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

At a time of economic growth, at a time when there is an unprecedented demand for Australian resources, the Howard government has failed to invest in securing Australia’s long-term economic growth. Instead, what we see is a widening of the current account deficit; a chronic skills shortage across a wide range of occupations; a government that is failing to address the issue of climate change; a government that is full of climate change sceptics, and I suspect one of those is the Prime Minister; and a government that is failing to ensure that there are enough childcare places available to children whose parents have entered the workforce or who are working by choice. There is a chronic shortage of childcare places plus there is an enormous cost associated with it, and that has caused a lot of difficulties for families.

I see the Howard government as a rather arrogant, very old-fashioned, tired government, one that is fairly hypocritical and one that is a constant player of the blame game. I was a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing that brought down the report entitled The blame game, and I think that every day in parliament you will see members of the government standing up and saying, ‘The problem is the state government.’ I am sorry; I do not agree with that. This government is the federal government, it is the Australian government, it is the government that is supposed to lead this country, it is the government that has the overarching responsibility, and when something goes wrong it blames somebody else. That is just not good enough, and I will return to that in a moment.

Firstly, I would like to touch on the fact that this government sees itself as an outstanding performer in the economic area. But all the changes and reforms that have put Australia in the position it is in now were undertaken by the Hawke-Keating government. The Hawke-Keating government totally restructured the economy, and never, ever do you see a government member standing up in the House and acknowledging its contribution to Australia’s outstanding economic performance over the last few years. But without the input and the changes of the Hawke-Keating government this country would not be in the position it is in now.

Secondly, we have the interest rate issue. I have to say that the highest interest rates that Australia ever had—22 per cent—occurred under the current Prime Minister of this country. So when I am talking to people I quite often refer to the Prime Minister as ‘Mr 22 Per Cent’. But the other fallacy that is associated with interest rates is that interest rates today are low, therefore housing is more affordable. I would like to draw the committee’s attention to the fact that there has been a massive jump of 75 per cent in repossession of houses since the 2004 election. What has happened since the 2004 election? A series of interest rate rises.

The Howard government promised that it would keep interest rates low. I know that Australians within my electorate are very upset about the fact that interest rates have continued to go one way—up. The impact that this has had on them has been enormous. Yes, the interest rates are lower, but the loans that they are servicing are much greater, and their level of personal debt is much greater. Because of that, every time there is a tiny hike in interest rates, it has a massive and devastating effect on people with mortgages. Consequently, a tiny spike in the interest rates leads to an increase in repossessions. This is something that the Howard government cannot walk away from: there have been 75 per cent more repossessions since 2004. It shows that the highest level of repossessions in New South Wales occurred last year, when the full impact of the interest rate increases was felt.

I see this as an area where the Howard government has failed to protect Australian families. Our budget should be designed around providing protection for families and around stimulating economic growth. There has been a slump in the sale of houses within my area. On the Central Coast of New South Wales, the two biggest industries are retail and construction. A falling demand for housing will have a devastating impact on the economy in that area.

Along with the current account deficit, the house repossessions and a chronic skills shortage, we have an unprecedented demand for Australia’s minerals. We have an unprecedented demand for anything we can dig out of the ground. But we have a chronic skills shortage in practically every area of occupation in our economy. I seek leave to table this graph showing the rate of repossessions in New South Wales.

Leave granted.

The skills shortage is impacting enormously on the economy, in particular, the economy of the Hunter. I have been involved in committee work throughout Australia, and I have heard time and time again how the skills shortage is impacting on various sectors of our economy. I am currently involved in an inquiry into workforce challenges facing the Australian tourism industry. The evidence that we are receiving highlights the problems associated with the skills shortage.

Unless the government gets serious about addressing these skills shortages, the problem will get worse and it will have a long-term effect on our economy. Of course, eventually, the government will be voted out and then it will be left to the Labor Party to correct the problems caused by the Howard government and to introduce policies like our education policy which seeks to ensure that we have an educated, skilled workforce in Australia. The most important thing that we as a nation can have is a skilled and educated workforce. The gold of the future will be an educated and skilled workforce. Unless we can turn the tide, we will end up in a very different position from where we are at the moment.

Whilst I am talking about the skills shortage, I want to mention the devastating impact that it is having on my electorate. I have raised in the House on a number of occasions the chronic doctor shortage that exists in the Shortland electorate. I have to say that it has only got worse. The Shortland electorate is classified as an area of workforce shortage, which means that doctors can bring an overseas doctor into their practices for a limited period of time. However, Shortland is not identified as an area of need. I do not know what it takes to be identified as an area of need if the Shortland electorate is not.

Between Swansea and Charlestown, virtually no doctor will take new patients. So anyone moving to the area has to travel to Charlestown to see a doctor. There are a couple of other doctors who, when I ring them, will under very special circumstances accept someone. The family practice of Dr Marsh at Windale has been very good and has accepted people as its patients. There are a couple of practices at Jewellstown that will accept people from time to time. But, overwhelmingly, Belmont and Swansea, the two major suburbs in the area of Lake Macquarie in the Shortland electorate, are not accepting new patients. This is quite an old area and a lot of elderly people have settled there. My office has even arranged to take people to the doctor. We have had to arrange for ambulances to pick up elderly people in their homes and take them to Belmont hospital to be treated because of the failure of this government to ensure that there are an adequate number of doctors in the area.

I have an after-hours GP access service that operates at Belmont hospital, and people can and have used that. It is supposed to be for after-hours service, so it is watched fairly carefully. It is an outstanding service, and I congratulate the doctors in the area for the work they have done in making that a great success. The Hunter urban division of GPs have been very innovative in getting that service up and running. The accident and emergency centre at Belmont hospital works overtime. People have to sit there and wait to see a doctor. Why? Because there is no doctor in the community. Members opposite would say, ‘People shouldn’t have to wait in an accident and emergency department.’ But if there are no doctors in the community, what option is there? It is not good enough.

I am disgusted that, despite my numerous contributions to debate on this issue, my contributions to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing in its blame game inquiry, the letters I have written to the minister, and my even raising it in the chamber during the consideration of budgets in detail—going back to when Dr Wooldridge was minister for health—nothing has changed; the problem still exists. But it is a lot worse than it was before. I am absolutely disgusted at the way this issue has been dealt with. I know that in many country areas the situation is even worse, but this is an outer metropolitan area. I have asked how many doctors have been located in the Shortland electorate under the outer metropolitan strategy. None that I can think of have come to the Lake Macquarie area. I have been told that two have. They have obviously gone to the Central Coast part of the electorate. It is not good enough.

I would also like to touch on the issue of dental health. The report of the Standing Committee on Health and Ageing entitled The blame game identified that there was a role for the Commonwealth government to play in providing dental services. Chronic waiting lists have developed since the Howard government removed the Commonwealth dental health scheme. I again urge the government to reintroduce that scheme or a similar one. I suspect that might happen in the lead-up to the next election. I will be very pleased if it does. It means that we will have put enough pressure on the government to do so. Australians expect to be able to see a dentist. Everybody should be able to see a dentist. Poor dental health impacts on a person’s whole body. The blame game identifies very clearly a number of issues that need to be addressed to stop the blame game.

There is one area that I would like to touch on very quickly—that is, Australia’s involvement in Iraq. Many questions have been raised in the House over the last week. I feel that the Howard government and the Prime Minister in particular have adopted an approach that is not in Australia’s interests. The first speech I ever made on Australia’s involvement in Iraq identified the problem of what happens after the war. I say the war is over. What we have now is a civil war, a war that is leading to thousands of people dying each and every day. Nothing is improving. We had a functioning society in Iraq prior to the war commencing. Now we have a hotbed for terrorism. What we have now is a society that has totally broken down. We have not only a Prime Minister who is becoming more tied to US policy but also a Prime Minister who is tying himself very closely to one side of politics in another country. I do not think that is healthy. It really would be in Australia’s interests if the Prime Minister were to distance himself a little from the President of the United States and not be so critical of the Democrats.

Another issue relating to terrorism that I would like to raise concerns David Hicks. I heard the contribution by the member for Paterson during three-minute statements. I have a different view to the member for Paterson. I think it is a disgrace that an Australian citizen is languishing in the most inhumane conditions in another country—an Australian who was not charged with any offence until very recently, an Australian whom the Prime Minister has chosen to ignore. He has chosen to ignore his plight. I think it is time that the Prime Minister made a move to resolve the issue of David Hicks. It is a disgrace for us as a nation that we allowed that to happen to one of our citizens. Other countries have acted. The UK have acted and their citizens have been brought home.

I was going to talk at some great length about climate change. I see that I have run out of time. The government has really failed the Australian people on that issue. I hope that, when we have the budget in May, it will be not just an election budget but one for—(Time expired)

See this speech in context