The Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources made the observation that swim-schools like the Menai Swim Academy provide some of the most important community services and that the Labor/ Greens Carbon Tax is single handedly destroying them. He noted that:

“Witnessing firsthand, here in Menai, how the carbon tax is driving up the cost of pool heating,running pool pumps, fridges, freezers, the cappuccino machine, and even the cost of a hot shower justifies the Coalition’s determination to repeal the Carbon Tax.”

As families across all of South-West Sydney face increased cost of living pressures, exacerbated by Gillard’s Carbon Tax, the Menai Swim Academy has found enrolments in their learn-to-swim program are down 8% on last year.

I am concerned that Labor’s bad policy is affecting a vital community service, and after speaking with the owners regarding their energy usage I understand that it is not possible to just turn off the pumps and filter systems to try and save on electricity prices.

Australians have a strong association with the water; going to the local pool is part of summer life for families, and our beaches are like a second home, with the Shire having some of the best beaches in Australia and it is my view that every child should know how to swim.

The former Howard government exempted swimming classes from the GST because of how vital this service is to Australians, it is disappointing that the Gillard/Greens government did not take the same responsible view with their toxic electricity tax.

Rest assured that the first order of business for a Coalition Government will be to scrap this dreadful tax!

To send a care package this ANZAC Day it must be addressed as follows:

An Australian Defence Member
AFPO 60
Australian Defence Force, NSW, 2890

Care Packages can be no more than 2kg in weight to be eligible for free postage with Australia Post, and must be packed in a Bx2 sized box (available from any Australia Post store).

Care Packages must be posted no later than April 12 for them to arrive by ANZAC Day.

Care Packages can include the following items:

Shower Gel, ANZAC Biscuits, Sweets,
Magazines, Puzzle Books, Letter of support,
Lip Balm, roll-on deodorant, DVD’s,
Socks, Shavers, Peanuts

Please Avoid the following items:

Perishables, Easily damaged items,
Cigarettes, Alcohol,
Aerosols, Home made foods

The engagement, for which they will be awarded the Battle Honour, is the same battle which saw
the awarding of a Victoria Cross to Cpl Ben Roberts-Smith.

The Battle Honour will be named Eastern Shah Wali Kot and is the first Battle Honour to be awarded
since the Vietnam War.

The last Battle Honour awarded was in June 1969 following the battle of Binh Ba, which is looked
back on as a textbook assault. The engagement took place during the Vietnam War under Operation
Holsworthy.

In announcing the awarding of the Battle Honour, Chief of Defence General Hurley noted the
engagement has previously been highly commended by the International Security Assistance Force
for contributing to overall ISAF efforts to disrupt insurgent activity in the region around Eastern Shah
Wali Kot, a traditional stronghold of the Taliban.

Chief of Army General Morrison has recommended both units be awarded the formal recognition of
their outstanding performance during the engagement.

Defence Force Chief General David Hurley said the battle honour, titled Eastern Shah Wali Kot, will
be presented to both regiments later this year.

The awarding of this tremendous honour to Holsworthy’s own 2nd Commando regiment will be a
source of pride for the people of Holsworthy, as well as the wider Liverpool community. The unit has
served our community, and our nation, proudly and with distinction.

On Saturday the 23rd of March it was my pleasure to attend Relay For Life at Bankstown Pace Way with fellow Liberal, Glenn Brookes State Member for East Hills.

The aim of Relay for Life is to raise money for the Cancer Council of Australia so that they can continue their life saving research. It is a scary statistic that 1 in 2 Australians will be diagnosed with cancer before they turn 86.

Not only were we walking to raise money for vital cancer research and to increase awareness of this terrible affliction, we were also walking to remember those loved ones who are not with us any more and those who are currently fighting this dreadful disease.

I remember my best friend at school Carl Rindfleisch, who died of cancer when we were in Year 8 together at Peakhurst High, I was walking to honour his memory and many others.

Thank you to everyone that supported this great cause and I hope that next year’s relay is even bigger and better than this years!

If you didn’t get a chance to support someone walking on the weekend below is the link to the Cancer Council Website where you can make a donation:

http://www.cancer.org.au/

Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (16:07): I did have something prepared to discuss in the three minutes I have today, but something happened in question time that I just cannot let go. In response to a question today from the shadow minister asking the Prime Minister how the government would sustainably pay for some important reforms, including the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the Prime Minister stated that the coalition opposes the NDIS. This is absolutely outrageous. The coalition has made it very clear that we support the NDIS. For the Prime Minister to use question time and our parliament, and disabled people, as political pawns in the NDIS debate is an absolute disgrace and she stands condemned. We cannot have a Prime Minister playing politics with disabled people in this country.

Let me make this abundantly clear: the current NDIS funding model that this parliament put in place is not sustainable. It provides no certainty and no surety to parents and carers across our nation. Currently, the funding is only $250 million a year when we know the NDIS needs funding of something like $10 billion. We are only 97.5 per cent short of the money that we need, and we have the Prime Minister coming into question time saying that the coalition opposes the NDIS. It is a disgrace. The Prime Minister stands condemned for her comments. Both sides of this parliament have responsibilities regarding how we are going to fund the NDIS. As I said, we are 97.5 per cent short of the funding that we need. The only way we are going to fix that is to grow the economy, to make sure the economy is strong, to take away the unnecessary taxes, to cut the waste.

We in the coalition want to work with the Labor Party and work with the Greens and proceed with the NDIS in a bipartisan spirit. The Prime Minister broke that spirit of bipartisanship today trying to play politics with the NDIS. She is playing politics with the most vulnerable and disabled people in our country. It is an absolute disgrace. I hope the good members on that side of the parliament, in their caucus, have a word to the Prime Minister and let us get back and tackle the NDIS in the bipartisan way that we should and not use it as a political tool.

Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (19:55): I rise to speak on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (News Media Diversity) Bill 2013. I have a copy of the bill here. It has 74 pages and there are another 52 pages in the explanatory memorandum. I wonder how many members of the government that will come into this chamber shortly and vote for this nonsense have actually read either of these documents. For, if they did, they would see that the bill makes reference to the Public Interest Media Advocate over and over and over again. The only problem is that who the Public Interest Media Advocate is, how they will be selected and what terms they will have are all in a separate bill, which was due to be debated and voted on at the same time. What we have here tonight in our federal parliament is an absolute farce of procedure. We have a government that is completely out of control, that does not have a clue what it is doing and that is making it up minute by minute. Is it any wonder that the country is in such a mess? Is it any wonder that our national debt is heading north of $260 billion? If the government cannot organise this parliament to run here tonight in an efficient manner, where we are actually voting on legislation that ties together, what hope have they got?

We are voting on and speaking on separately the broadcasting legislation amendment bill 2013, which has reference throughout it to the Public Interest Media Advocate. But the detail of that Public Interest Media Advocate is in a separate bill that we were originally, less than half an hour ago, meant to debate and vote on together. Now we understand there are some backroom deals going on somewhere else in Parliament House, trying to stitch up the votes of Independents. The procedure is an utter and complete farce.

Looking at the provisions of the bill, what is the mischief, what is the evil, that these bills are meant to remedy? No-one from the government side has been able to identify this. We already have the ACCC, which has a substantial lessening of competition test for mergers. The ACCC investigates mergers in this country. The process is working; it is working reasonably well. We have already seen the ACCC bar the Seven Group from bidding for Consolidated Media Holdings. We have already seen the ACCC active in the media, finding where there will be a substantial lessening of competition and blocking those mergers. This is simply an overlap of legislation.

But the real concern is that, with decisions that this public media advocate makes, there can be no appeal. They become the judge and jury. Under the ACCC process, there is a process of appeals where, if a company disagrees with what the ACCC have done because it does not like the ACCC’s verdict in blocking its merger, it has the right to take that decision through our courts. This bill does not include that right to take a decision through the courts.

We know the reason for this bill. It is simply that this government desires to suppress any opinion that does not align with its policies. It is simply the government deciding to silence any criticism of its policies. That is what this bill is all about.

Secondly, what is the rush? Why are we rushing these bills through parliament tonight? These bills were introduced only a few days ago, on the last sitting day of last week. What is the rush to get these through parliament? Why are the government and the minister seeking to trample on the parliamentary processes and rush through this legislation—legislation that, for the first time in our nation’s history outside of wartime, attempts to put controls on the media? Are we facing an invasion? Is that the reason? Have hostile foreign troops landed on our shores? Is that the reason for the urgency of this legislation? What national emergency has arisen that has caused this government to abandon all due process and rush this legislation through our parliament?

We know these proposed media laws are all about pressuring a free press to prop up a completely dysfunctional government. This mad rush that we are seeing here tonight, this dysfunctional process, is just one example of the bad judgment of this Prime Minister and this government, which continues to make it up as it goes along. Two centuries ago, the great and wise Adam Smith, in his book The Wealth of Nations, left us a warning. Smith wrote:

The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.

Adam Smith was a great visionary. But, when he warned about an order ‘whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it,’ even Adam Smith in his wildest dreams could not have imagined how accurately his words could be applied to this Labor government. One only has to look at its long and shameful record.

I would hope that tonight someone on the opposition benches will step forward, show some leadership and call this farce for what it is. Any one of these government members could call off this farce. The process is a farce, the legislation is a farce and it is damaging to our nation. This legislation should be rejected, and I hope at least one member on the other side will show some courage and come and sit with us to reject this legislation here tonight.

Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (19:38): I rise tonight to offer my congratulations and support to the new ACCC Chairman, Mr Sims, on some of the comments he has made which have been a refreshing change from the last 10 years of the ACCC. Mr Sims recently made some comments on bullying of suppliers and also the anticompetitive effects of shopper dockets.

As to the bullying of suppliers, Mr Sims appeared before one of our Senate estimates committees several weeks ago and gave some evidence which has been described as a watershed moment as far as the ACCC’s inquiries go. Previously, suppliers to our supermarket duopoly had been frightened to give evidence to the ACCC, but Mr Sims gave an offer of complete confidentiality to any supplier who came forward and 50 suppliers trusted Mr Sims’s word. They came forward and made comment, and they advised Mr Sims of conduct which would be either unconscionable conduct or misuse of market power if proved before a court. Mr Sims told the Senate estimates committee that such conduct included: (1) persistent demands for additional payments from suppliers, above and beyond that negotiated in their trade terms; (2) the imposition on suppliers of penalties that did not form part of any negotiated terms of trade and which apparently did not relate to any actual costs incurred by the supermarket chains; (3) threats to remove products from supermarket shelves or otherwise disadvantage suppliers if claims for extra payments or penalties were not paid; (4) failure to pay prices agreed with suppliers; and (5) conduct that discriminates in favour of the supermarkets’ home brand products.

In addition, Mr Sims has made some very welcome comments on shopper dockets, which I would like to quote. He said:

If the supermarkets want to discount their products to get people in the door that’s fine, lower the price of the goods in the supermarket.
However, he says what the supermarkets are doing is:

… taking the supermarket profits and lowering the price of their petrol when they are competing with other people.
So we’re not against discounts, but when you take your profits from one sector and have massive discounts in another sector, then it does have an effect on the competitive process and that’s what we’re here to protect.
Hear, hear, Mr Sims! Shopper dockets are anticompetitive. They are against the long-term interests of the consumer. There is simply no free lunch—someone has to pay for these discounts, and we all pay for them with higher grocery prices, and then we pay again through higher petrol prices as competition collapses and the independents are driven from the market.

Why is this important? It is important because Australian consumers have been paying, for years, some of the highest grocery and supermarket prices in the world. Even Wesfarmers’ managing director has said:

Australian consumers for too long have worn higher and higher prices for food and groceries in this country.
And he is exactly right. Just one example is the price of Vegemite. The information was published in News Limited papers several weeks ago that the price of Vegemite is actually 40 per cent higher here in Australia than it is in Britain. And remember: this is a product that is made here in Australia and shipped to the United Kingdom, with all the additional handling costs. Yet a consumer in the UK can walk into a supermarket and buy that for a price 40 per cent less than consumers here in Australia are paying. And that is not just an isolated example. You could look at Coke, Cadbury chocolate, Heinz tomato sauce or Kellogg’s breakfast cereals—Australian consumers are paying prices 30 and 40 per cent higher than anywhere else in the world.

What can we do about this? We have a serious problem. The government made a big song and dance of this before they were elected in 2007. And what did we get from this government? GroceryWatch, spin, stunts—a complete waste of taxpayers’ money. At least the coalition has put forward a promise: a root-and-branch review of Australia’s competition law. We need to have a look at it to see what we can do to improve competition.

In conclusion, we should look at Canadian competition law. The Canadian Competition Act has a special section which says:

The purpose of this Act is to … ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises have an equitable opportunity …
That is what we need here in Australia—equitable opportunity to compete. (Time expired)

Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (10:42): Australia has a long and proud sporting reputation. It is something that has evolved over a century through the efforts of men like Bradman, women like Dawn Fraser, the great Murray Rose, Shane Gould, Dally Messenger, the Ella brothers, Arthur Beetson, Glenn McGrath, Rod Laver, Cathy Freeman and Greg Norman. The list goes on and on. Our reputation across the world is for hard play but fair play. It is a long and proud tradition. Every nation knows that if you come up against someone wearing the green and gold you will be in for one hell of a fight, but the guy or the woman wearing the green and gold will be playing it hard but fair.

But last week, with one stage-managed press conference, that tradition and heritage has been destroyed across the globe. We now have the international media branding our entire nation as a nation of sporting cheats. At this press conference no sport, no club and no individual was named. It was simply a broad brush cast across the entire sporting landscape. Every single Australian sportsman and sportswoman has had this accusation brought against them. Simply by failing to give details they have labelled everyone as guilty. They have smeared every Australian sport. Until we get the full details every sport remains under suspicion.

After these alarmist headlines, when we looked at the detail we found that the report the government relied on, which they called ‘Australia’s blackest sporting day’ used weasel words such as ‘maybe’, ‘could be’ and ‘suspected’. All we are left with is unspecified, hysterical assertions which slandered our athletes and our sporting institutions. No doubt, like any large group, there will be a percentage of wrongdoers. Some individuals will from time to time bend and even break the rules to maximise opportunities for themselves. And there should be an investigation; no-one disagrees with that.

Why last week did we have such a media frenzy whipped up with a lavish and sensational media conference using sporting CEOs as props? This Labor government has done much damage to Australia but if it is found that last week their orchestrated emergency press conference was nothing other than a beat-up of a few isolated incidents or an orchestrated attempt to push Labor’s other disasters off the front pages, I say God help the Labor Party because of the retribution they will receive from the Australian sporting community and lovers of sport.

Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (13:48): Late last year a local constituent, Mr Paul Van Den Bos, drew to my attention a serious concern relating to air quality monitoring in south-west Sydney. The New South Wales annual compliance report for the National Environment Protection Measure for Ambient Air Quality reveals that the Liverpool air quality monitoring station has been noncompliant since at least 2006. This seven-year non-compliance period casts doubt over the accuracy of the air quality records which this federal government relies upon to justify subjecting the residents of Wattle Grove, Moorebank and surrounding suburbs to a giant intermodal freight terminal.

In addition to failing to keep monitoring stations compliant, the previous state Labor government actually decommissioned a further seven air quality monitoring stations in the Sydney Basin during their term in office. A New South Wales upper house inquiry in 2006 described these closures as ‘unacceptable’. The residents of south-west Sydney are entitled to clean air and they are entitled to be sure that that air is being accurately monitored. This neglect of Western Sydney residents by the former state Labor government is a disgrace, especially when air pollution is a bigger killer than our roads, costing up to $6 billion in health effects in Sydney alone.

I am pleased to report to the House that, following the intervention by me and my state Liberal colleague Melanie Gibbons, within a matter of weeks the new Liberal state government had undertaken the necessary steps to ensure the Liverpool air quality monitoring station now meets the required standards.