-bargaining agreements, and what would be the conditions of the transmission of business in those circumstances?

What protections would there be for the Commonwealth, in terms of the technology? Who would own the technology that our Defence Force would be relying upon, with this particular project? What protections would be put in place, in terms of technology transfers and the other? Are we talking about a role for ship building, which would be simply maintenance and not manufacturing, or is the government committed to manufacturing in this country, particularly in regard to the submarines and ship building, generally?

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do thank the member for Wakefield for his genuine and ongoing interest in this matter. I know it is important to him and I know it is important to his electorate, but I need to remind him that Labor is all talk on Australia's future submarine capacity. Well may you smile, but Labor had six years to make a decision on this and did absolutely nothing.

This government is determined to get the right submarine capability at the right price. No decisions have been made on the design, construction or sustainment of Australia's future submarine capability. Decisions on a design partner and construction of the submarines will be based on a competitive evaluation process, managed by Defence, which takes account of capability requirements, cost, technical risk, schedule and value for money.

On 5 June 2015 the Minister for Defence announced an expert advisory panel to oversee that process. I would suggest that questions about those appointments be directed to the minister when Defence takes its turn at consideration in detail. ASC has a range of capabilities, relevant to constructing a new submarine, but it does not have the skills required to develop a new design.

ASC has been engaging with potential international partners from Germany, France and Japan on the basis that the government must be free to choose the right capability for Navy and be unconstrained by any exclusive teaming arrangements entered into by Australian industry. However, we do expect that as a matter of course significant work will be undertaken in Australia during the build phase of any future submarine program, and that a majority of those jobs, member for Wakefield, will be based in your state of South Australia. The government recognises the significant value to our nation of a skilled naval shipbuilding workforce, as I know you do, and that is why we are prepared as a government to invest in its skills and knowledge base.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance is around quarantine. I represent a large agricultural area that relies heavily on exports. The advantage that we have as an island nation is that many of the diseases that are across other parts of the world are not present here. We do have the disadvantage of being a long way from some of our markets; but the advantage is that we do have clean green produce and livestock, and it would be a disaster if a disease such as foot-and-mouth disease, bluetongue, or God forbid, rabies, should come into this country.

We did see some interest in the media a few weeks ago about some dogs coming into the country through unconventional means and what that could have meant for our biosecurity. I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary if he could provide an update on the progress that has been made in the construction of the new Post Entry Quarantine facility. He might like to add what some of the features of the new Post Entry Quarantine facility are, and how the new facility will benefit the community.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Parkes for his interest in what is my favourite project in the finance portfolio. I know that biosecurity is paramount in my electorate of Riverina and I certainly know that being a neighbour of one of my favourite members of parliament, the member for Parkes, how important it is in his part of the world.

I am delighted to inform the member for Parkes that the Post Entry Quarantine facility remains on budget and on schedule. We do a lot of interesting things in Finance, and a lot of important things in the national interest; but this project, as I say, is a favourite of mine, because when it is completed, the facility will manage risks which are very real for the food and fibre growers, the primary producers, in my electorate, in the electorate of Parkes and indeed all over Australia. The Post Entry Quarantine facility will be a laboratory, it will be a hospital and it will be a jail for equines, canines and felines to name just a few.

It is being designed to be functional now and to allow the potential for expansion into the future. It is being constructed with the sharp eye and the safety of several hundred people working on site. It will leverage the possibilities that consolidating quarantine experts on the one site will create.

Construction commenced in April 2014; the Minister for Agriculture and I marked the occasion with a ceremonial sod turning on 1 May 2014. The facilities will be delivered, tested and become operational progressively from the end of 2015 to 2018. Progressive completion of phase 1 facilities during 2015 includes the plant facility, administration building, horse compounds and facilities for bees, cats and dogs.

Phase 1 will essentially allow the facility to start operation and then phase 2 will focus on expanding capacity at the site. Once completed it will consolidate five existing plant and animal quarantine facilities into a single integrated site on Donnybrook Road, Mickleham, in Victoria—your state, Deputy Speaker Henderson, as member for Corangamite. This new site is a significant investment in Australia's biosecurity system, which is critically important to maintaining our unique animal and plant health status. At a cost of $379.9 million this new modern facility does not come cheap, but I am on record as commending the previous government for committing to the project—one of its rare sensible moments.

Something that was not so sensible was the original funding profile, which effectively defunded the project in 2015-16. But in the 2014-15 MYEFO, the government rephased funding for the project to better align with the contractor's ability to progress work on the site. Under the original profile, work would effectively have to stop in 2015-16 and then ramp back up again. By restoring a more sensible funding profile, a number of facilities at the site will be available earlier than previously planned and should enable a smooth transition from existing facilities to the new site for the Department of Agriculture.

Keeping the project on budget and on schedule is no easy task, particularly when you consider its sheer scale and sheer complexity. At the end of May 2015, 18 kilometres of electrical services had been installed, bulk earthworks of 220,000 cubic metres had been undertaken and 43,000 square metres of road or asphalt had been constructed. It is a huge project, and unlike a tunnel or a skyscraper, which is a linear build going straight along or straight up, this project has discrete and unique facilities being constructed across a vast plain with numerous different trades working concurrently. I am also delighted to be able to inform the member for Parkes that in July 2015 the project will achieve a significant construction milestone by clocking up one million person hours worked on the project. The current total of 910,000 hours at the end of May was achieved with no lost time due to injuries and a total recordable injury frequency rate of 3.3, which is lower than the managing contractor company target of less than 4.8, which is great.

Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd is nominated for a Master Builders excellence in construction award in Victoria in the excellence in the health and safety category for their work on the Post Entry Quarantine Facility project. Every time I visit the site I am impressed by the professionalism of all staff and tradespeople working on-site. The Post Entry Quarantine Facility will provide around 2,000 square metres of greenhouse space, 1,200 square metres of shadehouse and a plant diagnostic laboratory. At its maximum capacity, the facility will hold 240 cats, 400 dogs and 80 horses. It is almost like Noah's Ark. The facilities will also provide for ruminants such as alpacas, birds such as pigeons and fertile eggs, and it is going to play such a great part in Australia's current and future biosecurity needs. As the member for Parkes pointed out, this is so crucial to our nation.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Debate adjourned.