Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Hansard source

Absolutely; we have a happy team. I ask the member for Rankin whether he believes it is appropriate that, in his city of Brisbane, 100 billion litres of sewage is discharged into the Brisbane River and Moreton Bay. It is a simple question: is that an acceptable practice in the 21st century? What we have around the country is a 19th century practice of disposing of water in the 21st century. In Israel, in California, in Virginia and in so many different places around the world, recycling is a real practice that is seen as essential. I make no apology for having set out in my maiden speech the goal of ending the practice of ocean outfall around Australia, of reusing that water for industry and agriculture and recycling it appropriately. We need to end that practice.

Moving forwards, we can see that this is emblematic of a problem with infrastructure spending around the states. We have been forced to step in to create a National Water Initiative, which reports directly to the Prime Minister, so he has the religion on water. We have contributed $2 billion towards water infrastructure around the country. But the question of infrastructure extends beyond the issue of water. We see a deficit in infrastructure spending at the state level. Why is this the case? What has occurred is that the states have learned the lessons of the early 1990s in the blowing out of state budgets in Western Australia, Victoria and South Australia. Instead of blowing the bottom line they have maintained the bottom line, increased recurrent expenditure but stolen from the budget for infrastructure. If you look around Australia, you see a decrease in infrastructure spending in terms of gross state capital: from 4.1 per cent to three per cent in Victoria, from 5.2 per cent to 3.7 per cent in New South Wales and from 5.4 to 4.2 per cent in Queensland. And on it goes through South Australia and Western Australia.

In practice this means that we have faced power shortages in Western Australia and New South Wales. We have faced the risk of water shortages in New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia, the Australian Capital Territory and Queensland. The rail systems in Sydney and Melbourne have suffered. There have been inadequate gas supplies in the outer suburbs of Melbourne and Brisbane and there have been choked ports in New South Wales and Queensland.

These changes in expenditure from robbing from the infrastructure account to pay for the recurrent account have practical impacts both on national productivity and on people’s lives. The answer is simple: there needs to be a rebalancing at the state level. They need to control their recurrent expenditure but also contribute their fair share to the intergenerational equity which comes from infrastructure expenditure. That is an incumbent responsibility. It is less immediately obvious than the blowing of a state budget in Western Australia, South Australia or Victoria in the period 1990-92, but its effect on the long-term viability of those states and economies is just as profound. It is a classic case of robbing from the future to pay for the present.

I make the point that this links in at the national level on the issue of competency and fitness to govern—that is, how can you best manage your economy? I did some research with the help of the Parliamentary Library. We found that, over the past 40 years, the coalition at the national level has outperformed federal Labor governments. Over the last five decades, interest rates have averaged 6.6 per cent under coalition governments compared to 12.1 per cent under Labor governments. Unemployment has averaged 3.9 per cent under the coalition compared to 6.9 per cent under Labor. This has a dramatic impact on human lives. Similarly, inflation has averaged five per cent under the coalition compared to 6.9 per cent under Labor. Economic growth has been higher by 0.4 per cent. Over a period of 56 years of hard economic data, the bottom line is that, on average, housing rates have been 5½ per cent higher when Labor governments have been in control as opposed to coalition governments. It may just be coincidence, but it is 56 years of quite significant coincidence. The point is that at the state level we have a theft from the next generation’s infrastructure and at the federal level—if you take the 56 years of data or if you compare the current government with the previous government on all of these indicators—we have the same result. You see that there is a different impact on national productivity.

This takes me to the one area which I believe has had the greatest area of shortfall between aspiration and achievement within Australia over the past three decades and under all governments—that is, social capital in the Indigenous community. Undoubtedly—and I think it is critical to acknowledge—Indigenous health and epidemiology is a national tragedy. Today, a male Indigenous child aged between five and 10 years old can expect to live to 59 years—17 years less than the national average for a non-Indigenous child. Similarly, the life expectancy of a female Indigenous child is 65 years—18 years less than a non-Indigenous child. Infant mortality rates amongst the Indigenous population in Western Australia and the Northern Territory are 16 babies per 1,000 births or over three times the infant mortality rate of non-Indigenous Australians.

The National Health Survey reports that more than one in four Indigenous deaths are caused by cardiovascular disease—11 times the rate for non-Indigenous deaths. Diabetes is up to 25 times higher in the Indigenous community than in the non-Indigenous community. Indigenous people are eight times more likely to die from chronic kidney disease than non-Indigenous people. These health statistics translate to economic development, and there are many members of good faith on both sides of this House who have acknowledged that and recognise that as a priority.

As I look forward over the coming year to my priorities, Indigenous affairs is one area in which I wish to work much more actively. I have already been speaking with the new Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Mal Brough, on this question of Indigenous development and health. Last week I met with young Indigenous leaders from around Australia. I worked with them for three days in the Yarra Valley during the Australian future development forum, and I committed to them that this would become a prime focus of my activity.

The means to doing this is the interesting question. The reality of how we deal with this problem has undoubtedly been the great challenge for governments over the past three decades. One contribution which I believe can be made and which I wish to work on specifically is the link between Indigenous health and Indigenous land management. I have seen communities such as Mutitjulu at the base of Uluru who have money and rights but who have not succeeded in dealing with any of these great tragedies. There is a crisis with the epidemic level of addiction in the Mutitjulu community.

Similarly, I have seen communities based around land management at Dhimurru on the Gove Peninsula near Nhulunbuy in the Northern Territory, where they run Indigenous protection areas. They are a shining example for Australia of how an Indigenous community can embrace land management and, through that work, provide real and meaningful activity for young people and real and meaningful health outcomes by being engaged in, alive and proud of their culture and twinning that with economic activity. Under the Indigenous protected areas program, for which I have responsibility, a total of 19 Indigenous protection areas have been declared around Australia. That covers 13.8 million hectares and there are another 11 projects under way. I think that has been incredibly important. This year we are looking at converting an additional six proposals into Indigenous protected areas, which would add 5.3 million hectares of land to the national reserve system. That is an outstanding conservation outcome but, much more importantly, it is an outstanding opportunity to use Indigenous protected areas as a means of promoting Indigenous land management as a means of promoting Indigenous health and development.

I believe that ultimately the best of these Indigenous protected areas could become Indigenous national parks. It is not about any additional transfer of land; this is land which was already under Indigenous title. It is about the status of land management and a practical means of providing Indigenous people with meaningful employment, of transferring culture and promoting economic development and, from all those things, providing practical health outcomes. People who are engaged and involved and have purpose on a day-to-day basis are less likely to be drawn into the culture of addiction. It is a challenge, but this and the question of hard physical infrastructure—in particular, water infrastructure and the objective of recycling 100 per cent of Australia’s waste water by 2025—remain my two primary campaign objectives at a national level this year.

See this speech in context