Laurie Ferguson (Reid, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs and Settlement Services) Share this | Hansard source

In the months after the election we have seen many of those opposite rush to repudiate the former Prime Minister. Everything that happened was now his individual fault. They were all forced to their policies. They sought to resist him, but they were unable to overcome the way in which he drove them to defeat. We have seen the rewriting of history, with people trying to cut themselves off from that history and, in a way, to blame him for all the vicissitudes. The response of the opposition to this budget is along the same lines.

Their major initiatives in regard to fuel excise are obviously in total contradiction to the position the former Prime Minister took. He clearly said that it was irresponsible to embark on those kinds of policies, but the opposition leader, in a populist bid to avoid eventual replacement, rushes around the country knowing full well that the huge thrust in international petrol prices has more to do with the long-term deterioration of supply and the problems of the Middle East than it has to do with Australia taxation policy. What we have seen in this response is total irresponsibility from those opposite. It really represents a very strong repudiation of the historical background of conservative politics in this country. Not only do they talk about their attitude in regard to this fuel measure but they actually threaten to block the budget measures in the Senate. It has been enlightening.

On a broad thrust, this budget does indeed supply a $55 billion Working Families Support Package. That represents one of the main reasons those opposite were rejected at the last election. For a decade, the previous Prime Minister accomplished the holding of middle-class and parts of working-class suburban Australia around a policy of social conservatism. Basically, he was able to appeal to them in the same way as Ronald Reagan in the United States appealed to the hard-hat, blue-collar Reaganites. At the last election we saw the reality dawning on those people that, after a decade or so of conservative government, they were financially going backwards. Many of the people who put trust in the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party failed to really gain in material fashion over the period.

In this budget, as I say, we see a very strong commitment with a number of funds being established: $20 billion towards infrastructure in connection with roads, ports, railways and telecommunications; and $11 billion for an Education Investment Fund for our TAFEs and universities. Over the previous decade, just how interested in education were those opposite? They were more interested, for industrial relations purposes, in establishing an alternative to the TAFE structure. They were more interested in running around our tertiary education sector, trying to force universities down a particular industrial relations path of forcing people to compel individuals on to AWAs, rather than worrying about their wholesale neglect of education in our country. That, of course, was part of the reason they were rejected at the polls.

Similarly, $10 billion is going into a Health and Hospital Reform Plan for better hospitals, better health care generally and, more importantly, medical research. Similarly, with health care, many people now have been liberated from being compelled—this was from the party of freedom, the party of choice—or forced to buy a product that they did not want: private health. The former government put in a series of measures, both penalties and financial incentives, which affected a group of the population who did not want a specific product and who basically were, in a way, subsidised by the previous government over a period of time. That is what we see on a broader front.

Education, of course, interrelates with the failure to train people in this country and the severe skills shortage that we are now experiencing. One of the budget measures is to, again, increase the skilled migrant intake into this country by 31,000, which is a 30 per cent increase. In some senses, that is unfortunate. To have people in our workforce who have no previous experience of the nuances of our industrial relations society and who are without those ties and reassurances when they engage with employers creates a situation that can sometimes be manipulated by employers to undermine conditions. So there will be unfortunate by-products in having a huge skilled intake.

Of course, we also face the reality that many of those who are brought here purportedly for skilled purposes find themselves doing extremely unskilled work. The Joint Standing Committee on Migration in the last parliament, in a non-partisan fashion, determined that that was occurring around this country. There was evidence in particular from the meat industry about Filipino workers in North Queensland; they were brought here under the highest qualification in that industry and given the most menial tasks to do, while being isolated in remote areas and unable to obtain support from other Australians. In this budget, because of the failures of the previous government concerning training, we now have this situation. Of course, one must concede the realities of what has generally been a booming economy. Those two pressures have required again, under this budget, a large rise in our skilled intake.

In addition, in the budget we have seen an overdue increase in our humanitarian intake. Quite frankly, the increase of 500 is welcome, but very large parts of our electorate feel that Labor and Liberal governments can do better on this issue. Unfortunately, regarding that 13,500 intake, in the lead-up to the last election, when the—let us say—‘correct’ decision by the previous government was made to diversify our intake and bring in more people from Iraq, we heard the previous minister make racist attacks on African migrants. I know that he knows our reason for changing the intake and reducing the African component was that the United Nations said that the major responsibility internationally now was to those two million people from Iraq in Syria and Jordan. But unfortunately the previous minister decided to go in for a bit of political opportunism, by saying that it was because Africans had social problems in relocating in this country.

However, this government has gone further. It has, as I say, increased that intake by 500. That has been accompanied by a decision to bring in 600 people. Regardless of what people’s views are regarding our original engagement in Iraq—regardless of whether you were for or against it—one obvious outcome is that a number people who have been allied with Australian and other forces are now in danger from militias in that country. They can be assassinated, they are being murdered, and we have sought to do something about that. The budget also allocated $10 million towards our displaced persons and refugee fund for Iraq.

Another really necessary budget measure is the commitment, made at the last election, to put $50 million into helping people with poor English outcomes in the refugee humanitarian intake. For many years there has been a debate over whether five to 10 hours for the vast majority or nine to 10 hours for those aged under 25 with limited education is sufficient. I think we know that we would all have great difficulty picking up another language in that limited time. But there are important initiatives in this budget to address that, with the expenditure of $50 million in this area.

There will be a Pathways program to help people with the lowest levels of literacy learn English in formal and informal settings while being introduced to the Australian workforce. There will also be traineeships to help new migrants continue to learn English while they develop skills and experience in workplace culture. Both of these programs will be funded over four years. They are designed to help migrants pursue an ongoing pathway to successful employment opportunities. Ensuring migrants are equipped for the workforce is an important economic objective in an environment of labour shortages. We are seeing—and this is why there is an inquiry at the moment into adult migrant English—whether we are getting practical outcomes from migrant English which will create pathways to employment. Without belittling the need to understand literature and to get a grasp of the grammar of our language, obviously for most people coming to this country the most desirable outcome of learning English is that it leads them to employment and gives them the ability to support their families and interact with the Australian population in employment. As I said, the budget commitments will be accompanied by a very worthwhile and overdue investigation of the way migrant English is delivered in this country.

Another aspect of this budget is the government’s decision that there will no longer be any temporary protection visas. This means that a number of people who have been determined to have valid refugee claims will, in a very real sense, become part of the Australian general public and will move towards citizenship. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mrs Hull) adjourned.

See this speech in context