Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It certainly was, and it was cut in 1996. We have seen over 650,000 Australians, most of them age pensioners, waiting to have their teeth fixed. Those opposite will argue, but it is clearly stated in section 51 of the Constitution that it is a Commonwealth responsibility.

This government says it has done the right thing by dental care through funding private health insurance—that is what those opposite will tell us—and the dental services some people access as a result of having private health insurance. But, almost in the same breath, after patting themselves on the back for fulfilling to some extent their responsibility towards those needing dental care, they say that any other provision of dental service has nothing to do with them and they wipe their hands of it. They do not want to help and they do not want to know about it. It is just another area of public administration where the blindingly obvious is misrepresented in words and ignored in deeds. All you have to do is read section 51 of the Constitution, which clearly states whose responsibility it is. It is the responsibility of the federal government and it should be reinstated, as it was prior to 1996.

I would like to welcome the government’s commitment to increase its contribution to the Murray-Darling Basin Commission for future gains under the Living Murray initiative. This new contribution will bring the commitment shared by the federal and state governments to a total of $1,000 million. Water is a big issue in South Australia. We are at the end of the River Murray, and it has always been a big issue. We have recently had water restrictions or water conservation measures put in place to ensure that we grapple with the issue of a lack of water so that we have water for the future and come up with a program that ensures that we can all have the use of water that we have had for many years. But I think we have to change our attitudes to the way that we have been using water. We need to look at the way it is being used upstream and ensure that the River Murray starts to flow again.

I know that the money the federal government have said they will spend sounds like a lot of money. It sounds like it should produce some results in which the stakeholders can be proud—maybe one day, but nobody is expecting anything within the next 12 months. At the 2004 election, the Prime Minister promised us that 500 gigalitres would be flowing through the River Murray. Thus far, we have seen not one extra drop go through the Murray. There are four projects that are supposed to have the potential to achieve half of the water savings required to meet the environmental flow target of 500 gigalitres, and these are estimated to cost approximately $250 million between them. One would think that this is highly relevant to establishing the first-step project as a whole—the funding, the targets and the outcomes are useful and achievable—but where are these projects right now? Are any states contributing a part of their share of the original $500 million to fund them? Where are the business plans that are supposed to exist and be available through the Murray-Darling Basin Commission? Their information officer either has not been able to tell me or my office or is not interested. We have made a number of inquiries but to no avail.

Beyond this, the availability and release of any environmental flows is supposed to be in accord with the best scientific advice available, which I am sure is provided by highly competent people. But the limitations put on the development of this advice must be compromised by either poor or a lack of fundamental information, such as who is draining how much water from the system on a daily, weekly or monthly basis. A lack of water-accounting mechanisms is certainly not going to help the assessment of consequences to actions. It is encouraging that the government is committing additional resources to these endeavours, and I hope, for our nation’s sake, that the hurdles that resemble razor wire between us here and a healthy river system can be cleared.

This is not only with the Murray-Darling, of course; there are many catchments around Australia that need investment to improve and maintain the health of river systems and that of the water they carry—river systems that catch water in and around urban centres and our capital cities; river systems that have traditionally been seen either as a nuisance to the bungalow builders in the rivers’ vicinities or floodplains or as a problem to be solved by having the water remove itself from our midst as soon as possible and without another thought. We cannot afford for this water to continue to be wasted indefinitely, nor can some of us afford to have it wasted while suspending the toxins and gunk ending up in coastal regions that are precious economically, biologically and environmentally.

Local governments and local catchment boards, state governments and their agencies and the federal government—each in their own way can contribute to developing these resources for our continued use and enjoyment. We need them to do so for the sake of ourselves, our children and our children’s children and, in many cases, the preservation of something that is fundamentally good. Many good ideas have come from in and around the electorate of Hindmarsh. The Morphettville racecourse has been capturing water from run-offs, ensuring that the water is reused in wetlands and anything extra is sent back into the aquifer. Proposals have been made by the West Torrens Council, the Adelaide City Council, the Charles Sturt Council and the Marion Council, talking about capturing the entire run-off that occurs from the Adelaide Hills into the Adelaide Plains, reusing it and sending back into the acquifers whatever is left over. They are great ideas, but no-one is listening. We need people to listen to these ideas. We need people to ensure that we grapple with the issue of water. I think it will be one of the most fundamental issues to face us in the near future.

I suppose this budget delivered a form of economic prosperity. We all talk about the prosperity of the economy at the moment, but what sort of prosperity is it? Is it prosperity without a purpose, when we look at the social ills in our society; when we hear of the woman I spoke of earlier who has been waiting for 12 weeks to be accepted by a public hospital for an aged care bed; when we hear that 40,000 child abuse cases are reported per year, which is a figure that is predicted to double in the next few years, in the minister’s own words; when we hear of massive crime rates; and when we hear of drug abuse playing havoc with our children?

We must sit and measure what economic prosperity is. Where is social prosperity? Certainly we need economic prosperity, but we also need a government to concentrate on the social prosperity of a society. As I have said, I represent one of the oldest electorates in the country. As 25 per cent of my constituents are 65 years and over, I see many pensioners struggling on a daily basis—because, for whatever reason, they do not have superannuation or, for whatever reason, they were not able to save during their working lives. We need to give those people the dignity they deserve—the dignity that society should give people who have worked all their lives and have contributed to and built the foundations of this nation.

We need to ensure that, as a society, we measure our prosperity not only through our economy but also through the society we have become. As I said earlier, when we see 40,000 child abuse cases reported per year, with that number predicted to double in the next few years; when we see pensioners who have no dental care, whose teeth are rotting in their mouths because of lack of services; and when we see drug abuse taking place constantly, we have to look at what we are heading towards and what governments are there to do.

Certainly, we must concentrate on economy. Without economy, everything else falls apart. But, certainly, this government has shown no initiative in concentrating on the social aspects of what makes our society good—what has made our society into what it has been for all these years to what it now has become. We have always been an equitable society—a society where we have not had to worry about being sacked unfairly because of new industrial relations laws that have been enacted and a society where you can go to university without having to worry about paying off your HECS fees over many years into the future. I hear regularly from people who have dropped out of university because they have been worried about the thought of not being able to pay off their fees after finishing and receiving their degree. It is sad when people have to give up studying for this reason.

The IR laws that have been put into place will certainly change our society from the way we now know it. They will ensure that people no longer have security at work; people will live constantly with the fear of being sacked for no reason. I am told every day by people that, under this new IR legislation, they fear getting a contract stuck under their nose and being asked to sign it—and their fear is real. If they say, ‘I am not signing it,’ the boss will simply point to the door and say, ‘There’s another 100 people waiting to take your spot.’ We are not talking about the high-skilled workforce; we are talking about production-line workers, cleaners and people like those we heard about this week at Spotlight. How would you feel if a contract were shoved under your nose and you were told to sign it, knowing that you would lose $90 a week? That is real money. All the economic prosperity in the world will never solve the ills facing us on the road that we are going down at the moment under this current government. Certainly, there is neither social prosperity nor any aim by this government in trying to lead us down a road where we only look towards economic prosperity and not towards social prosperity. (Time expired)

See this speech in context