Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I, too, rise to speak in support of the Federal Financial Relations Bill 2009 and the Federal Financial Relations (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2009. When the Australian Constitution was drawn up in 1901 there was an attempt made to define within the Constitution the powers and responsibilities of the state and Commonwealth governments. Not surprisingly, however, since 1901 disputes have arisen both between individual states and between the states and the Commonwealth over a range of matters that we attempted to clarify in that original constitutional document.

These disputes arise partly because, as with all legal acts, there will always be a difference in their interpretation but more so because of changing circumstances over the years: so much so that there has been significant increase in the powers and the revenue raising capacity of the federal government since 1901, so much so that today the federal government raises about 83 per cent of all Australian taxes, the states raise about 14 per cent and local government raises about three per cent. The figures may vary slightly from one year to the next, but that is a rough breakdown. If you go back over the years, you will find that those figures have changed quite significantly in terms of the relativity between the federal government and particularly the states, where it was much more even in earlier years.

There is little doubt that with additional revenue comes additional power. However, there is also a more legitimate reason why the federal government has seen a transfer of responsibility to it. That is because today people and businesses move and operate freely across state borders and operate far more in what they see as a national environment and a national economy. The implementation of uniform national laws and national services to a national standard has become essential for a productive economy in a modern world. That means a greater role for the national government. Regrettably, over the years we have also witnessed the development of a blame game between the state governments and territories and the federal government, with each blaming the other for the failure to provide the Australian people with the services that the people expect and for which they pay taxes.

Under the previous coalition government, this practice became more than just an opportune political tactic. It was deliberately used as a political tool. The states were deliberately starved of federal government funding. Basic services would deteriorate and then, at federal election time, the federal coalition would come in with election promises to fix the problems which it had created but which the federal coalition government blamed the states for. This was no more evident than in the plan to take over the Mersey Hospital in Tasmania in the lead-up to the 2007 election. It was a cynical political stunt and voters around Australia saw it for what it was. I can recall campaigning for that election—and I am from South Australia, representing the electorate of Makin—and I would speak to people regularly about both the health issues and the federal government’s intervention in terms of the Mersey Hospital. I can say with a fair degree of certainty that the people in my electorate saw it as a cynical election ploy and nothing else. None of them were convinced that it was a realistic attempt by the federal government to do something about health, but they were convinced that it was an attempt by the federal government to try and win support and votes in the critical state of Tasmania.

The Australian people are not interested in the blame game. They are interested in seeing governments providing the services that they were elected to provide. The most effective way to do that is through the cooperation of all three levels of government. Each does have a role to play in the delivery of those services, and the best outcomes will be achieved through a constructive, cooperative relationship being established between all three levels. This legislation begins the process of building a cooperative federal, state and local government relationship. In November 2008 the Council of Australian Governments met and a new era in federal financial relations was inaugurated, with major reforms to specific purpose payments arrangements in particular. In reaffirming the commitment to a cooperative working arrangement between federal and state and territory governments, a historic new intergovernmental agreement was established that provides an overarching framework for the Commonwealth’s financial relations with the states and territories. The intergovernmental agreement represents the most significant reform of Australia’s federal financial relations in decades.

In summary, the agreement aims to improve government services by increasing the flexibility the states and territories have in the way they deliver these services. Each level of government’s roles and responsibilities is more clearly specified in the agreement, with a greater focus on accountability for better outcomes and service delivery. The number of specific purpose payments to the states will be reduced from over 90 to five. That is clearly a huge step forward. Rather than the federal government trying to tell state governments and local communities, to the last detail, how they should best spend the dollars allocated to them, it makes far more sense to allow them to make those judgments. This is because they are in the best position to make those judgments. They are best placed because they know their local communities and they know their state communities. An additional $7.1 billion in specific purpose payments funding to the states over five years was also included in these reforms. And I highlight that because not only were the states starved of funding over the period of the previous coalition government but, as a result of that, their real payments and the real money that they were receiving from the federal government in fact reduced in real terms. When it came to office, the Rudd government recognised that. So it did not just reinstate what they ought to have been allocated; it increased the funding by $7.1 billion over five years. And from my discussions with my state colleagues and people in my state, I know that those increases were very well received and appreciated.

The total funding that was agreed to in November between the federal government, the states and the territories is made up of $60.5 billion for a national health care special purpose payments program, $18 billion in a national schools special purpose payments program, $6.7 billion in a national skills and workforce development payment, $5.3 billion for a national disability services special purpose payment and $6.2 billion in a national affordable housing special purpose payments initiative. That is the breakdown of those funds, and I want to talk briefly about a couple of them. When it comes to national health care, I am fully aware of the strain that the previous agreement was placing on the hospital system in South Australia. I hear similar reports about the strain on other state governments that was being created through underpayment under the previous government’s health care agreement with the states, but I am certainly very much aware of what was happening in my own state of South Australia. In fact, in the electorate of Makin, which I represent, we have the Modbury Hospital—one of the regional hospitals in metropolitan Adelaide. I visited the hospital on many occasions. There is no doubt at all that, as a result of the strain the states were placed under because of cuts to the payments, the hospital was struggling to be able to provide the services that were expected of it. So much so that when it came to outpatients, on one visit to the hospital I was advised that something like 60 per cent of all of the outpatients that were treated at the hospital could have received, and should have received, their treatment at a local GP or elsewhere. But they had to go to the hospital because that was the only place they could get the service, as a result of every other aspect of the health system having been stretched to its limits.

As a result of that, the Rudd government has committed to building a GP superclinic in the electorate of Makin. It is another welcome initiative, an initiative that will take some real strain off the Modbury Hospital and allow it to get on with the job of treating people that require hospital care. Likewise, in respect of the payments to the schools, one has only to travel around my electorate—and in previous years during my term in local government I was able to travel around the state to look at schools in regard to another commitment that I used to have at the time—to note that most of the schools that you come across in the public sector are schools that were built in the sixties, seventies or much earlier. They are schools that are already 40 or 50 or 60 years old. They are schools that are not up to standard—if we are trying to provide our children with the education needs that they require in today’s global economy. Again, it has all happened because the state governments have been starved of education funding. It is high time that that funding is restored, and, under this agreement, it is restored.

I, too, was pleased to see that $5.3 billion in this package goes towards national disability services. I spoke in this House in the adjournment debate only a week or so ago in respect of the needs of people with disabilities. The parliamentary secretary, the member for Maribyrnong, who is here in the chamber today, visited my electorate of Makin. We went to four of the schools in the area, visited a church, met with some community groups and held a public forum where some 150 people, perhaps even more, attended. There is no question at all that disability services in this country have fallen behind far more than they ever should have. In comparison to other countries, Australia is relatively wealthy and, considering that prosperity, it is shameful to see and hear of the needs that we did see and hear of during those visits with the parliamentary secretary. Since that day I have also received a number of emails thanking both the parliamentary secretary and me for hosting the different events and visiting the schools and church services and so on. At least now they feel that someone is listening to their needs, and they very much appreciate that.

The national partnership payments are a new type of payment previously agreed to by the Council of Australian Governments. These payments are to fund specific projects of significant national reform. I just want to go through some of the areas where some of these payments will make a difference, because these are all areas where, again, in years gone by, I have seen neglect by the previous federal government: the hospitals and health workforce reform; preventive health measures; taking pressure off our public hospitals, which I spoke about earlier; quality teaching in our schools; schools whose students come from what we refer to as low socioeconomic communities; literary and numeracy programs; improving productivity places in this country; waiving fees for childcare places; and a range of services for the Indigenous people of this country and the provision of remote services to them. These are all areas that, under the new Council of Australian Governments agreement, which was agreed to last November, will now get some level of recognition and have funds allocated towards beginning to address the serious issues that many of them face.

Within all of those areas, I want to particularly talk about homelessness. Funds have also been set aside specifically for this purpose, which is in addition to whatever funding will become available as a result of the government’s recent $42 billion economic stimulus package. Homelessness is an issue that, as we know, affects people across this country. When I was first elected to this place I took the trouble to visit a number of agencies that deal with the homeless people in and around Adelaide. Without exception they are also stretched to their limit in trying to provide services to those people who are homeless. Without exception they all strongly advocated for more funds to be placed into housing the homeless. This government is responding to their pleas with these measures. I applaud the relevant ministers for doing so.

The new national special purpose payments will be distributed between the states on an equal per capita basis, and that is important. The schools’ special purpose payments will be distributed according to full-time student enrolments in government schools. Strong, fair transparency measures in each sector are a non-negotiable part of these agreements. In other words, the money must be spent where it is intended to be spent. The federal government will invest $64.4 billion in health and hospital funding, and that represents an increase of $4.8 billion over the previous agreement; in other words, an increase of 7.3 per cent—money that is much needed in the health sector and money that, I am sure, will be very welcome by people around Australia. With respect to that, it is disappointing to see that funds that have been committed by this government to the reinstatement of the Commonwealth dental scheme and the teenage dental scheme have been held up in the Senate. One of the issues I am constantly faced with when I speak to older people, particularly, in my electorate is the need for government assistance when it comes to dental treatment. This government is prepared to provide that assistance and the money has been allocated, but it has been held up and therefore is not presently available to those people who urgently need it. The word ‘urgent’ is not an overstatement at all.

I was also particularly pleased to see that the total package under this agreement that goes towards education is $42.4 billion. It certainly reinforces the Rudd government’s strategy of an education revolution. If you want to have an education revolution then clearly you have to start by allocating the appropriate level of funds. Again, this is an increase of something like $8.3 billion over the previous funding period between 2005 and 2008. It represents a 24 per cent increase. I heard the member for Blair speaking about the schools in his community. I, too, frequently visit the schools in my community and I have heard nothing but very strong praise for the government’s commitment towards a wide range of education funding initiatives that have been announced since the election of the Rudd Labor government. Amongst and contained within that $42 billion is $550 million towards improving teacher quality and establishing national partnerships, $540 million for literacy and numeracy programs, $1.1 billion towards a national partnership as a response to those low socioeconomic communities throughout Australia, $807 million for computers in schools and the ongoing costs that go with them and $970 million for early childhood reforms.

I am pleased to say that, certainly in my electorate, all of the schools that could have done so have applied for funding under the computers in schools program. If my memory serves me correctly, to date they have all been provided with funding towards the provision of additional computers. I often hear opposition members in this place ridicule the whole scheme, yet the very people who are trying to educate our kids and who know exactly what they need are applying for those computers and are very appreciative when they get them.

I mentioned earlier the Affordable Housing Agreement. In respect of housing, this government has now allocated $10 billion towards this program. I will just reflect again on the 2007 election campaign. Housing affordability, certainly in my electorate, was one of the dominant issues. It was one of the issues that decided the outcome of the election. Again, this government, on being elected, honoured its pledges and has committed the money towards ensuring that it does make housing in this country more affordable.

These payments, as I said earlier, are all in addition to other measures already taken by the government in respect of the economic security stimulus packages that have been announced. These bills are about nation building. You do not build a nation through buck-passing, political squabbling and state and federal governments acting independently of each other; you do it by them working together, and that is exactly what these bills do.

See this speech in context