Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business) Share this | Hansard source

I congratulate the members for their first speeches. It is always a great moment in the House, and it is good to see their families and friends here to support them. I listened very carefully to the Governor-General's speech when both houses joined in the Senate chamber on the first day of parliament. I listened for the positive plan that the then opposition had talked about so often. I looked for that plan and for what they would bring to government for the future. What struck me then and in the first weeks of this parliament was an extraordinary lack of vision for the future by the government. In fact, if I was 19 years old and I was starting my adult life—and I am not, in fact I am a long way from that—I would be scratching my head and looking at this government and thinking that perhaps it had very little to offer me. For the 4.29 million people under the age of 15 in this country that is certainly the case.

Governments govern for the past, the present and the future. Governments honour the contributions and sacrifices of generations past—those sacrifices that are so evident in the prosperity we enjoy now. They investigate past wrongs and they offer apologies. They govern for the future. They govern for the present. They balance the needs of many sections of the community on a daily basis. But they also govern for the future. They govern for the young people who are in school, they govern for teenagers and they govern for their children and their children's children. And great governments govern for the generation after that.

This, unfortunately, is a government that seems to have walked well and truly away from the future. It is not a government for the young. If you have a look at the things that they have done in those first few weeks of parliament, you can see what I mean. There is no minister for youth. There is nobody on the frontbench or in the ministry of the government that speaks for youth and that is a focal point for engagement with youth or for representing the views of our next generation in the government. There is no minister for innovation. There is no minister whose job it is to ensure that we grow the diverse range of industries that will sustain our economy into the future. There is no minister for science. There is no single person in the ministry who ensures that we are positioned to benefit from the scientific advances that take place around the world. They have slashed investment in the CSIRO. They have slashed funding to a broad range—a whole list—of bodies and organisations whose job it was to assess the long-term needs of this country.

If you are looking for a government that represents the past, look at the front row here. There is only one woman in the cabinet and only two sitting in the front row. That is certainly not a government that is looking to the future. They have walked away from the responsibility for education. They are happily handing that over to the states. They have walked away from responsibility for preventative health. They have walked away from any real action on climate change. They have walked away from the minerals resource rent tax which would help to ensure that the assets of Australia are used for the benefit of future generations. In their own language on debt and deficit—and I say 'their own language', because it was this government, when in opposition, that talked about the debt burden on future generations—in the first week of this parliament they sought to almost double the debt ceiling and have now removed the limit. So, a government that in opposition talked about burdening the next generation with debt seems to believe that it now needs no limit and no accountability to the parliament for its actions.

They said they had a positive plan for the future. I have to say it is very difficult to see it. Perhaps one of the most critical decisions that this government is involved in, and one which will affect future generations, is, of course, that of climate change. We live on an incredibly fragile planet, a planet full of wonder. For those of us who spend time in the bush—and I do—it is an extraordinary world. It is unimaginable to me, and to many of us on this side of the House, that a government would take any action at all that would make it less likely that future generations would be able to enjoy the full diversity of life on our planet. We have a whole range of species that are very fragile. In the Sydney region, if there is not real action on climate change around the world, the number of extreme fire danger days could rise from the current nine days per year to as many as 15 by 2050. If there were ever an endeavour that a government should undertake to ensure that future generations enjoy, as we do, the full range of wonder in the world, it would be action on climate change.

It is almost as if the current government went into a deep sleep when they lost government in 2007. It is almost an episode of Rip Van Winkle in many ways. They went to sleep dreaming of the Howard years and imagining that someday they could bring them back. But, in that period of six years, things have moved on. Action on climate change, for example, is increasing. The Climate Council estimates that 99 countries, including Australia's major trading partners and neighbours, are implementing policies to act on climate change, including renewable energy targets, emissions trading schemes and vehicle emissions targets. These countries collectively produce over 80 per cent of global emissions and over 90 per cent of the world's economic output. So, in that six years when they were sleeping and dreaming of the past, the world has moved on. Unless this country moves on we will be doing our young people and their children and the generation after that an extreme disservice.

There are three real reasons why you act on the environment and climate change. One is the environment itself, which is something of value in its own right. It is the only thing that we deal with in this parliament, both in government and in opposition, which is not a human construct. It is the one thing which actually exists whether we are here or not, and it deserves a very special place in the minds of governments for that reason. But there is also the cost. We know that each year we delay real action on climate change we leave a greater cost burden on the people that come after us. We leave a greater cost burden on the next generation. If we do not build the economic model which generates investment in finding the answers in this country, if we do not introduce a market-based mechanism, then we risk leaving our industry, our entrepreneurs and our scientists out of a field that is growing at an incredibly rapid rate in the world. Last year, China, which is much maligned for not acting on climate change, spent more on renewable energy than it did on coal-fired power stations. China has moved into the new world, and we do the next generation an incredible disservice if we do not move as well—if we do not provide the economic frameworks which will drive industry in Australia to explore the possibilities for finding answers to what is a very real problem.

Look at the mining tax. I saw a beautiful photo not so long back which explained perfectly the whole purpose of the minerals resource rent tax, why we in government introduced it and why it should be maintained. If the government thinks it has some flaws, the government can amend it, but it is an incredibly valuable piece of regulation to protect the future generations' assets. It was a beautiful picture. On one side was a huge open-cut mine, with a ginormous yellow truck gouging ore from its side. Above it was the word 'mine', with a question mark. On the other side of the page was a picture of a small child in a sandpit, with a tiny, yellow Tonka toy, digging sand out of the sandpit. Above him was the word 'ours'. It was the clearest explanation I could think of for the purpose of the minerals resource rent tax, which was to ensure that the assets in the ground that we in this generation can take out with gay abandon, the assets that belong to all generations of Australians, would be able to be enjoyed by future generations. The abolition of the MRRT without regard to cross-generational issues of wealth is a tragedy, and it is another indication of a government which does not have the youth and the next generation of this country in its mind at all.

If you are talking Rip Van Winkle, as I was before, in terms of action on climate change, you need not go any further than the NBN. They went to sleep in 2007 and dreamed of the Howard years. Things have moved on. Fibre is the way of the future, without any doubt. I am well over 50 now. I admit I am closer to 60 than 50. It is a future that I can imagine. It is the future for the three-year-old child you see on the bus who already knows how to use an iPhone. The world that they will create through fibre is something that we cannot imagine. But it is the role of government to make sure that the economic circumstances and the infrastructure are there for that generation—for those who are now 15, 16, 17 and 18 years old—to build the world that they want to live in, a world where the entrepreneurs of Australia can play their part in shaping the technology of the future.

To walk away at this point from ensuring that Australia has the technology that it needs for the next 50 years borders on criminal. Again, it is an indication of a government that does not have youth in its frame and does not see the next generation at all. It does not see the benefits to regional Australia. It does not see that we as a nation have within us every language and culture of the world. We have the capacity to deal from our own homes with every country in the world. We live on the edge of the fastest growing region in the world. We have within us people who know and understand and live the cultures of our northern neighbours. Yet we have a government that—although I hesitate to say it—seems a little uncomfortable with our place in the world. It certainly is not setting up future generations to benefit from the extraordinary powerhouse to our north by providing what is today a basic piece of infrastructure: fibre. Copper—

Mr Albanese interjecting—

Rip Van Winkle. They have been asleep for 80 years, I think, shadow minister—80 years at least—if they think we can go back to copper at this time.

If you want to see a government not caring about the next generation, not seeing them what they need, you need not look any further than at the total walking away from federal responsibility for standards in education that we have seen in the last week. We have seen a government that does not know that, in the six years they slept in opposition dreaming of the Howard years, the arguments that went on between the different elements of education—the private, independent, Catholic and state schools—were resolved. Through some incredibly hard work by Labor in government, by people in the community and by leaders in all of those sectors, we found a way past that and settled on a model which actually ensured that our young people would be funded on the basis of need. The model ensured that we would no longer have the incredible difference in the results of children raised in advantaged households and those raised in disadvantaged households.

We currently have an appalling circumstance in this country, which we sometimes do not realise. There is a disparity in the results of those that live in disadvantaged areas and families and the results of those that do not. The government, knowing about that disparity and knowing that so many of our young people are falling behind, is not prepared to act on it. In the areas of science, technology, engineering and maths, which we know will drive our prosperity in the future, we are seriously lagging, particularly in the lower quartiles. We know that fixing that is not a three-year job. Ensuring that teachers are trained and that young people who enter the school system now leave the school system with the skills they will need in 15 years—not the skills we need now—is a massive undertaking that will take a generation. It is a long-term activity that a decent government would be undertaking now if they recognised their role to govern for young people. But this government is not doing that. This government is happy to cap student fees. It is happy to see fees going up again, as they did in the Howard years. They are talking happily about privatising student debt. They are talking, quite clearly, about strategies which will take us back to the Howard years, where the difference in enrolment rates between people from a disadvantaged area and young people from an average or upper-middle income area will widen. Shamefully, that gap widened under the Howard years, and this government is prepared to see that gap widen once again. This is a government that does not see the needs of our young people and the needs of their children.

Superannuation is another area where the government is not prepared to do the hard yards to ensure that young people have the kinds of retirement that they would expect. The delay in the superannuation increases is a significant blow, particularly to young people. I know that young people may not know that. I have quite a few people in my family who do not always understand the value of superannuation. But those on the government side do understand the value of superannuation because, I have no doubt, they are well superannuated. Yet this government does not see that there is a need for young people to start saving for their retirement as early as possible. Even the cuts to the public service will hit the young. When you slash so deeply into public service jobs you create a circumstance where it is very difficult for young people to find a path in.

So let us recap on what we have with this government. The government came to power after the last election on a promise of a positive plan for the future. We saw the blue book; we saw it being held. We heard then that they had a positive plan for the future. We heard today in question time that they have a plan. We were not quite sure what that plan is, but we heard minister after minister get up today and talk about having a plan. We are still waiting to see it, but they have plan.

Yet, when you look at what government ministers have actually done in this first four weeks of parliament, you find that they have hacked away at almost everything which would build a nation for the next generation. They have hacked away at environmental reforms. We saw this House vote for the handing back of powers to the states. We heard statements about their winding back of the World Heritage listing in Tasmania. This government has a plan to wind back the marine parks. This government is hacking away at the work that was done to protect our environment for generations of the future. This government has hacked away at the model which will drive investment in new technologies for clean energy. They have hacked away at it—attempting to abolish it. There is nothing to replace it yet. Clearly, this government does not understand the need to ensure that our next generation is at the forefront of finding answers to climate change.

This government has no concern that our assets in the ground belong to future generations as well as this one. It is happy to rip away—hack away—at the mechanism which ensures cross-generational wealth, so that the wealth of this generation is maintained for future generations.

It has not been a good start, at all. For those 4.29 million people—nearly one in five—who are under the age of 15 there is a lot to worry about from this government. Those on this side of the chamber know that we need to govern not just for the children who are going through primary schools now; governments need to govern for the generation after that, and the generation after that. It is a tragedy to watch the actions of this government in hacking away at the things that this generation will need in order to prosper.

A government with a plan for the future? It is hard to see. The government said they had it, but it has been hard to see the plan in action in this first four weeks. I have to say that this does not bode well for the next generation.

Debate adjourned.

See this speech in context