Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to rise in support of Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2009-2010 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2009-2010. In considering what I would say in speaking to these bills, I had the opportunity to look at the speeches made by those opposition members who chose to speak on these bills. There certainly seemed to be a clear theme in their statements. What the opposition members concentrated on was the government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme policy and the bill put forward in this House. The problem with the speeches made by the opposition members was, of course, that they concentrated their entire time on the government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and failed to address in any way what the opposition themselves are putting forward to deal with climate change. In fact, if anyone reading Hansard were to go back and read those statements what they would see is that in some cases those opposition members were disputing the science completely, which is incongruous with what the Leader of the Opposition is saying. He is saying, ‘Here’s our policy to deal with climate change,’ but at the same time he has members of his own party saying that the science is not in and that in fact there is no justification as yet to do anything about climate change.

The problem with the opposition’s policy in relation to dealing with climate change is that it lacks any real substance. It does not work. It does not require anything of polluters. There is no cap on pollution. It slugs taxpayers instead of big polluters. It is unfunded, which would mean higher taxes or cuts to services like schools or hospitals. The opposition will not come forward and say exactly where those funds will come from—what they are going to cut and what they are going to increase. The challenge for Tony Abbott and Barnaby Joyce is to explain how they are going to pay for the climate change con job they are putting forward to the Australian people. Of course, there is a bit of a pattern forming here. We have seen it with the recent announcement of their health policy. We have seen it with the paid parental leave policy. We have seen it with the opposition’s response to the global financial crisis. Policies are being thrown out with no substance to them and, quite often, no actual policy document. The paid parental leave policy was just a couple of lines fed to the local media. In fact, it seemed to be an announcement that they would go off and create a policy document. But they were happy to go out and champion this policy.

Despite the policies the opposition are throwing out to get attention, they are not talking about how they are going to increase employment, training opportunities and skills. The only reference we are hearing to jobs is about how they are going to make workplaces more flexible again—and we have certainly heard this before. They say they are going to create individual contracts again and more flexibility. There has already been reference to scrapping penalties on weekends. That is what the Australian people have to look forward to with Tony Abbott and his band of merry men in charge of our economy and our future.

There has been no mention of education at all. We have heard much criticism from the opposition of the Rudd government’s Building the Education Revolution policy. The spending at schools has been widely criticised. They have opposed just about every initiative this government has put forward. They have opposed all the spending in schools. Yet we have heard nothing at all about what the opposition would do in relation to an education policy into the future.

In contrast to this, the Rudd government has put forward a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme that makes polluters pay for their pollution and thereby encourages them to invest in cleaner technologies like wind and solar power. The Rudd government has proposed a market based scheme, which is widely recognised as the best way to reduce carbon pollution. John Howard, Malcolm Turnbull, Joe Hockey and most of the mainstream members of the Liberal Party actually support the CPRS despite what their leaders are now saying. More than 30 countries—including all of the European countries, Japan and New Zealand—have either introduced or are introducing a CPRS. The government’s market based scheme is the lowest-cost way of reducing emissions. The Rudd government’s scheme ensures that the impact on household costs would be just above one per cent, and our compensation plan means that 92 per cent of all households would receive assistance, with low-income households and 90 per cent of families receiving FTB(A) being fully compensated. But those on the other side are saying there are not going to be any costs on polluters and consequently there will be no flow-on costs so they do not have to talk about compensation or assistance for households. Various sectors, including the electricity sector, are saying they are not sure that there will not be a cost but, if there is, they will pass it on to consumers and householders will pay. But there is no talk of assistance to households from those on the other side.

Over the last couple of days in this House I have also been listening to other debates from members of the opposition. They complain about roads they want fixed and rail projects they want done. We have even heard from the Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion that opposition members have approached her about students in regional towns who need income support. The opposition are concerned that these students will not go to university because they cannot get the scholarships the government is seeking to provide to them. I find it amazing that members of the opposition from both chambers are saying to the government that they are concerned about their students not getting scholarships. Opposition members seem to be completely ignorant of their own actions and of what they are blocking. It is within their hands to ensure that important bills like the income support for students bill are passed in the Senate.

Let us compare that which the Rudd government has achieved in its first term with these claims about what has been done and what the opposition has not been doing. The government is funding 1,000 new nurse training places to ensure patients get the care that they deserve. It is supporting record investment in solar and wind power to protect our environment for future generations. The Rudd government is helping to secure our water supplies by providing funding to help build recycling, desalination and stormwater harvesting projects; helping the health of the Murray-Darling by implementing the first ever purchase of water entitlements by the federal government; investing in new cancer research and treatment centres; funding a 30 per cent increase in GP training places to help address shortages, especially in regional and rural areas; creating 130,000 new training places and granting 290,000 new computers for schools; establishing a single national curriculum focusing on the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic, and the Minister for Education has recently announced a national literacy and numeracy program. The government is funding new trade training centres for high schools to give kids practical skills for work, providing tax cuts for working families and making record infrastructure investments in roads, highways, hospitals and schools—there are currently more than 28,000 infrastructure projects underway and the largest schools building program ever, to ensure our children have a better place to learn.

I ask the opposition: which of these projects do you consider not worthy of funding? We keep hearing accusations from the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Treasurer and the shadow finance minister that the government is misspending revenue—it is throwing money around. My question to the opposition is: which of these projects are not worthy of funding? Maybe I can assist by refining that list a little bit more, to the electorate of Petrie, in which there are 120 projects, 33 schools, and about $85 million in funding under the National School Pride, Primary Schools for the 21st Century, and Science and Language Centres programs. There is additional funding for VET for my local TAFEs of over $683,000. In my electorate of Petrie alone there are 374 properties and over $1.5 million refurbishment money for existing social housing. Forty-three new units of social housing worth over $15 million and 32 new defence housing units worth $12 million have been constructed in the electorate of Petrie alone. We could also look at the funding that is provided to Brisbane City Council and Moreton Bay Regional Council to build community infrastructure and at the money from the Jobs Fund which is helping the Urban Land Development Authority with Fitzgibbon and Guide Dogs Queensland with new guide dog trainer cadetships. I ask the opposition: having refined that list, which one of the Petrie projects do you consider not worthy of funding? Which one of these, if you were in government, would you scrap? Many of our halls and resource centres are almost complete—some are complete but some are still in progress. Some of our social housing is still underway. Which of these would the opposition put an end to? Our GP super clinic? I want to know so they can be honest and go forward to the people of Petrie and tell them what they would lose under a government led by Tony Abbott, Joe Hockey and Barnaby Joyce. These are the questions I believe need to be answered.

The government continues to stand by its commitment to build a strong economy—through its budgets in 2008 and 2009, through its stimulus package released in late 2008 to help pensioners and low-income families, through its stimulus package to help build infrastructure for the future and to help create and support jobs with the 2009 stimulus package and the nation building package. These are the things that the Rudd government is getting on with. This is what the appropriation bills are about—stepping up and taking action to ensure that not only is our economy strong but there is an equal share across our economy.

While we talk about equal share, I cannot help but make reference to the private health insurance legislation which the opposition continue to oppose. When we talk about equal share, the opposition’s approach is that everyone should get a 30 per cent rebate on their private health insurance—‘Even if you are the highest paid CEO in a large multinational company in Australia you should receive a 30 per cent government subsidised rebate on your private health insurance. So let’s not worry about the lower and middle-income earners who really need that support. Let’s not worry about making sure there are sufficient funds to go back into the public health system. Let’s just make sure that we are looking after those at the higher end of our society.’ The reality is that those approaches are not sustainable in the long term.

We cannot continue to subsidise such high-income earners. We need to ensure that we are being accountable to the people of Australia by means testing entitlements. It is fair and reasonable to means test the private health insurance rebate. That is what we should be doing. That is what I am talking about with people in my local community. A sensible government would ensure that money is going to where it is most needed. That is the case the government have put forward with income support for students and with private health insurance. Our Carbon Pollution Production Scheme is about making sure the big polluters pay and that we assist households. That is what schemes should do. We should make sure we are capping our emissions.

These are decisions a government which is serious about the long term—not just a one-term government—makes; this is about sustainability. We have heard about the Intergenerational report. We have heard about the need for the government to look over a range of policies, ensuring we provide a skilled workforce for the future and that we are managing funds in a way which strengthens our economy through infrastructure, health and good education. Funding and commitment to education are absolutely paramount. This is an area in which this government, unlike the previous government, has stepped up and taken the reins to ensure that our education system is the best.

We are looking not just at halls and libraries. We are looking not just at facilities to get skills. We are looking across the whole gamut—with the national curriculum, with the MySchool website. Everything the Minister for Education is doing is about a holistic approach to ensure that our children, from early childhood education right through secondary school and beyond—those who go off to TAFE, to apprenticeships or to university—have the best opportunities available to them. That requires a government which is responsible in the way it spends and allocates funds, ensuring that those who are most in need and the areas which need strengthening are where funds are going. That is what these appropriation bills are about and it is my pleasure to support them today.

See this speech in context