Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

In the face of the greatest economic threat to prosperity that has occurred in our lifetime, I think most people would agree the measures introduced by the Rudd government just over a year ago that provided for a range of stimulus measures for families, including one-off payments, the installation of energy efficiency measures in homes, investment in schools for their children, and investment in major as well as local government based infrastructure—all these things—have combined to make a real difference in each of our local communities. Because we acted early and were decisive in our approach, our economy was cushioned, and we are certainly in a much stronger position than most other countries. Our economic stimulus has meant that Australia avoided a technical recession. Our economy is going forward while most other major economies have gone backwards. We have the strongest growth, the second-lowest unemployment, the lowest debt and the lowest deficit of all major economies of the OECD.

It should be said from the outset that these same measures, responsible as they were, were voted against on each and every occasion by members of the opposition. They voted against our economic and infrastructure stimulus package despite this being a most serious threat to our economy. It was a global recession of a magnitude that had not been seen in the last 75 years. This attack by the opposition on these credible economic strategies just highlights how out of touch the members of the opposition were—or maybe they just did not care about the consequences and preferred to play politics. If the opposition had had its way and blocked the stimulus packages—all those measures which I have mentioned and others—Australia would have joined other major economies and been in recession, and tens of thousands more Australians would have been out of work.

While the government has been getting on with the job, the Liberal and National parties have been fighting amongst themselves. It is a divided coalition. Their record speaks for itself: they have had four leaders in just over two years. It is hardly a united bunch. I do not want to dwell on this but I have got to say, and I think it has to be conceded in this House, that the current Leader of the Opposition is prone to having the odd extreme view. There are just a couple I would like to draw to the House’s attention which certainly impact on local communities and communities that I represent.

Mr Abbott wants to bring back the worst aspects of Work Choices. He wants to reintroduce statutory individual contracts which cut the wages and conditions of working families. In the past I have taken a lot of the time of this House in citing plenty of examples in my own electorate of the negative impacts that Work Choices had on working families. After the last election Mr Abbott said this:

The Howard government’s industrial legislation was good for wages, it was good for jobs and it was good for workers and let’s never forget that.

That left Mr Abbott in stark contrast with the current shadow Treasurer, Joe Hockey, and the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Turnbull, who all wanted to jettison as fast as possible any notion that they had had any affiliation with Work Choices. But he is not prone to be weak hearted on these things. We have seen him as the health minister in the former government also presiding over a $1 billion cut from public hospitals, freezing the number of GP training places and ignoring the need for more nurses despite a record 6,000-nurse shortage across the country. Now he has taken over the reins of the Liberal Party he says that he if he has his way he will stop the school building program. It is a vital aspect of our infrastructure proposals that is certainly making a difference in every school. I will put my hand up and say that it is certainly making a difference to schools in my electorate. Every member, whether they be Labor, Liberal, National or calithumpian, acknowledges that every school is benefiting from that. Not only is it providing opportunities for kids into the future, it is also supporting jobs, particularly in regions which are affected by a growth in unemployment, such as mine, where this has made a very significant difference.

The Leader of the Opposition also refuses to support serious action to protect our environment. This is the same man who has had seven different positions so far on the environment. At the outset of the Rudd government he was one of those who had developed the view that the opposition should vote for the CPRS. He was of the view that they should get it off the table and get it out of the way. He was advocating that as a senior member of the opposition, but now when he takes the reins he wants to oppose it. People who sit on that side of the House have got to realise that you cannot just have these sudden flights of fancy when it comes to policy. It is either solid policy or it is not. You cannot go from one position of saying, ‘Let’s sign it and get it off the table; let’s get on with it,’ to a position of opposition to the CPRS and of saying, ‘We are going to fight it on the beaches, tooth and nail.’ In that I think it actually says a lot about the people who would follow this current Leader of the Opposition.

We should also remember that he was a senior minister in a government that presided over this country for 12 years but which neglected to invest in hospitals, schools or infrastructure. That is just a matter of record. As I said earlier, over the past two years in government we have been working hard to build this country’s future. We have done this while keeping Australia’s finances strong and whilst also retaining a AAA credit rating. That is something that has been achieved not simply through the workings of a federal government. We have worked with our state and territory local governments as well, and that is regardless of their political persuasions.

Just to recap some of the highlights that we have delivered in the last two years of the Rudd government: there were the tax cuts we delivered to working families, acting decisively to support jobs and small business during a global recession which was the worst in 75 years; the abolition of Work Choices and restoring of fairness to the workplace; our investment in new cancer research treatment centres, including the one at Liverpool just down the road from me—$46.9 million delivered into the Ingham Health Research Institute at Liverpool Hospital; and our supporting record investments in solar and wind to protect our environment for future generations.

More locally, I am happy to say that work has commenced on the final stage of the F5 freeway—the widening project—which is a vital piece of transport infrastructure. It is a road corridor that is essential in connecting the outer metropolitan areas of Sydney, particularly in the south-west. Work is also well on the way, with $8 million for the refurbishment of Campbelltown Stadium, which is scheduled to be finalised shortly for the commencement of the 2010 rugby league season. As I know from my Chinese community, this is the year of the tiger. I have a hunch that this might be prophetic for the West Tigers as they play in their new stadium in the 2010 season.

In schools, the largest school building program ever seen in this country is in full swing. Members opposite are only too happy to have their local papers take their photos as they open school hall after school hall, classroom after classroom et cetera—notwithstanding the fact they voted against all those projects, I might add. These schools are not only providing opportunities for our kids as they progress; they are also providing opportunities for local tradesmen and local apprentices and doing something about localised issues of employment. This is a successful position.

The opposition want to stop stimulus. They actually want to turn it back. They want to turn it off. If the opposition got their way and withdrew the stimulus packages, they would be kneecapping our recovery, undermining confidence and threatening small business and, importantly, the thousands of jobs that are supported by small business. Clearly, it is the Rudd government that is preparing this country for the challenges of the future. We can continue to do that, and we will continue to do that, with the cooperation of state, territory and local governments.

I would like to talk briefly on another issue which is close to my heart, and justifiably is a priority of this government—national security. The security of the nation is the highest priority of this government. The Prime Minister in his national security statement in December 2008 assured Australia that we would act on that, and that it would be a priority which we would develop. The government have done that. Since being in government we have introduced a number of initiatives that I believe have gone a long way to protecting the community, particularly at our most vulnerable times. The Prime Minister has spoken about being fortunate in having highly capable police services which can respond to a spectrum of challenges, from threats to public safety through to attacks of terrorism. He has also gone on to say that being tough on crime is effectively what we are going to do, and we will do that by supporting those people on the thin blue line; those people who protect our society. We will give them the tools they need to get on and do their job more efficiently.

As people in this House know, I rarely let go by an opportunity to personally acknowledge the contribution of the men and women of our police forces who are in the fight against crime on our behalf. I appreciate the tremendous work that our police do, and I genuinely value the difficult and often dangerous jobs that police officers have. Policing is a dangerous occupation, and it is with sadness that I inform the House that on 3 January this year Northern Territory Police Sergeant Brett Meredith paid the ultimate sacrifice as he was tragically killed in the execution of his duties. I take the opportunity to offer my deepest condolences to his family, particularly his wife Aimee, their young children, their friends and colleagues, and members of the Northern Territory Police Association as well.

As a member of the parliamentary joint committee that oversights the Australian Crime Commission, I have had the opportunity to review legislative arrangements effectively dealing with elements of serious and organised crime, both domestically and internationally. As a result of this review I am very pleased to see that the Attorney-General introduced legislation, late last year, designed to combat serious and organised crime. We are developing measures to empower our police with the tools and the legislative support they need to act on our behalf in protecting our communities. For instance, as I stated in a speech last year, the 2009 organised crime bill, which has the support of state and territory governments as well, will now set the benchmark in terms of attacking organised crime by using unexplained wealth as a means to address this serious scourge of our society.

In October I also had the opportunity to travel to the United States as part of a parliamentary delegation. I took the opportunity while there to visit various police jurisdictions which are currently responsible for advancing the practices of community oriented policing services, or COPS. The COPS program is run through the US Department of Justice and brings together communities and police in ways that address local crime problems that challenge many communities. It is a partnership approach, but it always involves professional police on the ground in local communities because they know the key issues at particular localities. Rather than simply responding to crime once it has been committed, community policing concentrates on preventing crime and eliminating the atmosphere of fear that crime induces. During the course of these meetings I found a significant number of jurisdictions participating in the COPS program, and they hailed it as one of the most successful anti-crime programs available to them.

By way of background, the federally funded program was initiated in 1994 under President Clinton. As I understand it, the COPS office is administered through the Department of Justice. It distributes funds through a wide range of programs, both grants and cooperative arrangements, to state, local and territory law enforcement agencies. All jurisdictions I visited pointed out that the federal funding received was essential for implementing successful programs in community policing and, more importantly, for crime prevention and reduction strategies. They reported that the projects were most effective when targeted at trouble spots identified by the community and undertaken not in isolation, as they generally involve multiagency approaches.

On the election of the Obama government in 2008, particularly with the close support of Vice President Biden, the federal financial support for the COPS program was increased and it was therefore given a re-established priority by the Obama administration. The basis of the COPS program initially was to support local law enforcement agencies in their ability to secure police for designated projects, provided that such projects were pursued in partnership with local communities. While I was in Washington, I met with the officers of COPS and particularly with Deputy Director Webb of the Office of COPS. I learnt that, whilst law and order in the US has certainly been the responsibility of state and territory jurisdictions, it is considered imperative for the federal government to become involved, primarily through funding, to assist the development of community based policing models. In addition to providing financial assistance for community based policing projects, the Office of COPS has developed a wide range of recognised research aids and establishments to support best-practice policing throughout the United States.

One police department gave me a detailed brief of the crime prevention strategies that they had developed, particularly in relation to gang related violence. They identified a crime hot spot in a relatively small area. As a matter of fact, it was contained within a few blocks—about six blocks, I think it was. It accounted for the major crime, including shootings. The police indicated that it was characterised as a low socioeconomic area with a high proportion of welfare based single parents as well as a transient male population. Drug distribution was common. Gun related violence was prevalent, particularly amongst young street offenders. Through the financial assistance provided by the federal government through the COPS program, local police developed a safe streets program in partnership with the local community. Significantly, as a direct result of the federal government’s funding, they saw an overall decrease in crime across the safe streets team sites. Specifically, they saw a 12 per cent reduction in violent crime and in some areas a decrease of as much as 54 per cent. Also, the police through their project established a better relationship with the community and particularly the young people of the area. This was all possible through federal financial assistance in law enforcement. The police were very clearly of the view that engaging the local community in preventative strategies provided a significant measure of empowerment to the local community in helping to shape their future.

We know that the public do not differentiate between state, territory and federal governments when it comes to taking responsible action for law enforcement. What police saw there was that the communities wished to become involved, and that gave them the mechanism to achieve it. I believe that there needs to be a greater degree of acceptance that all levels of government have a responsibility for law enforcement, not just at local levels, and that also extends to community safety and crime prevention. This sits with what I said in the first speech that I gave to this place, back in 2005, where I said:

For too long, policing has been seen simply as an issue for state governments. There is no doubt that local, state and federal government policies all have an impact on crime and, therefore, there is a need for greater integration of policy responsibility in respect of policing, law and order, and crime prevention.

I believe that there is a considerable benefit for the federal government in considering direct assistance being made available to state and territory policing, with the ultimate benefits being derived by local communities in developing safer communities. I therefore encourage governments to look at this as a proposal and similarly build upon the connections that I have indicated. (Time expired)

See this speech in context