QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Employment

Mr SHORTEN (MaribyrnongLeader of the Opposition) (14:03): My question is to the Prime Minister. On 19 February, the Prime Minister said he was shocked at the job lossesshocked about Toyota, shocked about Holden, shocked about Alcoa. Prime Minister, is the government's state of shock the reason that there is no plan on transition, no plan to create new jobs and no plan for innovation from his government? Mr ABBOTT (WarringahPrime Minister) (14:03): I do deeply regret the job losses at the various businesses that the Leader of the Opposition has mentioned. I deeply regret them. Our plan to create jobs and to boost prosperity starts with scrapping the carbon tax. It starts with scrapping the carbon tax; it continues with scrapping the mining tax. It goes on with restoring the Australian Building and Construction Commission. It goes on with reducing red and green tape. This is what we need in this country if we are to create the jobsthe secure and sustainable jobsof the future. That is our plan. What is the Leader of the Opposition's plan? The Leader of the Opposition has consistently opposed everythingeverythingthat this government has tried to do to create jobs. The Leader of the Opposition's plan is to keep the carbon tax: a $9 billion hit on jobs. The Leader of the Opposition's plan is to keep the mining taxagain, an anti-Western-Australian tax. The Leader of the Opposition's plan is to oppose the restoration of the Australian Building and Construction Commission, because the problem Opposition members interjecting The SPEAKER: We will have some silence on my left! Mr ABBOTT: with this Leader of the Opposition is that he cannot transcend his background as a union official.

Carbon Pricing Economy

Ms MARINO (ForrestGovernment Whip) (14:05): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the impact that the carbon tax is having on the Australian economy? How will scrapping the carbon tax support Australian jobs? Mr ABBOTT (WarringahPrime Minister) (14:05): I thank the member for her question. The

government's plan to build a strong and prosperous economy does start with scrapping the carbon tax.

Scrapping the carbon tax will be good for jobs, it will be good for businesses and it will be good for families' cost of living, because the carbon tax is a $9 billion a year hit on jobs. It is not surprising, given the fact that this is a $9 billion a year hit on jobs, that unemployment is 110,000 people higher now than it was in July 2012, when the carbon tax was introduced. The carbon tax, even on the former government's own figures, is a giant handbrake on our economy. Members opposite know, because their figures said so, that our economy by mid century will be $1 trillion smallera cumulative $1 trillion smallerwith the carbon tax than without it. It is as though Australia were to close down for a year because of members opposite and their carbon tax. Mr Perrett interjecting The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Moreton will desist. Mr ABBOTT: Every single Australian's gross national income per head will be $5,000 a year less with a carbon tax than without one. That is a $5,000 a year hit on every Australian's income that this opposition wants to maintain in perpetuity. Scrapping the carbon tax right now would make every single Australian household, on average, $550 a year better off. That is $550 a year better off, thanks to scrapping the carbon tax. Scrapping the carbon tax will give industries like the aluminium industry a fighting chance not just to survive but to flourish. The Labor Party's own figures show that, by mid-century, under a carbon tax aluminium production will be down by more than 60 per cent. So, every time an aluminium plant closes or scales down, it is just the carbon tax doing its job. I am pleased that the Leader of the Opposition is now visiting workplaces where jobs are at risk; I am very pleased that he is doing that. But if he wants to help those workers rather than just use them, he will get out of the way and he will let the carbon tax repeal legislation go through.

Employment
Mr SHORTEN (MaribyrnongLeader of the Opposition) (14:08): My question is to the Prime Minister. Since the Abbott government was elected, thousands of jobs have been lost: at Toyota, Holden, Forge in Western Australia, Alcoa in Geelong and Rio Tinto in Gove. Why hasn't the Prime Minister had the courage to visit these workers in their communities? Why is the Prime Minister a wimp when it comes to standing up for Australian jobs?

Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition's question is out of order. It contains epithets and argument, words that do not have any place in a question. If he wants to ask a sensible, straightforward question, I am sure it will be entertained by the House. But this is merely argument masquerading as a question, and I would ask you to rule it out of order. Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: the issue of whether or not people are visiting workplaces was raised directly by the Prime Minister and is quite properly being addressed in this question. Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, it was the inane remarks in the second half of the question that clearly made it into an argument. The opposition should work out how to ask a straightforward question. Therefore, I would ask you to rule it out. Maybe they could come back to it later in question time. The SPEAKER: It might be helpful if the Leader of the Opposition rephrased his question. Mr SHORTEN: Certainly, Madam Speaker. Since the Abbott government was elected, thousands of jobs have been lost: Alcoa in Geelong, Rio Tinto in Gove, Forge in Western Australia; Holden and Toyota. Why won't the Prime Minister demonstrate the fortitude to visit these workers in their communities? Why is the Prime Minister The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. The problem with the original question was argument contained within the question. Will the Leader of the Opposition rephrase his question to leave out that argument? Please do not restate the beginning of it; we are familiar with that. It is the end of the question that is the problem. Mr SHORTEN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Why won't the Prime Minister talk to Holden workers, Alcoa workers, Rio Tinto workers, Holden workers and Forge workers? Why won't he talk to them about their liberation? Mr ABBOTT (WarringahPrime Minister) (14:11): I think the workers of this country do not want talk; they want action. That is what they want. My job as Prime Minister is to fight in this parliament for the policies that will help those workers and that will enable those businesses to have a fighting chance of surviving and flourishingand that is what I am doing every day. As Prime Minister I am doing what I can in this parliament to remove the taxes and the regulation and the industrial lawlessness which are

damaging the job prospects of these decent Australian workers. That is what I am doing, and I will do that as long as there is breath in my body.

G20 Meeting
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (14:12): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline the outcomes of the G20 finance ministers' meeting held in Sydney this weekend? How will the outcomes of the meeting affect growth and jobs? Mr HOCKEY (North SydneyThe Treasurer) (14:12): I thank the member for Higgins for the question and recognise that she came along to a number of meetings over the weekend. There was a meeting of the G20 finance ministers and central bank governors. It was the first significant ministerial meeting under Australia's presidency. At the end of the meeting Christine Lagarde, head of the IMF, described Australia's presidency as 'action oriented'. That is exactly what the Prime Minister promised at Davos earlier this yearthat we would have a presidency of the G20 that would be focused on getting on with the job of building infrastructure, creating more jobs and repairing budgets. It is so vitally important not just for the world but also for Australia that we focus on structural reforms to create jobs. Only through structural reforms are we going to increase the speed of growth in the economy. The heavy lifting on economic growth cannot be left to central banks, be it in Australia or anywhere else in the world. Easy monetary policy is only a temporary source of growth. The only way you can have economic growth is to earn it. You have to earn it, and it only comes through structural change in economies to cope with the changing nature of the global economy. That is why, out of the weekend and for the first time ever, G20 finance ministers laid down on the table a numbera real ambitionfor the next five years to increase global growth by over $2 trillion. That is tens of millions of new jobs across the world. It is the first time it has happened. Why has it happened? It has happened because every country in the G20 recognises that only through structural reform are you going to grow the economy and create jobs. I was wondering what the reaction of the Labor Party would be. I love the member for Wills. He said this morning on the doors, 'Growth is not an end in itself. I heard over the weekend that Australian adults have grown by six kilograms in recent times and this is in fact a recipe for diabetes and heart disease so it is not a good thing.' I guess I have been in 'recession' for the last 12 months, haven't I? Oh dear, growth is not a good thing. This is the man who was the Labor Party Parliamentary Secretary for Trade and for Schools keep him away from the kiddies if he is going to give them that for an economics lesson.

Pensions and Benefits

Ms PLIBERSEK (SydneyDeputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:16): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Treasurer's comments on budget cuts, 'All options are on the table.' Considering the Prime Minister's election promise that there would be 'no changes to pensions under an Abbott government', will the Prime Minister rule out any changes to the pension as a result of the Commission of Audit? Mr ABBOTT (WarringahPrime Minister) (14:16): I thank the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Development for her question. I do remind her and the House of the scale of the fiscal challenge that members opposite have left us. Under the policies of the former government, we would get $123 billion in cumulative deficits over the forward estimates period; and, under the policies of members opposite, debt was skyrocketing towards $667 billion with $123 billion in accumulated deficit. So there is a big challenge, and we will address it in ways consistent with our pre-election commitments. Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In order to be directly relevant, the Prime Minister needs to make some relevant mention to the commitment that he made to pensioners. The was a commitment to pensioners, and he is not touching it at all. The SPEAKER: Has the Prime Minister finished his answer? Mr ABBOTT: Yes. The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister has finished his answer.

National Broadband Network

Mr WILKIE (Denison) (14:17): My question is to the Minister for Communications. Minister, my office is being contacted almost daily by constituents who are being stuffed around by the NBN rollout in Tasmania. One pressing problem is the large number of individuals and businesses that have had their copper service disconnected but are waiting months for the NBN. Such business people and businesses are in trouble now. What is your plan to fix this mess now? Mr TURNBULL (WentworthMinister for Communications) (14:17): I thank the honourable

member for his question. As the honourable member is aware, the rollout of the NBN in Tasmanian essentially stalled in July, and very little work has been done since thenin large part because the contractor, Visionstream, was not prepared to continue working for the rates it had previously agreed to. Since then the NBN Co under its new management has had extensive negotiations with Visionstream.

Work has resumed already on 17,000 premises and is shortly to begin on another 19,000 premises, all of which are expected to be complete comfortably within this year. So we would, if that occursand we expect it willhave more premises passed with fibre by the NBN Co in Tasmania in this year than were under six years of the Labor government. The honourable member is concerned, as we all are, about people who have cancelled their servicefor example, their Telstra servicein anticipation of the NBN Co connecting them at the time that the NBN Co said they would. So they were told by the NBN Co, 'We will connect you on such and such a day,' and those people cancelled their Telstra or Optus service. Then the NBN Co did not turn up on time, missed appointments and so forth, and those people were left in the lurch. This is a real problem. As the honourable member knows, this has been going on for some time. This is not something that has occurred since the election. He asked me what we are doing about it. We have changed the approach the NBN Co has to rolling out its network. Previously, it was totally focused on meeting numbers in its corporate plan and passing premises so as to tick that box without regard to whether those premises could actually be activated. That is why there are so many thousands of premisesroughly a thirdwhich are in so-called service class zero and which cannot be connected at all. We are focusing now on activation, and the new chief operating officer, Greg Adcock, is very focused on actually delivering what it should. The object is to get people connected, so we are very alert to it. I can give the honourable member an example of some early progress. He will note from the rollout figures we publish every week that the premises passed in Tasmania have not materially increased since July although they will start o ramp up now. But the number of premises which are connected and which have a network termination device on the premises has increased by 50 per cent.

Budget
Mr PASIN (Barker) (14:21): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline the challenges ahead to address Australia's debt and deficit levels? What are the alternative approaches to the management of these budget challenges? Mr HOCKEY (North SydneyThe Treasurer) (14:21): I thank the member for Barker for his question and recognise that, over the weekend, G20 finance ministers spoke about the challenge of ongoing deficits. It was Korea who said that they are going to have a surplus this year. Korea is going to have a surplus this

year. Germany has been running surpluses since 2012. I remember when Wayne Swan promised a surplus. I do not remember when Labor last delivered a surplus. Mr Abbott: It was 1989. Government members interjecting Mr HOCKEY: That was 1989the year of Roy. The fact is that Labor left us with a $123 billion deficit and debt approaching $667 billion. They made spending commitments that had no money behind them. That was the way that Labor ran the budget. I turn to that oracle of wisdom about economic policy on the Labor side, the member for Wills. I want him to be on the doors every day. He said this morning:
What we need are economic objectives such as low unemployment, low inflation, low interest rates and a balanced budget. They are the things that people could get excited about.

I want to be at his home for a dinner party on a Saturday night'They are the things that people could get excited about.' As for low unemployment, the member for Wills should be asking his colleagues why, after just six years in office, they left the unemployment rate 200,000 people higher200,000 higher than what they inherited. As for low interest rates and low inflation, you do not have to worry about that too much when you have five out of six years of below trend growthwhich is what Labor had. But how about this: there he was on the doors talking about a balanced budget. This is a new concept for Labora balanced budget. He said that that is what the people can get excited about. I say to the member for Wills: instead of going to the doors in the morning, why don't you walk down the corridor and go into the Leader of the Opposition's office and just ask him why he is opposing $20 billion of savings in the Senate. Five billion dollars of those savings are what the member for Wills promised to introduce at the last election. You promised to introduce those at the last election and now, like complete A-grade hypocrites, Labor are now opposing their own policies to fix the budget now they have gone into opposition. Do you know the great lesson of opposition? You have to have consistent principlesand I hope the Leader of the Opposition is going to learn that.

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:24): I wish to advise the House that we have visiting us today the Hon. Mr John Baird, PC MP, Canadian Foreign Minister, His Excellency Mr Michael Small, the High Commissioner of Canada, and Mr John Light, Director-General Cooperation, Foreign Minister's Office. We also have with us the Hon. Wal Fife, former New South Wales member for Wagga Wagga and minister in the New South Wales Legislative Assembly and a former federal member for Farrer and for Hume and also minister in the federal parliament. We make all welcome. Honourable members: Hear, hear!

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Asylum Seekers

Mr MARLES (Corio) (14:25): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Last Tuesday, the minister cautioned 'people to be very wary of unsubstantiated reports that may be put into the public domain'. What caution did the minister take in the very same press conference when he said that last week's death of Reza Berati at the Manus Island facility occurred outside the facility's perimeter? Mr MORRISON (CookMinister for Immigration and Border Protection) (14:26): Before I answer the member's question, I am sure he would join me in expressing condolences to the family of Mr Berati. I offer those condolences on behalf of the government and myself for that tragic death that occurred at the Manus Island centre last week. In relation to the question put by the member: as he would know, as a former minister that morning and over the course of that night I took several reports, verbal and otherwise, regarding what had occurred that night. What happens in these situations, as ministers previous opposite will know, is that information can be patchyand it is rarely perfect on those first occasions. I reported the information I had as of that morning; and, later that afternoon when I returned to Canberra, I received further briefings and I gave a press conference where I stated quite clearly the circumstances surrounding the death of Mr Berati known as 'the deceased' at that time. I said:
In terms of the man who died, he had a head injury and at this stage it is not possible to give any further detail on that, including now, based on subsequent reports, where this may have taken place.

On the afternoon of that very Tuesday, I further qualified the report I had given that morning. Over the course of that week I received further briefings, and I dispatched my deputy secretary and General Campbell to Manus Island. Over the course of the weekend, on Friday night and on Saturday, in particular,

I received further information that made it very clear that it was important to make a further correction to that earlier report. Information is never perfect in those circumstances. Over the course of that week I conducted five press conferences to update people on what was occurring at that centre. What occurred was a terrible tragedy. The other point I would make about what occurred on that night is that, despite that terrible tragedy, the centre opened the next morning and it continues to operate today. That centre is an important part of our overall suite of border protection policies. I would not describe it as the cornerstone of our policy; I would describe it as an important part of our policy. It is the part of our policy that has been most successful in ensuring that, for 64 days and counting, we have had not one successful people-smuggling venture to Australia has been principally what we have done at sea. We stand by all of those policies, because those policies are stopping the boats and they are saving lives. Mr Marles: Madam Speaker, I seek your indulgence to very quickly associate the opposition with the condolences that have been expressed by the minister in relation to the death of Mr Berati.

Regional Aviation
Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (14:28): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. How will the government's policies assist regional aviation and the jobs that it supports? Mr TRUSS (Wide BayDeputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (14:29): I thank the honourable member for the question and for the privilege of being with him in his electorate during the break. It was good to see and talk about some of the important infrastructure projects that this government has planned for Wannon and the neighbouring electorates. The member would also know how important regional aviation is for so much of country Australia. People who live in regional communities depend on aviation not just to get to other places in the country or around the world but also for many of their basic services, such as health, education and the professional services they need in their community from the people who fly in to provide those services. Alternatively, country people so often have to go to the cities to get the health care and other things that they need. So the aviation industry is very, very important to regional Australia. It has been an industry facing significant competition and, obviously, high cost. It is a difficult environment.

However, since the carbon tax was put in place, the cost of regional aviation has increased dramatically6c a litre added to the cost of aviation kerosene and 5c a litre added to the cost of avgas and that puts up the cost of operating aviation right across the country. We all know that regional aviation companies have been reporting declining profitability. Sharp Airlines in the member's own electorate Mr Snowdon interjecting The SPEAKER: Order, member for Lingiari! Mr TRUSS: reckoned that this tax is costing them $400,000 a year, money that they find very difficult to recover from their passengers, and of course it also affects their profit margin. Rex have talked similarly about declining profit projections. There is something that this parliament can do to make regional aviation more competitive and that is get rid of the carbon tax. If the opposition is serious about jobs in this country, then it should be voting to get rid of the carbon tax. It is a job-destroying tax. It is a service-destroying tax. It is a tax that tears particularly at regional communities because they have to pay such a significant share. So when members opposite talk about the need to look after Qantas and Virgin and the other major airlines, there is something that this parliament can do right now. The Senate should vote to get rid of the carbon tax that will tear hundreds of millions of dollars out of the cost structure of our airlines, to make them more profitable, to enable them to employ more people and to provide better services for the people of Australia.

Asylum Seekers
Mr MARLES (Corio) (14:32): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. In light of the minister's previous answer, precisely at what time and on which day was the minister first advised that the information he provided in his previous press conferences was wrong? The SPEAKER: Order! I will call the honourable the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, but I do note that much of the information sought was contained in the previous answer. But the minister can have the call. Mr MORRISON (CookMinister for Immigration and Border Protection) (14:32): I am happy to answer, Madam Speaker. I advised in my previous answer that on Tuesday afternoon I received a further briefing and I reported on that afternoon that there were conflicting reports. That is what I said on Tuesday

afternoon. Over the balance of the week, I received further information and on Saturday I received information that made it clear that it was essential to correct the record, which I did on Saturday. Opposition members interjecting The SPEAKER: Order! Members on my left, you have asked for the information Mr MORRISON: There will be a formal review into these matters and that formal review will investigate all of the issues that relate to this incident. That would include how this centre was specified and who set it up and how it was set up. It will go into the performance of the service contractors that those opposite contracted. It will go into the security arrangements that were put in place and left to the opposition when we formed government. Ms Owens interjecting The SPEAKER: Order, the member for Parramatta! Mr MORRISON: It will go into all of those matters, and it will go into my conduct and the conduct of those on this side and our handling of these issues since we took over responsibility for these centres. We identified that there was a $1.2 billion funding black hole for the operation of the offshore processing centres. Mr Bowen interjecting Mr MORRISON: That is the figure from MYEFO. The shadow Treasurer interjects opposite that it is not the right figure. Maybe he has trouble counting, but there was a $1.2 billion funding black hole that went to issues such as security infrastructure and the size and capacity of the centre. I know those opposite will be concerned about the specifications and arrangements they put in place in Manus Island. The Manager of Opposition Business once boasted that he could build a 10,000-man camp on Manus Island. I just shudder to think how something like that could have been run safely on Manus Island. But we on this side of the House, and I as minister, took steps early in September to commission a force protection assessment review of security arrangements on Manus Island. It listed a long list of things that needed to be conducted and performed, and we have been implementing them over several months. So I look forward to the review. Mr Husic: It's not The Shipping News, but there is a lot of fiction!

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Chifley is warned!

Carbon Pricing
Mr WILLIAMS (Hindmarsh) (14:35): My question is to the Minister for the Environment. I refer the minister to the statement of the managing director of Adelaide Brighton, Mr Mark Chellew, who said:
The removal of the carbon tax by 1 July 2014 could provide an after tax benefit of circa $2 million compared to 2013 ... However there is political uncertainty around the repeal process

What is that political uncertainty Mr Chellew refers to, and how could that be removed? Mr HUNT (FlindersMinister for the Environment) (14:36): I note that the member for Hindmarsh asks about political uncertainty. He asks where political uncertainty is. The political uncertainty has turned its back on the Australian people. The political uncertainty is sitting in that seat, and the political uncertainty caused by the Leader of the Opposition is an industrial go-slow in the Senate. The Leader of the Opposition has called his senators out on an industrial go-slow. Our senators are ready to vote. They are ready to repeal the carbon tax. They are ready to get on with the business of giving Australians lower electricity prices. But, since December, we have had an industrial go-slow in the Senate. This is a throwback to the fifties from a throwback to the fifties! Right now, the Leader of the Opposition, if he wants to be a very modern man, can do something very simple, and that is to send his senators back to work, get them back to the job so that they actually vote on legislation. The member for Hindmarsh asks about the costs of the carbon tax. As the Prime Minister said, only a week ago the Clean Energy Regulator confirmed a multibillion dollar hit in the first yeara $4.1 billion hit to electricity bills. I just want to repeat that: $4.1 billion of electricity bills whilst this Leader of the Opposition sits there with his arms crossed and his senators on strike. But, more than that, it is $1.1 billion on manufacturing alone. So at the very moment that the Leader of the Opposition feigns this concern about the jobs of manufacturing workers, he is standing in the way of $1.1 billion in tax relief by removal of the carbon tax for Australia's manufacturing firms and Australia's manufacturing workers. Adelaide Brighton has a gross carbon tax of $62 million, Boral cement has $41 million and Cement Australia has $53 million. And what does the cement industry say? The Cement Industry Federation and the National Lime Association of Australia say that they support the carbon tax repeal legislation and request that the Australian parliament pass the bills well in advance of July 2014.

Whilst you opposite are sitting on your hands, we have issued a ministerial determination to axe the carbon tax auctions before 30 June. This is your chance, I say to the opposition, to stand up and allow those auctions to be repealed. The determination is in place, the auctions are off and only a disallowance formed by a reunited Greens and Labor alliance can get in the way of them. So we say to you: 'Get out of the way and let us repeal the carbon tax.'

Asylum Seekers
Mr MARLES (Corio) (14:39): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. In the minister's previous answer, the minister has said that he first received information on Tuesday questioning the precise location of Mr Berati's death. So why did the minister not release his correction to the media until Saturday night at 8:44 pm? Mr MORRISON (CookMinister for Immigration and Border Protection) (14:39): Let me read to the opposition spokesperson exactly what I said on the Tuesday afternoon:
I am not going to make assumptions until I have further information on that

referring to the details of what had occurred to the deceased

Where physically

Mr Bowen interjecting Mr MORRISON: No, listen! Ms Plibersek interjecting Mr MORRISON: Listen:

Where physically this took place based on the information I have received this afternoon, that is a matter where there are some conflicting reports.

A journalist then asked:

What are the conflicting reports?

And I said:
Well the reports are conflicting on where the individual might have been at the time.

That is the report I gave on the Tuesday afternoon, immediately reporting in the press conference that there were conflicting reports about the nature of that incident and where the individual might have been when those incidents occurred. Over the balance of the week I sought to have those conflicting reports resolved: firstly, by sending the deputy secretary and, secondly, by sending General Campbell. And when General Campbell had returned, and I had received further advice on the Saturday about these incidents, then I produced the information.

Mr Burke: What time on Saturday? Mr MORRISON: Those opposite ask about what timein particular, the Manager of Opposition Business. I ask the Manager of Opposition Business: how long did it take him after the Nauru processing centre burnt to the ground to announce Mr Burke interjecting Mr MORRISON: Now you get up, don't you! I've got you to your feet now! Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. There are no end of opportunities in this House for political pointscoring The SPEAKER: What is the point of order? Mr Burke: We are dealing with an issue where a man The SPEAKER: This is not a point of order; the manager will resume his seat! Resume your seat! Mr MORRISON: I have been asked about what time, and I am simply making reference to the previous practice of past governments. I note that the Manager of Opposition Business, when he was minister for immigration, took a full week to front the Australian people to announce the review in relation to the Nauru processing centre that burnt down on his watch. Mr Bowen: Why don't you answer it? Mr MORRISON: It was a meltdown on your watch! Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The SPEAKER: It had better be a point of order this time. Mr Burke: It is on direct relevance. This cannot possibly be directly relevant to that question The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The minister has concluded his answer.

Fiji
Mr VARVARIS (Barton) (14:42): My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister update the House on her recent official visit to Fiji, and the government's approach to Fiji? Ms JULIE BISHOP (CurtinMinister for Foreign Affairs) (14:43): I thank the member for Barton for his question, and I recognise the number of Fijians living in his electorate, as well as the number of Fijians living in Australia.

I am delighted to be able to inform the House that on the weekend of 14 and 15 February I visited Fiji as part of the ministerial contact group of the Pacific Islands Forum. The six ministers in that contact group welcomed the progress that has been made by the Fijian government towards an election to be held by the end of September this year. In particular, we noted the large number of registrations that have occurred. At the last count it was something like 550,000 voters registered out of a population of about 800,000, including registrations of Fijians living in Australia, the US and elsewhere. We also noted that independent electoral commissioners have been appointed, and we were pleased to see that progress towards these elections is being made. We also held meetings with other Fijian ministers to talk about the election preparations, we met with representatives of the other registered political parties and we met with civil society. There are challenges, including the need for freedom of the press. There are challenges involving putting in place an electoral legal framework for the conduct of the elections. We urged the Fijian authorities to have international observers present. There should not be any doubt in the minds of the international community as to the legitimacy of this election when it is held. I also took the opportunity to meet with Prime Minister Bainimarama. This was his first meeting with an Australian minister since 2008. In accordance with the commitment we took to the Australian people at the last election, we believe it is time for there to be a new and constructive phase in our relationship with Fiji. I outlined to the Prime Minister our plan for deeper engagement. Australia is the largest source of investment for Fiji, we are the largest source of overseas development assistance and we are the largest source of tourists to Fiji, so we believe it is time to rebuild the political ties, including reviewing the travel sanctions. In accordance with our election commitment, we have a plan for deeper engagement and that will include public sector exchanges, defence exchanges, and greater trade and investment with Fiji. The Australian business community certainly welcomes the change of foreign policy under this government. Given the deep affection that the Australian people have for the people of Fiji and the affection that the people of Fiji have for Australia, I am proud that this government have been able to change the direction of our foreign policy and work towards embracing Fiji as it leads into an election by the end of September this year.

Asylum Seekers
Mr MARLES (Corio) (14:46): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Minister, who is the person on Manus Island in charge of the detention facility? Prior to the death of Mr Reza Berati, how often did the minister speak to that person, when did the minister first speak to that person after the death of Mr Berati and how often has the minister spoken to that person since? Mr MORRISON (CookMinister for Immigration and Border Protection) (14:46): The operations manager is an appointee of the chief migration officer of the Papua New Guinean government, Mr Rabura. I first met the operations manager when I visited the centre when I was in opposition. I met him personally when I was visiting that centre in September last year. Officers in my department regularly engage with that operations manager and I maintain that contact through the department, as I do with Mr Rabura. The member raises an important question about the jurisdictional issues regarding this centre. This centre is run by the government of Papua New Guinea. The Australian government supports the government of Papua New Guinea in running that centre through the arrangements which were established under the former government and we work within those arrangements.

Donations to Political Parties

Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (14:47): My question is to the Minister for Education and Minister representing the Minister for Employment. Will the minister inform the House what funds the Health Services Union, a registered organisation under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009, provided to a political party from 2007? How does that compare with the funds found to have been taken from that union's members by its national secretary, the former member for Dobell? Mr PYNE (SturtLeader of the House and Minister for Education) (14:48): I can inform the member for Boothby about the questions that he has put to me. The first question was: how much has the Health Services Union, a registered organisation under the act, provided to a political party from 2007? I can tell the House that the Health Services Union gave $1.2 million to the Australian Labor Party$1.98 million was donated to the Australian Labor Party from 2007 to last year. Mr Perrett: More than big tobacco gave you, Chris. The SPEAKER: The member for Moreton will desist. Mr PYNE: I can also tell the House that the Fair Work Commission found that $267,721 of Health Services Union members' money was used in the Dobell campaign to elect Craig Thomson, the former

member for Dobell. So $1.2 million went from the Health Services Union to the Australian Labor Party and $267,000 of Health Services Union money was found by the Fair Work Commission to have been used to elect the member for Dobell. I can also tell the House that the Labor Party paid $350,000 of legal fees for the member for Dobell prior to the last election in order to maintain his vote in the parliament. Senator Sam Dastyari admitted that was paid in order to make sure that he remained in the House and they could, therefore, rely on his vote. Here is an important test for the Leader of the Opposition because he has failed the test on the Registered Organisations Commission, he has failed the test on the Australian Building and Construction Commission and he has failed the test on the royal commission into union corruption. But this is an important test. If it was good enough for the Labor Party to use their members' funds to fund the legal defence of Craig Thomson, the former member for Dobell, will the Labor Party pay back the $267,000 to the Health Services Union members that was taken illegally by the former member for Dobell to use in his campaign to be elected? This is the test for the Leader of the Opposition. If he really stands on the side of workers, he would direct the Labor Party national office to repay $267,000 to some of the poorest workers in the economy, to those members who faithfully handed over their membership dues to the union bosses Ms Rishworth interjecting The SPEAKER: Order, Member for Kingston! Mr PYNE: He has to show whether he is on the side of the worker or on the side of dodgy union officials. Can he rise above his background or will he continue to be a union official and support union officials running a protection racket for a protection racket? This is his latest test, and I hope he will announce today that he will at least pass that test.

Ministerial Staff: Code of Conduct

Ms KING (Ballarat) (14:51): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the conflict of interest involving Senator Nash's former chief of staff and to the statement of the Prime Minister's own department at Senate estimates that the Prime Minister approves all personal staff appointments. Did the Prime Minister know of the conflict of interest when this appointment was made and, if so, why was no action taken?

Mr ABBOTT (WarringahPrime Minister) (14:51): The short answer is that certain requirements were put on the staffer in question. My understanding is that he failed to adhere to those requirements. When it became obvious, the staffer in question resigned and the matter is now at an end.

Education
Mr WHITELEY (Braddon) (14:52): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Assistant Minister for Education. I refer the minister to this morning's report that shows one in five young people aged 15 to 24 in west and north-west Tasmania, my electorate, are without a job. Will the minister inform the House what the government is doing to help connect school students to a real job in electorates such as Braddon? Ms LEY (FarrerAssistant Minister for Education) (14:52): It is a pleasure to take a question from the member for Braddon. Last Friday I was in Burnie and Devonport with the member for Braddon. We visited two chambers of commerce. It is indeed an appalling statistic that 20 per cent of young people in the north and north-west of Tasmania are without a job. It was clear to me that the job-destroying carbon tax and the job-destroying Tasmanian Labor government have left these young people without a meaningful pathway from school to work. The cost of doing business in this part of Tasmania is just too high. These jobs should existon the farm, in the factory, in forestry, in mining, in agriculture, in aquacultureand they do not. Last week I also held a roundtable with the states and territories to revisit and rewrite the national framework for vocational education in schools. This was created in 2001 by the previous coalition government. The previous Labor government had, I think, five ministers for skills, which shows its lack of commitment to trades training and vocational education. Labor spent a lot of time talking about higher education and tertiary education, but instinctively its approach was this: if you have not made it to university, you have not made it at all. Our approach is very much focused on the young people like those that I met in Tasmania with the member for Braddon and on a first-class pathway from school to work. Our approach will have industry at the table. We want to elevate the status of the trades. We understand the importance for every young person to find that pathway. It is interesting that there are a lot of people doing vocational ed in schools but that only nine per cent of the 40 per cent are in a school based apprenticeship. That needs to increase. We need to have school leading to work. Our approach starts Ms Rishworth: Because you stopped it!

The SPEAKER: The member for Kingston is warned! Ms LEY: with local schools talking to local industry about local skills shortages. We look forward to working with the members for Braddon, Bass and Lyons, to participating in our economic growth plan for Tasmania, and to jobs for young peoplereal jobs in the real economy.

Ministerial Staff: Code of Conduct

Ms KING (Ballarat) (14:55): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's previous answer where he has admitted that he was aware of the conflict of interest prior to the appointment of Senator Nash's chief of staff. The SPEAKER: I will rule the question out of order if you insist on putting it in those terms. Ms KING: Sure. My question is to the Prime Minister, and I refer to the Prime Minister's previous answer. What were the arrangements required by his office at the appointment of Senator Nash's chief of staff, and what actions did he take in ensuring that they were adhered to prior to the minister making any decisions in her portfolio area that related to the conflict of interest? The SPEAKER: Before I call the Prime Minister, I would advise the member that the question is very close to being out of order in accordance with standing order 98. This is not a matter of public affairs Mr Dreyfus: What? You're joking! Opposition members interjecting Mr Dreyfus interjecting The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs will desist or remove himself. In terms of the standing order, a member may orally ask a question without notice, but:
A Minister can only be questioned on the following matters, for which he or she is responsible or officially connected

The question is very close to being out of order. However, I will allow the question to stand and I will call the Prime Minister. Mr Pyne: Just before you do, Madam Speaker Opposition members interjecting The SPEAKER: There will be silence on my left!

Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, during your explanation to the chamber as to why you are going to allow the question to stand, the member for Isaacs, I think very rudely, reflected on the chair. I would ask him to withdraw his very rude reflection on the chair. When you were in the middle of your presentation he shouted, 'You're joking,' which is a reflection on the Speaker's position and I would ask him to withdraw it. Mr Dreyfus: I withdraw. The SPEAKER: Thank you. Mr ABBOTT (WarringahPrime Minister) (14:57): For the benefit of the shadow minister opposite, the gentleman in question was required to divest himself of an interest in his wife's business. My understanding is that he was dilatory in doing that. When that became apparent, he resigned. That is as it should be. I would simply make this point: when people on this side of the parliament fail to act by the highest standards of propriety and decency, they go. It is as simple as that. They go, and he is gone.

Asylum Seekers
WYATT ROY (Longman) (14:58): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister inform the House how many days it has been since the last illegal boat arrived? What factors have contributed to that success? Mr MORRISON (CookMinister for Immigration and Border Protection) (14:58): I thank the

member for Longman for his question. It is not a question those opposite tend to ask me in this place. On that side of the House they have no real interest, it would seem, in how long it has been since a successful people-smuggling venture has made it to Australia. I can inform the House that it is 67 days. That is how many days it is. It is 67 days as of today, 64 as of last Friday, and the reason I say that is because we have not had a consecutive period where there has been no successful venture like this since before the previous government got rid of the policies that worked under the Howard government. The measures that we have put in place are working and they are stopping the boats, and the lead in those matters is what we are doing at sea. I am not going to rely only on our own experience in this. I am going to make reference to Gillian Triggs, who said today: 'I suspect that the real cause of the capacity to save lives has been the stopping of the boats in the physical sense.' And we know what she is referring toshe is referring to our policy of intercepting vessels that seek to illegally enter our waters and removing them. This has been the watershed policy that has been responsible for the success we have seen over the last 67 days.

Those opposite like to refer to offshore processing, but those opposite had to be dragged kicking and screaming to offshore processing. Now they talk about it as the cornerstone of their policies. It was the only stone they had in their policies and they had to be forced to put it back in place. That measure remains important; it is a backstop measure for any potential vessel that may happen to get through. But for 67 days that has not happened. The other measure relates to temporary protection visas for those of the more than 30,000 that the current opposition, when in government, left behind for this government. And those opposite still, to this day, are seeking to frustrate the mandate of this government to remove the possibility of permanent visas for people who have come to this country illegally by boat. They betray themselves, but this government is not going to be intimidated into walking away from our policies. We are not going to be intimidated by the weakness of the Greens or the double-mindedness and hypocrisy of the Labor Party. We are not going to be intimidated by any violence that occurs in any centre anywhere or at sea. Our policies are working. They are stopping the boats and our resolve is absolute.

Ministerial Staff: Code of Conduct

Ms KING (Ballarat) (15:02): My question is to the Prime Minister and I refer to his previous answer. I refer to the Statement of Ministerial Standards that requires ministers to ensure their decisions are unaffected by bias or conflicts of interest and that they not mislead the public or the parliament. Given that the Prime Minister is in charge of the ministerial standards of the executive, why has the Prime Minister taken no action in relation to Senator Nash's clear breach of these standards? Mr ABBOTT (WarringahPrime Minister) (15:02): I appreciate that members opposite are desperate to find some moral fault with members on this side of the House. I appreciate the embarrassment, in certain important respects, of members opposite when it comes to ethical standards just at this present time. But let me make this point: the minister in question has not breached the standards. She has not breached the standards. She gave what she thought was correct information to the Senate at the time and, as soon as she was aware that the information was incorrect, it was, in fact, corrected for the Senate. Mr ABBOTT: As for the former staffer, he was required to divest himself of a shareholding. He was dilatory in doing so. As soon as that became apparent, he resigned. The matter is at an end. The right thing has been done by all. Ms King: I seek leave to table the ministerial standards to remind the Prime Minister of what they are.

Leave not granted.

GP Superclinics
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn) (15:04): My question is to the Minister for Health. I refer the minister to the Emerald GP superclinic in my electorate which was promised more than three years ago. It is still not open and still has not seen a patient. Will the minister update the House on how delays to the GP superclinic program have affected the provision of health services in Queensland? Mr DUTTON (DicksonMinister for Health and Minister for Sport) (15:04): Thank you very much to the hardworking member for Flynn. I appreciate his interest in health and thank him very much for this question. The GP superclinic program was held up by the former Minister for Health, the member for Sydney, former Minister Plibersek. It was one of the great programs of the Labor Party and their time in government. It is worth going back through the GP superclinic program to try to trawl through those many, many successes. Emerald happens to be among those, I am happy to inform the member for Flynn. Opposition members interjecting The SPEAKER: Order, the member for Wakefield! Mr DUTTON: Like the member for Flynn, I am a little old-fashioned on these things. I like to see a doctor's surgery, not an open paddock where patients are expected to go to see a GP. It is old-fashioned, I know Opposition members interjecting The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Charlton will desist, as will the member for Wakefield. Mr DUTTON: but the taxpayers are contributing $5 million for a vacant paddock and not one patient has been seen. Yet the former health minister trumpeted this as one of Labor's great successes. It is all relative, of course. It was a $650 million program, the so-called GP superclinic program. Bear in mind that they had to borrow that $650 million. Bear in mind that other health needs faced this nation, such as the ageing of the population and a doubling of the amount that we were spending on medical services over the course of the last 10 years. The Labor Party was still able to set up 12 new bureaucracies and find $650 million of borrowed money to put into these superclinics for none of that to make any difference to patients. This is the ironic part of it: $650 million, in this particular case, was promised in August 2010.

There is another example I would like to point to and that is the Mt Isa GP superclinic. It was promised on 21 November 2007. In actual fact, I have this glossy press release here which talks about some money$2 million dollars of borrowed taxpayers' moneybeing put into a superclinic at Mt Isa. Again, it has never been built. Not one patient has been seen. This Labor Party left this government with $123 billion of accumulated deficits, racing towards debt of $667 billion. And there they were in government with the former minister, the member for Sydney saying that this was a great programwasting money hand over fist, not cutting waiting lists and not investing in the areas that we needed to in health. They wasted money across government. They left us with an incredible mess. But we will clean Labor's mess up in health, as we will do in other portfolios. We will get Australia's health system back on track. But we will not do it by wasting taxpayers' money like Labor did with the superclinic program.

Ministerial Conduct
Ms KING (Ballarat) (15:08): My question is again to the Prime Minister. I refer to his statement:
I am determined to ensure that as far as the new Coalition government in Canberra is concerned, not only is it clean and fair but it's seen to be clean and fair

Prime Minister, were the actions of the Assistant Minister for Health clean and fair when she removed the Health Star Rating website, a policy decision where her chief of staff had a clear conflict of interest? Why won't the Prime Minister require that the website be reinstated immediately? Mr ABBOTT (WarringahPrime Minister) (15:08): Again, I understand that the shadow minister in question is attempting to impugn the ethical standards of this government. Opposition members interjecting The SPEAKER: Those on my left will desist. Mr ABBOTT: I back the ethical standards of this government absolutely, to the hilt, against the ethical standards that those opposite showed when they were in government. I do. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to show a little bit of repentance for the standards of members opposite, he might say something about the former member for Dobell. To get onto the issues that she raised Ms King: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. It was a particular question about the Health Star Rating website and on Senator Nash's The SPEAKER: It was quite clearly a question about ethical behaviour.

Mr ABBOTT: On Health Star Rating, my understanding is that the departmental website was put up before the system was ready to go. That is my understanding. That is the answer that the minister provided to the Senate. Let me make this absolutely, crystal clear Ms Plibersek interjecting The SPEAKER: The deputy leader will desist. Mr ABBOTT: The minister has done the right thing, and the former staffer did the right thing by resigning. This is a government which takes ethical standards seriously. This is a government that will always act with decency and integrity. Mr Champion interjecting The SPEAKER: The member for Wakefield will remove himself under 94(a). The member for Wakefield then left the chamber. Mr ABBOTT: The staffer in question was dilatory in complying with an undertaking that he had given. He has now done the right thing and he has resigned. The matter is at an end.

Broadband
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (15:10): My question is to the Minister for Communications. What is the government doing to deliver fast broadband to Australian businesses and families who cannot access broadband after six years of Labor? Mr TURNBULL (WentworthMinister for Communications) (15:11): I thank the honourable

member and well recall the broadband forum we had in his electorate some months ago. The previous government are notorious for, when embarking on the National Broadband Network project, not undertaking a cost-benefit analysis. What is perhaps not so well known is that they did not bother to even ask the most fundamental question, which is: where is broadband good, where is it okay and where is there no broadband at all? Logically, a government that is going to spend taxpayers' money to address broadband deficiencies would want to target the people who had the worst broadband. Our predecessors in government, the Labor Party, had no idea what the answer to that question was. They did not care, because the only thing that informed their rollout was politics. That is why you saw in marginal seats in Western Sydney the fibre network being rolled out on streets where there was not one but two hybrid fibre-coax networks, where the residents already got a pick of 200-megabit-per-second services.

What have we done? Last Thursday, we released the complete Broadband availability and quality report and the MyBroadband website, which drills down to 78,000 local areas across Australia and shows what types of broadband are availablewireless, HFC, fibre to the premises, ADSL et ceteraand what the quality them are. It gives an estimate as to what types of speeds people will get. It shows graphically where broadband is goodand in some places it is very, very goodand it shows where it is really bad. There are 1.6 million premises in Australia where there is either no broadband at all or broadband with medium peak speeds of 4.8 megabits or les per seconds, which is today unacceptably slow. It would have been a lot easier if the previous government had done this from the start and, as I have said to the House many times, we had not been left with, rather than a blank sheet of paper, a real mess to clean up with the NBN. But what we are now going to do is to prioritise the worst served areas so that people with poor broadband get it upgraded sooner. The recent strategic review of the NBN estimated that underserved areas can be upgraded on average two years sooner if they are prioritised in the rollout as we are proposing. We are committed to all Australians having access to very fast broadband sooner, cheaper and more affordably, and only the coalition can be counted on to get that job done. Mr Abbott: After that excellent answer, I ask that further questions be put on the Notice Paper.