Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Disclaimer: The Parliamentary Library does not warrant the accuracy of closed captions. These are derived automatically from the broadcaster's signal.
ABC News 24 2pm News -

View in ParlView

(generated from captions) This program is not captioned.

This program is live captioned by Ericsson Access Services. Welcome back to Parliament House. Question Time's about to begin and there are a few issues circulating which may well get a mention today. Labor has formalised a decision to block the plebiscite on same-sex marriage in the Senate. Declarations had already been made by crossbenchers there which meant that Labor's position would be decisive and it has decided that there should not be one in February next year so it will block that legislation in the Senate. That may come up. The Prime Minister, though, is not prepared to countenance defeat on that Bill until it happens so we might hear his response if that question is put to him. The Speaker Tony Smith is calling the House to order. We might go to the chamber right now.I inform the House on the death on 22 September 2016 of John Royston Siddons, a Senator. He represented Victoria. As a mark of respect to his memory, I invite all present to rise in their places.


I thank the House. The Leader of the Opposition on indulgence.I present a revised list of the Shadow Ministry.I should have said a little earlier in accordance with standing order 43 the time for members' statements has concluded. Questions without notice. Members on my right. The Leader of the Opposition has the call.Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister stand by his promise that he made the day before the election that no Australian will pay more to see a doctor because of his 6-year Medicare freeze?The Prime Minister has the call.Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the honourable member for his question. The honourable member knows very well that the Medicare freeze is not, as he said "Your Medicare freeze", it is his Medicare freeze. It is the Labor Party's Medicare freeze. They froze it. The Labor Government decision to freeze the Medicare schedule, to freeze it and it has been continued. It has been continued. The consequence of unfreezing the freeze, of allowing indexation to continue, or as the Health Minister and I pointed out in the course of the campaign, result in an increase of 60 cents I think, around 60 cents. We had the Labor Party and various other people in the debate claiming that, by not unfreezing the indexation, by not doing that, and denying, say, 60 cents, that would justify an increase in charges by $10 or $15 or $25. It was ludicrous. The reality is the indexation freeze was introduced by Labor as a cost measure. It has been maintained by us for precisely the same reason and what we have been able to do is to bring one new drug after another, one new life-saving drug after another, on to the PBS. We've been able to use the scarce resources available...The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Manager of Opposition Business.On direct relevance.The Prime Minister is in order. The Prime Minister has the call.Thank you, Mr Speaker. The bottom line is this: We are living here in Australia in this Parliament, in this Government, with scarce resources. What we need to do is to ensure that we live within our means and we deploy the taxpayers' funds available to us to achieve the best health outcome for all Australians. That is what we are doing. Constantly investing. Constantly improving. Defending Medicare. Standing up for our public health system. The Labor Party, on the other hand, peddled the most outrageous lies in the election campaign. Yes, they laugh. Look, it's so funny! Queen's counsel, Mr Speaker, think of that. One Her Majesty's counsel in the law, learned in the law, the Member for Isaacs thinks telling lies is funny. The Prime Minister will not reflect on members -That tells you a lot. All you need to know about what's befallen the Australian Labor Party. I remind all members and the Prime Minister that the standing orders prohibit reflections on members. The Member for Chisolm has the call.My question is -There can't be a point of order - I will ask the Manager of Opposition Business to resume his seat. I made my statement. The Leader of the House will cease interjecting. I made the point very firmly to all members, including the Prime Minister. I then called the Member for Chisolm. I didn't do it in a rush. I've called the Member for Chisolm. Play on. The Member for Chisolm has the call.Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister advise the House of how the Government is delivering on our national economic plan, boosting economic growth and delivering on our election commitments?The Prime Minister has the call.I thank the Honourable Member for her question. Mr Speaker, our Government is getting on with the job of delivering the national economic plan that was endorsed by the Australian people at the election. We promised to continue the hard task of deficit reduction and living within our means and repairing the budget. We have delivered $11 billion in budget repair. We are making the 45th Parliament work. Every one of our policies from our enterprise tax plan to our export trade deals, record investment in land infrastructure, our record investment in defence capabilities, every single one of them is delivering stronger economic growth. We promised pro growth policies and we are delivering them. We are creating thousands of advanced manufacturing jobs across the nation through our defence industry plan and our investment and our promotion of innovation and science. We are committed to continuing the strong economic growth that we have had for more than a quarter of a century but we cannot take for granted. In the last year we have seen growth - the rate of growth rise from 2 to 3. 3%. It is the envy of the developed world. We promised strong jobs growth. We're delivering with more than 180,000 jobs created over the last 12 months. This makes today, Mr Speaker, - today marks another important step with the introduction of the legislation into the Senate of the personal income tax that will stop 500,000 middle income Australians from entering the second highest tax bracket. That matter will soon be voted on by the Senate. We promised and we remain committed to boosting small business investment and improving the competitiveness of small business by progressing our 10-year enterprise tax plan, a measure that will give Australia's 870,000 incorporated small businesses a tax cut this year we promised to take immediate action to restore the law in the work place to stop militant unions standing over volunteers. We have succeeded last night. The Country Fire Authority volunteers of Australia, that the Labor Party abandoned to a militant union, that they disrespected and allowed the very volunteer essence of the CFA to be compromised, we stood up for them. We said we would defend them as they defended us and we have defended them. The Senate has passed that law. There is more to be done. Just as we defended the owner drivers, just as we defended the CFA volunteers, we stand up for the rule of law in the work place.The Prime Minister's time has expired. The Member for Ballarat.My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's previous answer. Is it seriously the position of the Government that the Prime Minister's credibility on Medicare was unharmed by the freeze on Medicare rebates, unharmed by cuts to pathology, unharmed by plans to make all Australians even pensioners pay more for medicines?The Member for Ballarat can resume her seat. Perhaps just here for a second. There are a number of interjections on my right. I heard the member for Corangamite that prevented me from hearing all of the question. I want to hear the question again from the beginning.Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's previous answer. Is it seriously the contention of the Government that the Prime Minister's credibility on Medicare was unharmed by your Medicare freeze, unharmed by your cuts to pathology, unharmed by your plans to make Australians even pensioners pay more for medicines but couldn't withstand a text message?Just before I call the Prime Minister, member for Ballarat will resume her seat...I ask you ask the Health Minister to withdraw. Did the Health Minister use an unparliamentary term? Did the Health Minister use an unparliamentary term? When there's a wall of interjections, including now from the Member for Ballarat, you'll understand it places the Minister for Health in the same position as the Member for-McEwen yesterday. The Prime Minister has the call. The question is just in order. It's mostly preamble but just in order.I thank the Honourable Member for her question. What she's asking is whether the dishonest text message had any effect? (LAUGHTER) What she is doing, she is saying - she is like somebody who is charged or sued for misrepresentation, for telling a falsehood, for misleading somebody and whose defence is not that the statement was accurate, not that it did not mislead but that it didn't have any effect. That's basically her defence. How low has the Labor Party sunk to that? So that they think it's a joke to send millions of text messages to older vulnerable Australians which appeared to come from Medicare, which were designed, which were calculated, to mislead? And she asks me whether I think those misleading -The Member for Moreton will leave under 94A. Completely disorderly.- deliberately exploitative text message. This shocking exercise in deceit had an effect or not. I will answer the honourable member, Mr Speaker. I believe it did. I think all of us know, all of us know, many Australians that were frightened out of their wits by those text messages, that were frightened and misled, we have all heard stories of people in old people's homes, of older Australians and the Labor Party scoffs.Members on my left! Member for Gorton is warned.This is remarkable. An Opposition, an alternative government that so little respects the truth that they believe it's a joke.The Member for Lilley!They believe it's a joke to lie to millions of vulnerable Australians. Proud of their deceit. The Member for Lilley will cease interjecting. The Prime Minister will resume his seat for a second. There is far too many interjections. I have asked the Member for Lilley to cease interjecting three times. I'd believe him if he said he didn't hear me. I have ceased proceedings so he is in no doubt. The Prime Minister has the call. The Member for Sydney is warned. Prime Minister has the call.Thank you. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Opposition Leader asked me "How is the AFP going?" . He knows very well what the AFP concluded. While there is a very serious criminal offence of impersonating a federal officer - there is, five years in jail, actually so there is apparently a loophole in the law which the Labor Party managed to sale through. That loophole will be plugged. In the meantime, while Labor referrals in the success of its -- revels in the success of its deceit, we get on with the job of investing, defending, ensuring Medicare, public health services continue to improve, life-saving drugs are made available and Australians' enviable health system continue to be the best in the world.I call the Member for Maranoa.Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on how the Government is helping rebuild stronger communities and more jobs in regional Australia? Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of any alternative approaches?The Deputy Prime Minister has the call.Mr Speaker, I thank the Honourable Member for his question. There can be no better example of what the Coalition is doing for regional Australia that can be seen in Maranoa, matched by many but no better than others. What we have seen in Maranoa is the money on the table for emu swamp dam. Part of our dams policy, that is supported on this side of the chamber but not supported in Queensland. They are too interested with Ms Tradd and Ms Annastacia Palaszczuk getting stuck into one another and not supported on the other side where they will take $235 million out of our water policy because they don't believe in building dams. You can see the difference the Coalition has made when you see the work that's been put into places, the dog fences, bringing sheep back into the regional areas and making sure employment is based once more in the western areas and making sure we get the economies going in the western areas and dragging the wealth back into the western areas. You can see our vision in the $100 million we put on the table for the Winton-laferton road. We believe the sealing the third road across our nation. Since the First Fleet, we have sealed two roads across this nation but the vision to seal the third road resides on this side of the chamber. It is the same side of the chamber that believes in building the inland rail. The inland rail which we put money on the table to have a corridor of commerce from Melbourne up to Brisbane, through regional Victoria. Regional NSW and regional Queensland. It comes on the back of record Ag exports, record prices in cattle, meat sheep, portion, turn-around in the wool market, the wine market. Record prices in sugar. Turn-around in the price of oranges, potatoes, chick peas. But you ask what is the policies on the other side? Might well you ask that question because we'll never know. It has been a year since I got a question on policy from the Member for Hunter. 13 October since I got a question on policy issues and a question of any sort we have to go back to November. When it comes to water policy, I have never received a question from the Member for Port Adelaide or the Member for Watson. They just don't give us questions on those issues. Where would you go looking? You are supposed to go looking at the 100 positive policies. In the 100 positive policies they have a policy on the Commonwealth cleaning services but not one on agriculture. Not one on agriculture. Nothing on agriculture. Even right now while we are trying to - oh, my God, I'm about to get my first question.The Deputy Prime Minister will resume his seat. Before I recognise the Member for Hunter - the Deputy Prime Minister will not interject when I'm addressing the House. The Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science will cease interjecting as well. Before I call the Member for Hunter - the Deputy Prime Minister is warned! Member for Hunter is rising on a point of order. You'll need to state the point of order.I seek leave to table 2016 agriculture policy. Why would I ask him a question if he doctors the Hansard answers?If the Member for Hunter doesn't have anything with him, he can keep walking out the door under 94A. The Member for Hunter can leave under 94A. Complete abuse of points of order and he well knows it. The Deputy Prime Minister for another 20 seconds.Right now, the Australian Labor Party are fighting us on the backpacker tax, just like they fought us on the road safety remuneration tribunal and just like they put at risk the firefighters. If you want to see what the Labor Party looks like, you can't go past SA. It's a blackout.The Deputy Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition.Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Prime Minister. Australian of the Year and mental health expert Professor Patrick McGorry has warned a plebiscite on same-sex marriage was a dangerous thing to do that will harm people's mental health. What is the Prime Minister's response to Professor McGory's warning last week?The Prime Minister has the call.Well, thank you, Mr Speaker. I have a very high regard for Professor McGorry. I discussed this matter with him directly. I don't want to go into my private conversation with him but I am quite satisfied that the Australian people are capable of having a civil discussion on this issue and resolving it. I recognise and have some understanding of the special, the additional, mental stress and the prevalence of mental illness among the gay community. There is no issue about that. We understand that. The Member for Sydney and I both understand that in particular given our electorates and we have both been involved with organisations that seek to address it and, indeed, have supported them. I might say very collaboratively. We do understand that. But nonetheless, this is a big issue. It's a big issue that concerns all Australians and we believe that all Australians should be entitled to have their say. We took the plebiscite proposal as part of our platform to the election. We won the election. It is a perfectly democratic process. The Honourable Members opposite should remember that it was not so long ago that their own leader, the Member for Maribyrnong, supported a plebiscite. He advocated a plebiscite. What's changed?I remind the Member for Sydney she has been warned. The Member for Sydney.The thing that's changed is the politics. The Labor Party is not so much interested in same-sex couples being able to marry as they are in wringing every ounce of political gain out of this debate.The Prime Minister - has the Prime Minister concluded his answer?I have, Mr Speaker.The Member for Indi.Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Prime Minister. It is a question about the provision of childcare in rural, regional and remote Australia and what the Government commitment is to families who live outside our major cities and towns? The chairperson of the National Association of Mobil Services Anne Bowler recently told a Senate committee addressing the jobs for families childcare package that the legislation would ensure the closure of up to 90% of the 46 child mobile services including four in Victoria and one in Indi. Can you please assure the House the Government really care ace bout the provision of childcare to farming and Aboriginal areas and those who live in remote areas and will guarantee funding for the values services which cannot be supported under childcare funding?I thank the Honourable Member for her question. I can assure her on this side of the House we are committed to spending record level on childcare through the jobs for childcare package. We will support childcare in rural, regional and Indigenous communities through programs such as the community childcare fund. The status quo is clearly not working in a sufficiently fair or transparent way for existing budget-based funded services with some services receiving less than $100 per child and other services receiving thousands of dollars per child. I can well understand the concern the Honourable Member has for the services in her electorate. I can inform her the Government will carefully transition services to enable them to become approved to administer the childcare subsidy where appropriate. For the first time, parents using these services will be able to attract a childcare subsidy and operators will be able to attract funding to support the services' viability. Importantly, the transition support we are rolling out over the coming months will ensure the business model works for the location of the service. Commencing early, this transition work will include developing a business plan, preparing a budget, setting appropriate fees and fee collection processes, developing staffing rosters and establishing a viable operational structure that meets the needs of the community. We anticipate that any supplementary funding for individual services would be informed by the work of the transition consultants and reflect and, where possible address, specific transition challenges that may be faced by individual providers. The reality is that some of the budget-based funded services are not delivering childcare but we recognise they are delivering a vital community service. Where that is the case, we'll identify alternative funding sources appropriate to the type of service they're offering and the number of children being cared for. We believe the early years of a child's life are vitally important, I know all honourable members do, in ensuring children meet the learning and development milestones necessary for a strong start in life and for a positive transition to school. Parents are the first and most important teachers that children will have, of course, and that's why we have invested in both programs that support parents and children and support parents' participation requirements through formal childcare.The Member for O'Connor. My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on how the Government is managing the successful transition of the Australian economy? In particular, how will the enterprise tax plan stimulate investment especially by small and medium sized businesses in new jobs and higher wages to improve living standards for hard-working Australians?The Treasurer has the call.Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Member for O'Connor for his question and his interest in ensuring the particularly small and medium-sized businesses in this country can grow and can support the jobs that they put in place through their own investment. The Government enterprise tax plan was introduced into this House within the first 100 days after the last election, Mr Speaker, in that first 100 days and that plan supports stronger growth, more investment, higher wages and more jobs. The modelling undertaken by Treasury shows the GDP would increase by over a percentage point, investment up by 3% and wages up by a percentage point as well. There used to be a lot of consensus on this point. We know the Leader of the Opposition once said "Cutting the company income tax rate increases domestic productivity and domestic investment". We know the Shadow Treasurer used to also be a supporter of cutting company income tax. He said "It is a Labor thing to have the ambition of reducing company tax because it promotes investment, it creates jobs and it drives growth". That's what the Shadow Treasurer said. The former Prime Minister Julia Gillard said this "If you are against cutting company income tax, you are against economic growth. If you are against economic growth, you are gern against job. If you are against economic growth and jobs, you are against increasing wages". That is shared by distinguished officials in the Treasury. Ken Henry said 'If the company income tax were to be cut, the beneficial would be the workers". It is bad enough those opposite do not support the tax plan over 10 years to drive growth and lift wages and living standards but we learn last night in the Senate they are even opposed to cutting company tax rate for companies with a turnover up to 10 million. They're opposed to ensuring they would get access to depreciation provisions which would allow them to invest in their businesses and support growth and jobs in their businesses. There is 100,000 businesses with a turnover of between $2-10 million. They employ on average some 22 people. 2. 2 million Australians' jobs depends on the health and wellbeing of the small businesses they work for. They may opposite want to go and have a chat to some of those small business as I have done. Maybe the Member for Herbert would like to talk from Martin Lock homes, he has a turnover of 8 million, he says "I'm a small business owner, to be labelled a big business is offensive". Perhaps the Member for Hindmarsh might want to talk to Precise tooling Australia, he says "It will help our industry going forward, which means we can employ more people".The Treasurer's time has expired. Just before I call the Member for Grayndler, just pause for a second, the Leader of the House will cease interjecting. I would like to inform the House we have present this afternoon Ingrid Fishback Parliamentary secretary to the Federal Minister for Health of Germany and Dr Anna Prince the German Ambassador in the gallery. I extend a warm welcome to you both. The Member for Grayndler.Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is addressed to the Minister for Tourism. I refer to the Minister's comments of 31 August 2016 when he told the House "The increases in the passenger movement chart were "choking the golden goose that is Australia's tourism industry". Given that just 28 days later the Government increased the charge by $5, does the Minister stand by his comments and, if he does, doesn't that make him look like a golden goose? (LAUGHTER) Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I actually thank the Member for his question because there's been some debate in the House around the passenger movement charge so let me re-enlighten those members opposite about some of the debates we have had about the passenger movement charge. I quote a Member who said "This is a Government that is serious about the future of tourism. This is a Government that is serious about a fiscally responsible budget that looks at changes to charges like the PMC in line with indexation to only partly recover the additional costs that have been placed on government". That would seem like a fiscally-prudent approach, an approach that reflects the need for governments to be responsible. You'd almost expect it to be a comment on our side of the chamber but, in fact, it is a comment by the Minister opposite - the Shadow Minister opposite. Shadow Minister Butler made that comment. The one person on their side who actually was able to put forward a point of view that was consistent with the need to be fiscally responsible. So the Member for Port Adelaide is the sole member on that side, the Member for Port Adelaide - The Minister will resume his seat for a second. The Member for Grayndler on a point of order.It goes to relevance. This is about what the Minister said last time he was at the dispatch box during Question Time.The Member for Grayndler can resume his seat. The Member for McMahon will cease interjecting. Haven't called the Minister yet. I haven't called the Minister yet. I am going to rule on the point of order. That is, as the Member for Grayndler well knows, there was a lot of commentary and preamble in the question as well as the specific question so the Minister has the call.Mr Speaker, I absolutely stand by my comment that the Australian Labor Party was strangling Australia's tourism industry. A 45% increase in the passenger movement charge. A 45% increase in the passenger movement charge. You need to talk to the Member for Adelaide because the Member for Adelaide put forward the rationale about why it should go up. The simple fact is once again we see the Australian Labor Party approach to policy-making that says "Don't listen to what we say, look at what we do" because that's what Labor did, a 45% increase in the passenger movement charge. We know that inflation was out of the bottle. We heard that from the Australian Labor Party. But 45%? Really? The Member for Lilley, 45% when Labor was in power? We know the Australian Labor Party delivered record taxes on Australia's tourism industry but they didn't re-invest the money. They didn't re-invest the money. A 45% increase in the passenger movement charge but they actually reduced funding for Tourism Australia. Unlike the Coalition, which has put in place a modest increase, substantially less than 45%, but it's the Coalition, Mr Speaker, the Coalition which is putting in record funding to Australia's tourism industry, $639 million by this Government, driving record numbers of tourists, driving record spend by tourists and driving the length of stay to new record levels. That's the record of this Government and I'm very proud to stand by this Government's track record.The Member for La Trobe.My question is to the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services. I remind the Minister that small business is a lifeblood of the local economy in my electorate of La Trobe. Will the Minister update the House on the Government's support for small business through tax cuts and tax concessions? Is the Minister aware of any alternative policies? The Minister for Revenue and Financial Services.I'd like to very much thank the Member for La trob. I note his wife judie is a very successful small business woman. She is one of more than 16,000 small business men and women in the seat of La Trobe that are taking a risk, creating an opportunity for themselves, for their families and, more broadly, for the communities in which they operate. They are helping to grow our economy. Earlier this a
year, I had the opportunity to visit a number of small businesses in the electorate of La Trobe. One such indecent assault business that the -- small business the Member and I visited was the Nomadic cafe owned and operated by Andrew who has been running that business for more than two years. He has been running that business very successfully and it has been growing rapidly. It opens for breakfast, lunch and dinner and it has now employed more than 25 employees. More than 25 employees. Members on my left!This business is a very important business because it has just tipped over the $2 million turnover threshold which means that Andrew's business benefits from the announcement made by this Government in the Budget that tax enterprise plan that will actually deliver company tax cuts for small businesses with a turnover of less than $10 million. The company tax rate of 27. 5 cents in the dollar for 1 July this year. This is going to advantage more than 870,000 small businesses. We're also increasing the unincorporated small business tax discount from 5% to 8% capped at $1,000 and that will be for businesses with a turnover of less than $5 million. That will mean that 2. 2 million Australian businesses will benefit from this change. Not only that, we are going to be providing tax concessions available to all small businesses with a turnover of less than $10 million. This includes the $20,000 instant asset write off. This again will advantage more than 3. 1 million Australian businesses. One of the issues for Andrew is cash flow. One of the other issues is making sure he can invest in his business. Both of these initiatives actually deliver for him. But I was asked are there any alternative views? I am very, very sad to say to the Member for La Trobe that there are. Those opposite would put a handbrake on the aspiration of small business. They would limit small business from being able to access company tax cuts, from being able to access discounts, from being able to access the instant asset write-off if they had any more than $2 million in turnover. We on this side of the House want to grow small business. We want them to be able to employ more Australians. We know that since 2007, the small business definition hasn't changed and we're not talking about it, we're acting.The Member for Greenway.My question is to the Prime Minister. On 28 October 2014, the now Prime Minister told the Parliament that one of the big changes he would be making in relation to the NBN would be "upgrading HFC networks to ensure everyone gets a very fast broadband but at much less cost". Can the Prime Minister confirm the scaling back of up to 1. 5 million HFC premises in the latest corporate plan, a significant increase in the cost of HFC connections and NBN Co abandoning the Optus HFC network? Member for Chifley will cease interjecting. The Prime Minister has the call.I'm delighted the honourable member's been following the reporting of the NBN Co. As it happens, I don't claim any presence here but I was looking at the NBN Co's weekly rollout report as she was getting ready to ask her question. I have it here. As of 29 September, so we'll get some new numbers in a day or so, there are now 1.37 million premises actually activated, accessing the network, paying customers. 3. 2 million premises that have the ability to access the network. What the NBN Co is doing is connecting - that is to say, activating, signing up new customers - at the rate of around 90,000 every four weeks. In six years Labor connected 50,000. The company is doing as much in two weeks as Labor did in its whole term in government. So it's rolling out. There'll be half of Australia's premises will have access by June 30 next year. By June 2018, the company forecasts it will be three-quarters and the project will be completed in 2019/20. This is one of the great corporate turn-arounds in Australia's history. This was a complete catastrophe, a failed project, one which where construction had stopped in many parts of Australia, in other parts it had barely started. We put in a new board, new management, new business plan and they're getting on with the job. Unlike the Labor Party, we do not turn technology into ideology. They make the same mistake with telecommunications as they do with climate policy and renewables policy. What is the object? Getting people connected to the internet with very fast broadband. That's the goal. How do you do it? You do it in the most cost-effective way using the resources you have, where they are, you design a technique that suits the circumstances. That's what we're doing. Of course, we could have stuck with Labor's ideological plan, would have taken another $30 billion and taken six to eight years longer. The turn-around of the NBN is one of the great achievements of the Coalition Government.Just before I call the Member for Wright, I also inform the House we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Australian political exchange Council's 10th delegation from the Philippines. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you all. The Member for Wright.Thank you. My question is to the Minister for Small Business. If the Minister could update the House on our 10-year tax enterprise plan and the effects it will have on small business in Australia and in particular the effects on small business in my electorate of Wright? The Minister for Small Business has the call.Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Member for Wright for his question. He is a good member. He understands the importance of small business because he ran one, continues to do so, CQX Transport. 10 trucks, good small business in the electorate of Wright. The Member understands of the importance of small business and what they mean to our economy. There are more than 13,000 small businesses in the electorate of Wright. It's great to hear in Wright of regional businesses opening, expanding, perhaps even most importantly growing. Our 10-year enterprise tax plan will assist them to do just that. It will relieve compliance on Tom Plunkett of paint place in Beau dessert so he can support local trades people, offering a high quality service to customers. The local grocer of Big Pumpkin fruit and vegetable, our plan will free up capital for him to re-invest and develop his business. An hour ago, I met with the Council of Small Business Australia chairman Paul Nielsen who spoke of how critical our tax plan is to enable small business to drive innovation and growth. They were his words. The Coalition understands how important this plan is to create the right conditions for small business to grow and to prosper. You might think it's a joke, this is important. That's why I was so pleased that this legislation was introduced as a priority by the Treasurer in the first week of the 45th Parliament, the very first week. Over the past 15 years Australia has gone from having the ninth lowest corporate tax rate amongst advanced countries to having the sixth highest out of 35 OECD countries. Australia must remain competitive as an attractive destination, Mr Speaker, to invest in and that's why we have delivered a tax plan targeted to provide opportunities, to boost jobs and growth. Our 10-year enterprise tax plan will support up to 3. 2 million small businesses, employ more than 5. 5 million Australians. As of this financial year, companies with turnovers of less than $10 million will have a tax rate of 27. 5%. Lowest it's been since 1967. That's around 870,000 additional businesses which will benefit and have access to a range of small business tax concessions. Just yesterday, just yesterday, the Member for Kingsford Smith stated he and his Labor colleagues are opposed to changing the threshold turnover for small businesses to beyond $2 million, saying "There is no economic benefit and it will do social detriment". Why do you hate small business? Why do you hate small business? I say this to the Member for McMahon, the Shadow Treasurer, this underlines one of the golden rules of politics, when the Labor Party -I'm trying to help the Member for Sydney stay in the chamber.- sensible people should be very worried.

The Member for Cowan.Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Prime Minister. Almost a year ago in this House the former Liberal Member for Cowan spoke about poor internet coverage in the Cowan electorate. Speaking about the suburb of Greenwood, the former Member said "A lot of people just cannot get a service of any kind". What has the Prime Minister done in the past year to provide broadband access to the suburb of Greenwood?The Prime Minister has the call.

Minister has the call.Thank you. I thank the Honourable Member for her question. I will consult with the Minister and come back to her with the specific answer in respect of her suburb to which she refers, the NBN Co is a gigantic project. I can say to her and obviously I don't have the details of every rollout in every particular location but I can say to the Honourable Member that - I will give the Honourable Member the benefit of the history. When the Labor Party lost office in 2013, construction had barely started and was stopped in WA. So there was a complete failure. The contractor actually imploded effectively. So the NBN Co had to start again. The construction of the NBN is more advanced in some other States but it is catching up. Right now there are 323,000 premises in WA that can access the service and 125,717 that are signed up and paying customers. The Honourable Member has made an inquiry about a particular suburb. We'll take that up with the Minister and get her the precise details. She could, of course, obtain that information very readily from the NBN Co which does a very good job liaising with all Members of Parliament. But I thank her for her question and I thank her for her interest. She succeeded a very capable Member for Cowan, a Member who was very assiduous in standing up for his constituents and ensuring that they had the services that they need.The Member for Perth will cease interjecting. He was interjecting right through that answer. The Member for Menzies. Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Foreign Minister. Will the Minister explain to the House the importance of clarity and consistency on policy in the South China Sea and is she aware of any alternative approaches?The Foreign Minister has the call.Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Member for Menzies for his question and for his interest in this important issue. Mr Speaker, the shienss has the busiest ship -- South China Sea has the busiest shipping lanes in the world. Two-thirds of our exports pass through these seas. It is the Coalition's view that in foreign affairs clarity and consistency is all-important, especially when dealing with significant and difficult issues in our region and issues involving great powers. This Government has been utterly consistent in relation to the South China Sea, calling on all nations to refrain from coercive behaviour, calling on nations to respect international law and, indeed, for China and the Philippines to accept the recent international arbitration ruling award as final and binding. As we have done for decades, Australian vessels and aircraft will continue to exercise their rights to passage and overflight under international law in the South China Sea. However, Mr Speaker, in contrast, what we have seen from the Leader of the Opposition is a complete failure of leadership on the South China Sea as Labor has announced inconsistent, contradictory positions. There was Senator Dastyari ceding almost all of the South China Sea to China by saying that the South China Sea is China's own affair. Then over the weekend, Labor's Shadow Defence Minister decided Australia should escalate tensions by having our Navy conduct freedom of navigation operations within 12 nautical miles of Chinese-controlled land features that are also contested by other claimants. We hear vague mutterings from the Leader of the Opposition but it took the former Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating to denounce Labor's latest pronouncements as shocking. Mr Speaker, this is too important an issue for Labor folly and indulgence and inconsistency. I call on the Leader of the Opposition to confirm that it is Labor's policy that the Australian Navy should sail within 12 nautical miles of contested features in the South China Sea, something Australia has not ever done before. Australia should be seeking to de-escalate tensions in the region. Australia is not a claimant state. Australia should not take sides. We should continue to urge all parties to conduct peaceful negotiations between the claimants. It is time for the Leader of the Opposition to show some leadership over his party on this issue. It is too important for Australia to have the inconsistent mutterings from the Leader of the Opposition and his contradictory pronouncements on this issue.The Member for McMahon.My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, the final budget outcome for 2015/16 was dumped out late on a Friday afternoon two weeks ago. If a projected deficit of $4. 7 billion for 2015-16 warranted a Budget emergency, what does the Treasurer call the Government's final deficit figure of $39. 6 billion? A deficit more than eight times larger than that projected when this Government came to office?The Treasurer has the call.I always welcome questions from those opposite about deficits because, on that side of the House, they've written the book on deficits, Mr Speaker. They have written the book on deficits. The final budget outcome actually showed for that year that the actual deficit was less than anticipated at the time of the Budget this year, Mr Speaker. It was those opposite who went to the Australian people at the last election and said what Australia needs is an even bigger deficit. They said that the deficit over the budgeted forward estimates should be $16. 5 billion higher than what we announced in May of this year. They also think that the way to try and drive investment in this country is to increase taxes so higher taxes to fund higher spending and they want bigger deficits, Mr Speaker, over the budgeted forward estimates. That is not a plan to drive jobs and growth. It is not surprising those opposite was rejected at the last election because they could not be trusted to run the economy of this country. They need to reflect on that because what I notice from those opposite a hubris and arrogance after the election, a hubris and arrogance. We had the Leader of the Opposition do a lap of honour for an election he never won, Mr Speaker, perhaps he was celebrating his victory over the Shadow Transport and Tourism Minister, Mr Speaker. Perhaps that's what he was celebrating. But what we know is hubris and arrogance is preventing them from understanding that the Australian people do not want to see the country go into even higher levels of debt. That's what they want to do, Mr Speaker, because they wanted to add $16.5 billion to Australia's deficit and to drive up debt, Mr Speaker. That's what they wanted to do. On this side of the House, we outlined a budget that would see expenditure as a share of the economy fall over the budget and forward estimates and the deficit decline and we would arrest the debt. Those opposite only have a plan to spend more, to tax more, to ensure the debt rises by more, and that is why they remain totally opposed to providing support particularly for small and medium-sized businesses which is necessary to drive investment, which drives growth, which drives jobs. Happy to have questions from those opposite, from the architects of higher deficits, higher debt and higher taxes.The Member for Swan. My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the Minister update the House on action taken by the Government to make our community safer including the cancellations of visas held by members of outlaw motorcycle gangs and is the Minister aware of any different approaches to the protection of our borders?The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection.Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I thank the Member for his question and thank him very much for the efforts on behalf of his community that he makes to make it a safer place. That's certainly what this Government is about. We have been able to cancel the visas of 106 non-citizens, cancelled or refused 106 non-citizen visas over the course of the last 12 months or so of people associated with outlaw motorcycle gangs. What we know in this country is that members of outlaw motorcycle gangs are the biggest distributors of amphetamines. They are involved in extortion and they are involved in standover tactics particularly of people in small business and, as a Government, we have said we will not stand for it. We have introduced provisions in the Migration Act which allow us to cancel visas of people who were engaged in criminal activity including these outlaw motorcycle gang members. But, Mr Speaker, it really is quite astonishing that the Labor Party is opposed to such measures and we ask yourselves why. -- ourselves why. What people know about this Leader of the Opposition is he is owned and managed by the union bosses of this country. He is owned and managed by them and he has been his entire working life. That is the true nakt of the matter -- fact of the matter. We know the CFMEU, the most militant union in the country, employs outlaw motorcycle gang members to stand over builders and workers on building and construction sites around the country and you ask why would this Leader of the Opposition turn a blind eye to the activities of the CFMEU and of the bikies providing that standover and muscle on those building sites around the country? There are 1. 3 million reasons why he did it last year, because the CFMEU donated $1. 3 million to the Labor Party last year alone. They are still running a protection racket for him.The Minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business - the Minister will resume his seat. Deputy Leader of the Opposition has been warned three times. That's it. No more interjections. No more sign language. No more anything or you'll be out. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.Mr Speaker, it is under standing order 90. The Minister and his answer has gone directly to imputing improper motives which is considered highly disorderly. I ask that he withdraw the comments and be brought back to the question.On listening carefully to the Minister's answer, I'm very well aware of standing order 90, the Minister is very close to the line. He is very close to the line which is why I hadn't intervened but I call the Minister.$1. 3 million last year was donated to the Labor Party by the CFMEU. That was eclipsed only by the shoppies who donated a bit more than that. We know over the course of the last seven or eight years they have donated over $6 million. When the Australian public ask themselves a question - is this Leader of the Opposition fit to be Prime Minister of this country, they need to look at his dirty grubby links back to the union thugs and bosses who are dictating terms to this man and it is unacceptable for a person who seeks the highest office in the country.The Minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business. The Minister's concluded his answer. I think unless it is a different point of order, I will anticipate -He has now made comments he hadn't made when I took the previous point of order. On the comments he made I ask he withdraw. They cannot be read as anything other than impugning motive. That's what it was entirely about, I ask the comments be withdrawn.I think what the Manager of Opposition Business will find - I was listening very carefully, as I said, we do get tough questions and tough answers in this place and as I have said many times, I don't want to be ruling out tough questions as well. I have listened carefully. I don't think there was anything directly there. I really don't. I think an examination of the Hansard, which we don't do now if it suits everyone, will show that the view I've taken is pretty consistent with past practice but I do take that matter pretty seriously. That's why I was listening very closely to the Minister. The Member for Isaacs.My question is to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Nearly 24 hours has passed since the Minister took on notice questions about whether the Attorney-General had misled the Senate and the joint committee on intelligence and security. Why has the Minister failed to meet the commitments that he gave to the House yesterday?The Minister representing the Attorney-General.Well, can I thank the Member for Isaacs for that question, if he waited another 10 minutes I could have provided this answer but considering he's invited me to do this now, I will be very happy to provide it to the House as I undertook to do yesterday. In answer to the questions that he asked me, I'd like to refer him to this very comprehensive submission that Senator Brandis has made to the Senate legal and constitutional references committee who are looking into this matter. This submission is publicly available. It outlines in detail the process of consultation that the Attorney-General undertook