Mike Kelly (Eden-Monaro, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Hansard source

Certainly, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition might be interested in that one. There are 70 of these levies in place and it demonstrates quite clearly and quite effectively, I think, that this country has always resorted to and relied upon and accepted the levy mechanism as a way for the people of this country to work as a team. We work as a team nationally when we face particular national challenges and we work as a team sectorally when there are advantages to be gained from particular industrial sectors. So the levy mechanism has been a fine tradition in this country. It is a way of dealing with issues like this equitably so that the burden is distributed equitably, but also efficiently as well.

We know that the donations that have come in from a very generous and compassionate Australian community are being directed towards those specific victims’ domestic homes and people who have suffered loss, and they are helping those people directly. It is a wonderful thing. Those direct donations are tax deductible in themselves. But those people who are benefiting from many of the provisions that we have put in place to alleviate the suffering will not find themselves the subject of this further levy action. It is a very small price to pay, I think, for those who will be asked to pay. We are talking about 60 per cent of taxpayers having to put forward only about $1, and of course this is in the context of all the tax relief that has been delivered by this government. The three tax cuts in a row have certainly put those people in a much better position in any event, so this one-year levy for this tiny amount of money will not have a significant impact on those tax cuts they have already received from this government.

What we have seen from the coalition in this discussion is the offer of ‘savings’. It has been very interesting to see the sorts of savings they have offered. It really does underline the farcical budgetary circus we saw right through the campaign last year with the $11 billion black hole and their inability to come to grips with putting a budget together, with counting, basically, in some cases.

When I look specifically at the offerings the coalition have put forward, it shocks me because it underlines further the deeply evident lack of understanding in relation to our security needs and basic market dynamics. For example, to propose cuts to the water buyback program fails to understand that right now is a good time to engage in these buybacks because it is the cheapest time to buy. So we will be achieving significant savings out there in the marketplace in relation to the water buybacks. Certainly that system is being refined, but the principle of buying in these good times is one that should be well understood and well appreciated. This is a good time to buy. So it is a false economy that the coalition proposes with respect to the water buybacks.

More deeply concerning to me—and I know it is deeply concerning even to a range of conservative commentators in the community—has been the proposal to cut the Australia-Indonesia Basic Education Program. It is a program that the Howard government introduced, to its great credit. I spoke here in this House in the Afghanistan debate and I emphasised in that speech that what we are facing is not a war on terrorism; it is a war on ignorance. Those were the words that I used. When you look at the tactics and the approach of our enemy in this respect, you see that they are waging a battle for the human mind. When the Taliban overran the Swat Valley in 2009, what was the very first thing they did? The very first thing they did was to blow up 100 schools and in their place establish radical madrassas. That is the challenge we face: the battle to win the minds of the Muslim world, to encourage and support the moderate thinkers, moderate Islam. The way we do that is by running these very programs in Indonesia, our great friend and neighbour who is facing the challenge of attempts to infiltrate and influence their community by radical Islamic extremists. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs said, this program will only be smiled upon by the Leader of the Opposition and by Abu Bakar Bashir. It really emphasises the failure of the Leader of the Opposition to understand where our national security interests lie and how to pursue the security future of this nation. I think the Leader of the Opposition will be universally condemned and will continue to be condemned for that fact.

I know issues have been raised in relation to the oversight of the reconstruction task. It should be well noted that that has been significantly and securely addressed by the introduction of the Reconstruction Inspectorate. The inspectorate includes Mr John Fahey, a former federal finance minister, as the chair, and also Martin Albrecht, Matt Sheerin and Brad Orgill, who performed such good work in oversighting the BER Implementation Taskforce. So the issue of oversight is well and truly addressed. There will be rigorous scrutiny of rebuilding contracts. The task force will inspect projects to ensure that they are meeting progress milestones and will investigate complaints et cetera. So the mechanism is in place. It is definitely a good way to deal with this issue. But in this debate we have seen the lack of a moral compass, no fiscal responsibility and no understanding of national security by the coalition. (Time expired)

See this speech in context