Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Fraser proposing a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion namely:

The government's moves to cut transparency, accountability and consumer protection, and its impact, particularly, on the voters of Western Australia.

I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yesterday, in this House, the Leader of the House said as follows:

There will be a single national database for university reporting, so government departments will coordinate with each other rather than putting that burden of coordination on the university sector.

A single national database to allow coordination. But remove the word 'university' and insert the word 'charity 'and you have exactly what the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission does.

It is a one-stop shop. This is a government that approves of one-stop shops when it comes to environmental approvals but when it comes to a one-stop shop for charities they are suddenly against it. When it comes to one-stop shops this government is all over the shop. The charities commission is a body that could not enjoy wider support from across the charity sector. A wide range of charities, more than 40, have signed an open letter to save the charity commission. They include: Save the Children, St John Ambulance Australia, the Ted Noffs Foundation, RSPCA, The Sidney Myer Fund & the Myer Foundation, Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education, Volunteering Australia, Lifeline, ACOSS, SANE Australia, Musica Viva Australia, Hillsong Church, Social Ventures Australia, Australian Conservation Foundation, the YMCA, the Wesley Mission and the Queensland Theatre Company. What else could bring all of these organisations together from across the political spectrum but the Abbott government?

The Abbott government said it would bring Australians together—and it has. They are united in opposition to what this government is doing. This government wants to get rid of a charities commission, about which Tim Costello said:

The commission is actually working for us, and it gives the public confidence. It underpins the consumer benefit to charities.

Myles McGregor Lowndes, of the Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies said:

During its short history, the ACNC has played a positive role in the overall regulatory environment of charities.

Indeed, he describes:

Its stellar improvement in terms of timeliness, consistency of decision making and responsiveness…

Carolyn Kitto of Stop the Traffik said:

The ACNC is a dream come true for small charities…The ACNC has cut red tape dramatically. The staff are helpful and navigate complexities so we can be sure we are compliant and efficient.

David Crosbie, CEO of the Community Council of Australia said:

The ACNC is more efficient than the government regulators it replaced, is doing good work and deserves a chance to achieve its three goals of reducing red tape, increasing public trust and strengthening the charity sector.

Louise Walsh from Philanthropy Australia says:

Since the ACNC’s establishment as an independent charities regulator, Philanthropy Australia has consistently supported the ACNC’s important role in our community.

We also heard strong support yesterday from Anglicare Australia, which said:

The repeal of the ACNC will simply recreate more bureaucracy, lessen protection for the public and add unnecessarily to the workload of community service providers. It will also create uncertainty as there is no clear replacement. Uncertainty is the biggest enemy of efficiency, as big business tells us.

The matter of public importance before the House goes in particular to the impact on Western Australia. Professor David Gilchrist, the Director of the Not-for-profit Initiative at Western Australia's Curtin University, spoke to my office today and said:

A silent majority in Western Australia think the ACNC is the way forward. Regulation is only part of what it offers.

Its best practice governance principles have been very well accepted. It has provided the sector with a good set of financial principles that allow for differences between charities. It recognises that the WA sector is every bit as complex as any other sector.

Removing the ACNC without a fair trial and without leveraging the hard work of the commission in recent months would be a mistake.

That is what David Gilchrist of the Not-for-profit Initiative at Curtin University said.

A pro bono survey in August 2013 of 1,500 charities found that 81 per cent supported the ACNC. What share supported the government's preferred solution of returning charities regulation to the ATO? Just six per cent. The National Party gets more votes than that! There is more support for the Australian Greens and the National Party than there is for this government's approach of returning charitable regulation to the Australian Taxation Office.

This is a serious sector. The not-for-profit sector employs one million Australians, turns over $100 billion and involves five million volunteers. It is at the heart of our community and many of us in this place take pride in the work of the not-for-profit sector. But if we want a strong not-for-profit sector we have to listen to what expert reviews have said. No less than five reviews, including the Productivity Commission review and the Henry tax review, have said we need a national charities commission. That is because without a charities commission there is a hodgepodge of regulation which puts donors at risk and does not allow charities their own bespoke regulator.

This government is driven not by expert advice, not by listening to five inquiries and not by listening to the four in five charities that want to keep the ACNC; instead, it is driven by blind ideology. There is no better evidence of that than the attempt by the minister in charge of abolishing the charities commission to hang onto a 400-year-old common-law definition of charities rather than a new statutory definition. John Howard back in 2000 said that this statutory definition would be a good idea. Mr Howard said:

Yet the common law definition of a charity, which is based on a legal concept dating back to 1601, has resulted in a number of legal definitions and often gives rise to legal disputes.

This government is a pre-Howard era government in its approach to charities. It wants to take us back to 1601. In fact, not only it is pre-Howard but it is pre-Protestant, pre-Enlightenment, pre-electric lights and pre-steam engines. When it comes to charities, this government would take us back to the time of leeches and witch burning. That is its view of charities. Its view of charities is that they should be seen and not heard. It wants the Australian charity sector to be simply a service delivery arm of government. That is why the Minister for Social Services is taking carriage of this and not the Assistant Treasurer—that was at the time when we had an Assistant Treasurer!

Labor's view is that charities play an important role in the Australian community sector and they should be free to speak their minds. Brave charities have spoken their minds. You have to be a pretty bold charity to put your head above the parapet with this government, knowing their willingness to play favourites and to have a go at charities that are of a mind to speak in the public interest rather than simply look at where their next dollar is coming from. We have seen charities, from ACOSS to the age sector, saying that this is a bad idea and that, if this change goes through, it will be utterly retrograde. Charitable donors will be at risk. They will be placed at risk from scam artists. If you are opening your door to a charity, you want to know that there is a charities commission standing ready to take complaints against the thankfully small number of dodgy charities. If we do not have that then we are not going to have the backstop that the sector requires. This approach would be like the coalition saying to financial investors: 'Let's get rid of ASIC. We'll be okay without the Securities and Investments Commission. Let's just let the market rip.'

Mr Bowen interjecting—

The shadow Treasurer said perhaps I should not suggest that. You never know what this government will do. This is, after all, a government that is going further in the area of removing protections on consumers than the Financial Planning Association would want. This government should listen to donors, should listen to charities, should listen to philanthropists and should keep the ACNC.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What was that? We had the professorial tutorial. He read the timetable wrong.

Dr Leigh interjecting—

Those who are listening may be bewildered to know that the MPI topic we are supposed to be debating is the government's move to cut transparency, accountability and consumer protection and its impact particularly on the voters of Western Australia.

Dr Leigh interjecting—

Instead, we got a PhD dissertation about why we need another regulator.

Dr Leigh interjecting—

He did not manage to come to the point that the points he said were so crucial to the regulator can actually be dealt with without creating another institution. What a novel idea! To see the professor who does not even have the courtesy to sit quietly and listen to the discussion on the actual topic he brought forward—it just shows you what a rabble Labor is.

To show you what a matter of public importance this is, there were 21 questions at question time today and not one of them was on this subject. So absolutely gripping, so compelling—Labor was so insistent that the parliament allocate time to this matter of public importance, but it was not important enough to ask a question. Isn't that remarkable. But doesn't that give you an idea about just how misguided and how completely befuddled this Labor opposition is. To hear the professor talk about what should be happening to protect consumers—he seems to overlook a little problem. We heard the Treasurer today saying that under the previous Labor government we saw the fastest growth in government outlays in the top 17 IMF countries in the world. But what did they forget to fund? They forgot to fund the ACCC. They forgot to fund the regulator that is there supposedly to protect the consumers. I know those opposite have had very little interest in competition policy and consumer affairs. They have had so little interest while they were putting all this debt and deficit on the national bank card that they forgot to fund the ACCC.

Did you know, Mr Deputy Speaker Kelly, that if it were not for the election and the change in government, our principal regulator and protector of consumer rights would run out of cash next month? So convinced was Labor that consumer protection mattered, that they forgot to fund the agency whose task it was to implement those protections. On 12 September 2011, there was a request for an unimproved operating loss that ran over the top of the budget that was allocated in 2010-11. We thought, 'Oops, we have overshot.' The professor is off to read the timetable and realise what the topic is before the parliament. On 16 January 2012, guess what, another operating loss—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister has the call.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On 16 January 2012, we had the discussion from the member for—

A government member: Fraser.

Fraser, thank you. The member for Fraser did not manage to speak at all about the necessary requirement to actually fund the consumer protection regulator. Again on 16 January, we saw another letter to the Treasurer, 'Look we have got an operating loss of over $17 million.' There was another one on 13 April, 'There is another operating loss and we have eaten away at all of the accumulated surpluses.' We then saw another request saying, 'There is another operating loss coming in 2012-13.' Guess what? The operating loss was actually greater than the disclosed operating loss. What happened? Labor did not even fund the ACCC. So let us have none of this cant. Let us have none of this nonsense from Labor that they have the slightest interest in consumer protection. If they were interested in consumers, they would join us in helping consumers by the abolition of the carbon tax.

Here we have a discussion about transparency and accountability. We have the Labor lead candidate for the Western Australian Senate election saying in The West Australian, 'Labor is scrapping the carbon tax.' That is not right. Labor just voted to keep the carbon tax, allowing Labor's law to run which will see the rate of the carbon tax actually increase. So the punishment is extended by the action in the Senate today which will also see it applied to heavy vehicle transport. On the back of this completely false and misleading statement in The Western Australian from Labor's lead candidate for the Senate election, those Western Australian voters who want their consumer interests protected would be aghast to hear what is going on in the other place. It is not only a preservation of Labor's carbon tax; it is a protection of the Labor law that will see the punishment increase and extend to on-road freight. This must be a compelling issue for the Western Australian community.

You would think that if they were interested in the abolition of the carbon tax, they would fund the ACCC to make sure the savings were actually passed on to consumers. That is consumer protection. When the price rises previously attributed to the carbon tax are removed, we want to see a price reduction. But that would require resourcing for the ACCC. Again, this side of the House has provided those resources, unlike Labor that were just happy to let it run down.

I turn to the area of our competition review, an area that Labor cannot even turn itself to address. In its last utterance on this topic, Labor said that they thought the law that was currently in place was perfectly adequate. David Bradbury said that in a debate in this place when he was the responsible minister. The coalition parties were arguing about the need to revisit and reanalyse our competition framework to make sure it was fit for purpose for a modern changing economy; that it would deliver durable consumer benefits and protect their interests; that it would support efficient businesses, big and small, investing in this country by having the opportunity to grow and prosper. What was Labor's response? When Labor were in government, their position was, 'The existing competition framework is adequate to deal with these challenges.' They are not even interested in the review that has the consumer interest and the machinery that is in place to protect it at its heart.

So, again, let us hear none of this nonsense from Labor about being the slightest bit interested in consumers. Their actions do not back up that the glib rhetoric that we get. More worryingly, the debate that we have does not even align with the topic that Labor submitted for discussion today. So what is happening instead? You have seen the coalition bring forward its program about terminating the carbon tax, ensuring proper resourcing for our consumer protection regulator and putting the resources in place to monitor the impact of the removal of the carbon tax. We have also put in place a deregulatory agenda, something that is of great interest to consumers. They know excessive regulatory overreach costs money. Those costs are carried by the consumers. They are passed on from those burdened with those excessive compliance requirements.

We have a deregulation agenda that is at the heart of trying to ensure that regulation is right-sized in the financial services area and deals with some of the overreach and excesses of Labor's approach that has made the affordability and accessibility of financial advice more out of reach for those with modest resources to invest in that important part of planning for their retirement or their financial independence. We want proper protection for consumers if you happen to be a worker on a building site. That is why we want the ABCC. We want them protected as well. That is why we want to make sure there is a registered organisations entity in place so that that commission can do its work to protect Australian consumers and ensure this is a positive place where there is transparency, accountability and protections.

How important is that for the people of Western Australia who have heard about the thuggery that has gone on in building sites in that state. Do we hear anything about that from Labor? No, we hear nothing about those crucial topics

So we have a choice. We can get behind the government's program, respecting the fact that our deregulation agenda delivers benefits for our economy, delivers benefits for those being weighed down and burdened by excess red tape, which causes costs and missed opportunities for consumers. Protecting their interests is getting regulation right sized. It is about reflecting the fact that in this country, before Labor was elected, we were 68th in the world in terms of the burden government regulation put on our economy. By the time Labor had left office, we were 128th. That was after one of their previous ministers said regulation was a noose around small businesses and that they needed to do something about it. What did do they do about it? They just added more and more regulation—21,000 new and amended regulations. Again, there was report after report saying that for time poor small businesses, excessive regulation cruels their opportunity to find work, to generate revenue, to support their viability. Yet what do we get from Labor? We get opposition to that.

Concerning paid parental leave, why is Labor so obsessed with making employers, particularly small businesses and not-for-profit employers, pay a cost to double-handle the paid parental leave payments that the previous Labor government had put in place? What is the argument for that? $44 million additional costs for businesses and $4 million of additional costs for not-for-profit organisations.

What you have seen today is a ridiculous attempt for Labor to make it sound like they are remotely interested in the people of Western Australia. Well, the voters are smarter. They know that we have the plan that will put the mojo back into the Western Australian economy, that will support opportunities for the economy. And talking about consumer protection, we will walk the talk, not just talk the walk.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this very important matter of public importance. I know, because there is a lot of interest in and talk about getting rid of red tape and reducing regulation. For that, we are all supportive. Red tape ought to go as much as is possible. Unnecessary redundant regulations ought to go wherever possible. That is exactly what Labor did in government and we did it in spades, but we did not crow about it and we did not have special days in honour of doing the normal work of business. It is what a government ought to do every single day. It is what a government ought to do as a matter of normal business. It is what governments should be doing.

We need to examine very closely what this mob are up to when they say that they are cutting red tape and getting rid of regulation. It is actually a very big smokescreen. It is a big cloak for what they are actually doing which is removing consumer protections and taking away hard fought and hard won protections. When people come to see me—whether they are consumers or small businesses—they often come about things that burden them, about things that are happening in the market and about things for which the government ought to be doing more to protect them. So they often come about the two things—yes we want to get rid of red tape, yes we want to make life easier—and that is exactly what Labor did in government. We did it with business name registrations, which used to be an absolute nightmare under the mob from across the way, the Liberals and the Nationals. During their time you were required to register your business in seven different jurisdictions across the states and territories, either by paper or online. There was a different system in all of them and if you wanted to register your small business across Australia, it would cost over $1,000 and take you an enormous deal of effort. What Labor did to reduce red tape, to get rid of regulations and to reduce the cost was to actually do it properly and do it by making sure that we had an online system, seven days a week, 24 hours of the day. It worked absolutely fantastically for small businesses.

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The shadow minister might want to relate to the House how that result now takes months to achieve rather than days.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What they have forgotten is simply this: they have forgotten the damage that is being done to ordinary mums and dads through the Storm Financial collapse. About $4 billion of life savings of ordinary mums and dads cannot be recouped. That is what happened under the poor culture and poor practices in the financial services sector. Labor did not just watch it happen; we did something about it. In fact, we did a lot of the heavy lifting. We made sure over the past five years that something was being done significantly to protect consumers, something that the consumers were wanting and demanding and something that this government will completely dismantle and rip away, under the guise of red tape and of getting rid of bureaucracy. This is not what people expected.

The former Labor government put in a best interests duty to make sure that advisers would act in the best interests of their clients. We put in an opt-in clause, requiring advisers to make sure that they go back to their clients once every two years—that is not too onerous—to ask, 'Is it okay if we keep taking money out of your account?' I am sure most people on the other side would want to know, maybe even more than once in every two years, if somebody was taking money out of their account. They might even want to know what are they taking the money for. I have had a close look at what these changes actually do. When the former, the stood aside Assistant Treasurer, gets his stuff through, when it actually becomes part of the new regulations, it will mean that a firm, an institution or a bank can change the amount they charge you, they can change the length of the agreement and they do not have to inform you. They do not have to disclose it. It is specifically written in. This is the tragedy of what these guys do not understand. They are not going to read the detail because for them it is all just about sweeping away red tape. You are sweeping away red tape but you are also sweeping away the protections that ordinary mums and dads have in investment and financial world. There are some very important measures in place, whether they are in best interests, in the opt-in or in the annual disclosure, so that every single one of you actually knows what you are getting and what you are being charged.

We got rid of banned commissions, which everybody in this sector agreed with. Now they are going to change the definition of 'advice' and reintroduce banned commissions. They are going to get rid of the catch-all and the safe harbour, and they are going to scrap opt-in. Worst of all, this has been a shambolic process from day one with draft legislation being dropped a couple of days before Christmas and people having until the middle of January to respond, while not taking it through the scrutiny of the House.

Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The issue of charities was raised earlier. The Financial Services Council estimate that charitable trusts will save more than $2 million in compliance costs with the disbandment of the ACMC; and that is obviously money that could be allocated to charitable areas; that is to say, the recipients of charity. Like all these things in the deregulatory area, the arguments against deregulation are theoretical but the effects of actually deregulating are practical and real—in this case, $2 million in trust savings.

This is a discussion that is ostensibly about Western Australia, but in 15 minutes of speech from the opposition we had no more than one sentence addressing issues relevant to Western Australia. I thought I might touch on a few issues relevant to Western Australia, just to break that small habit. Before I do that, I would like to place my speech in the context of the notion of this matter of public importance. The wording has an element of spin about it. We hear that word often. Spin is defined as 'the act or practice of attempting to manipulate the way an event is interpreted by others often in a way which is contrary to the best reasonable assessment of the quality of the act.' There are two basic types spin. The first is where you have an event which, on the best factual evidence, is a positive event and the aim of the spin is to have people interpret it negatively. The alternative is an event which, on the best factual evidence, is a negative event and the aim is to have people interpret it positively. We have an event here, which is the deregulatory agenda of the coalition government. A good example of trying to convey a negative event positively—this is a story from the internet so it must be true—is a story about a Ms Wallman, a professional genealogist. She is doing work on her own family tree when she discovers that a relative of hers was also a relative of the US congressmen Harry Reid. It turns out that the great uncle of Mr Harry Reid, Remus Reid, was hanged for horse stealing and train robbery in Montana in 1889. The story says the only known photograph of Remus Reid shows him standing on the gallows in Montana Territory. On the back of the photo an inscription read:

Remus Reid, horse thief, sent to Montana Territorial Prison 1885, escaped 1887, robbed the Montana Flyer six times. Caught by Pinkerton detectives, convicted and hanged in 1889.

Ms Wallman, so the story goes, corresponds with the good congressmen's office and he sends back, through his staff, a description, a biographical sketch, of his great uncle, which reads:

Remus Reid was a famous cowboy in the Montana Territory. His business empire grew to include acquisition of valuable equestrian assets and intimate dealings with the Montana railroad. Beginning in 1883, he devoted several years of his life to government service, finally taking leave to resume his dealings with the railroad. In 1887, he was a key player in a vital investigation run by the renowned Pinkerton Detective Agency. In 1889, Remus passed away during an important civic function held in his honor when the platform upon which he was standing collapsed.

That is an excellent example of how an event which is largely negative can be spun to look positive. What we have before us is a proposal attempting to do the precise opposite of that—to take an event which is overwhelmingly positive for WA and try to find some kind of negativity in it, no matter how minor, imagined or pretend. In fact, what we have here is a classic example of a motion where there is a massive expanse of silver lining in the sky and Labor is trying desperately to find some kind of imagined dark cloud.

The event that we are interpreting here is yesterday's deregulation event from the coalition government—legislation and documents tabled to repeal more than 10,000 unnecessary and counterproductive pieces of legislation and regulation, and 50,000 pages of unnecessary and costly regulation. The effect will be $700 million a year in compliance cost savings. That is in one year, so the accumulation of that effect will be extremely significant—$700 million in year one, $1.4 billion by year two, $2.1 billion by year three and $2.8 billion by year four. Some of the headline features of this process are particularly beneficial for WA. The NOPSEMA reform, to have a one stop shop for compliance for offshore oil and gas, will provide massive savings of about $120 million a year recurrent Australia wide. WA represents 75 per cent of Australia's oil and condensate production and 55 per cent of our gas production and, accordingly, the share of WA's benefit of that $120 million compliance cost saving is about 80 per cent. So, in year one the compliance cost saving to the WA economy will be $96 million; it will be $192 million in year two, $288 million in year three and $384 million in year four. Yet, we have here in a discussion about WA spurious arguments about the charity sector. WA's mineral and petroleum exports represent 89 per cent of the state's total merchandise exports and 47 per cent of the nation's total merchandise exports. We are also getting rid of the mining tax as part of this deregulatory package. Here is a massive expanse of silver lining; there aren't any dark clouds. (Time expired)

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yesterday, in this House, the Assistant Minister for Education suggested that the National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education would be axed as part of their red tape repeal day. I am sure the previous speaker, the member for Pearce, knows there are child-care centres in WA, and that is why it is relevant that that issue be raised in this matter of public importance. I cannot believe that the minister stood here and said that quality child care was red tape. I cannot believe that she stood here and suggested that we need to get rid of the quality framework that ensures good child care. To have good child care we need a system; a system that will ensure good child care. The minister went on to say that she thought it was okay to have less-qualified staff. Part of the quality framework involves ensuring that there are trained staff and ratios setting the requisite number of qualified staff to educate and care for our youngest Australians. But yesterday the minister suggested that this framework was nonsense. In fact, she used the word 'madness'—it was madness to suggest that child-care centres should be required to have qualified staff working in them. She thought it would be okay to have not a kindergarten teacher but a cert III, or rather than having a qualified kindergarten teacher we should have someone with absolutely no qualifications teaching children. It is hard to believe that part of getting rid of red tape includes completely axing the National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education. It is what ensures that our youngest Australians get the care and education they deserve.

To be honest, the stunt yesterday was a smokescreen. It was about trying to cover up what this government is trying to do—trying to do in terms of cuts in jobs, cuts in health and cuts in education. It is also hard to believe that the minister, who was saying it was okay to have less-qualified staff, comes from the same government that says they are going to help people to go from a good job to a better job. Yet, they are saying it is okay to have people work in a child-care centre without qualifications. What is next? Are we going to see further cuts to higher education? That is where people get their qualifications. Are we going to see further cuts to health care?

Some time ago, the Abbott government was handed the biggest review into government spending in a generation. Because of the confusion, because of the mixed messages coming from government, Australians need to know more than ever what is in that Commission of Audit. Is the government hiding it? Is the secrecy because there are plans for privatisation? Is it the fact that public sector jobs will go?

We all know what happens when we cut public servants numbers: there is a reduction in the quality of service, there are fewer services and services are outsourced. There is only one reason why governments outsource services and that is so those workers get paid less. We see a dumbing-down of the workforce.

It will not come as a surprise to anybody opposite that in WA there are public servants. There are public servants working really hard to ensure that Centrelink queues are not 90-minutes long and there are public servants working really hard to ensure that Medicare offices stay open and people get help, but all we are seeing from those opposite is secrecy around the cuts. They are trying to hide the cuts because they do not want people in WA to know that they are about to axe their Centrelink staff, that they are about to axe any number of public sector jobs.

I want to touch on a couple of statistics that the CPSU brought up in a recent Senate inquiry. Twenty years ago the Public Service employed roughly 160,000 people for a population of 17.8 million, yet today they employ only a few thousand more. There are 167,000 employees working for the Public Service, yet our population has grown to 23.1 million, suggesting that we are already understaffed in terms of public servants. If you think that we had the ratio right 20 years ago, then we do not have the ratio right today. Every time I am out there talking to people, they always tell me about their need to get access to our services, but if we continue these cuts, if we continue to wind back the jobs, we will see longer queues and more people waiting. That is not what Australians want.

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

I must admit I had to come to the table to actually read the terms of the matter of public importance after the member for Fraser's contribution. The topic is the government’s moves to cut transparency, accountability and consumer protection and its impact particularly on the voters of Western Australia. I listened carefully to the member's contribution, as I always do, and that is why I had to come and look at the blue sheet, because I was not quite sure that he was on topic. Given the fact that all we heard about from the member for Bendigo was child care, it is obviously an open discussion; we can talk about anything.

I want to talk about something that is very important and that is the carbon tax. It was not mentioned in the MPI, but given the fact that everybody else is talking about everything, I will have my turn too. In an interview published today by the ABC—so it has to be correct—'West Australian Labor MP Alannah MacTiernan says the federal opposition should go "back to the drawing board" on the mining tax.' The government wants to repeal the mining and carbon tax for reasons that are obvious, particularly for Western Australia, which is referred to in the MPI but which Labor forgot to refer to. 'Federal Opposition Leader Bill Shorten says Labor's policy is to support the mining tax.' He says one thing in Perth; he says another thing in Canberra. But Ms MacTiernan, the member for Perth, says, 'the policy, implemented by former Prime Minister Julia Gillard and former Treasurer Wayne Swan,' the current member for Lilley, 'has been ineffective'. The article continues:

"I think it would be fair to say that the mining tax hasn't done the job that it was designed to do," Ms MacTiernan told reporters a t Parliament House in Canberra. "This is time to look at that again and look at how we do that in a better way. "We will have to be talking to state governments about how to introduce a successful mining tax."

Well, the mining tax has not been a success. Labor's whole budget was based on the mining tax reaping these rivers of money, which were never realised. Unfortunately, so many programs which Labor put forward just have not been able to materialise because there was no money brought forth by the mining tax.

We know where Labor and the Greens stand with the repeal of the carbon tax. Today in the Senate it was voted down 33 to 29. What a disgrace! Last year, on 7 September, we had an election where the will of the people endorsed the coalition overwhelmingly to get rid of the mining and the carbon taxes, but today in the Senate we have the Greens and Labor, that formidable duo, once again knocking back the will of the people—once again turning their backs on Australians. Labor and the Greens just do not get it. The people of Western Australia go to the polls on 5 April to elect a new Senate—hopefully, they will endorse the coalition overwhelmingly again. Labor and the Greens do not get that Western Australia do not want a carbon tax. They do not understand that 7 September last year, which has been eradicated from the calendars of all those opposite, saw the Australian people have their say and vote for the abolition of the carbon and mining taxes. They do not understand that the coalition does get Australian families, does get small business, which is the engine room of the Australian economy, that it does understand the impost which the carbon tax places on families, and that it has a bill to reduce their electricity bills.

Today, Labor and the Greens yet again said no. They are so negative, those on the other side; they just say no all the time. Today, Labor and the Greens sent a message to Western Australia—they are smart people over in Western Australia—and I bet they are listening. I bet you they know that this government wants to get rid of the mining and carbon taxes and that this opposition wants to continue those job-destroying, economy-crippling carbon and mining taxes. The Western Australian people saw today that the Labor Party and the Greens do not want to work with the new government. They do not want to accept the results of 7 September; they do not want to abolish the carbon and mining taxes. If the people of Western Australia want a strong voice in the Senate, they need to know that they should not vote Labor and certainly should not vote Greens. They need to get on board with the coalition, get on board with the Liberals or the Nationals, and put good people in the Senate who will overturn these economy-wide, job-destroying, crippling taxes. They have to vote for the coalition.

Senator Cormann, the Minister for Finance, said that nearly 100 per cent of all relevant Australian iron ore production takes place in the Pilbara region of Western Australia and it is being hurt by the mining tax. Furthermore, WA taxpayers were forced to pay $627 million in carbon tax last year, increasing the cost of living for families and increasing the cost of doing business in Western Australia. I say to Western Australian voters: get on board, vote for the coalition on 5 April and get rid of the mining and carbon taxes.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Each and every day the Abbott government finds a new way to cut transparency, accountability and consumer protection. The people of Western Australia deserve to know the details of the Commission of Audit and what cuts the Abbott government has in store for them—cuts to education, cuts to health, cuts to the pension and a new GP tax. The people of Western Australia need to know that. They need to know that the Abbott government says one thing before an election and another after. They stand condemned.