Ross Hart (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

My task today is to speak in response to the appropriation bills now before this chamber. This government has been big on rhetoric, describing its budget as its plan for economic prosperity, using the slogan 'jobs and growth' as the centrepiece to describe its plan. It says in this chamber, and in the House, that this plan received the support of the electorate when the government was returned following the election held on 2 July 2016. The reality is that this so-called plan is nothing of the sort, and the experience in my state of Tasmania is that any sort of plan such as that promoted by the Turnbull Liberal government was comprehensively rejected with the defeat of the former members for Lyons, Braddon and Bass.

These electorates in Tasmania saw that the government's plan for economic prosperity did not acknowledge the true concerns of ordinary Tasmanians. Ordinary Tasmanians were concerned about jobs, education and health. Ordinary Tasmanians were concerned that this government did not understand the pressures caused by the underfunding of our public hospital system. They also understood that investment in Gonski reforms would deliver real education outcomes for ordinary households and that Labor's infrastructure investments in sewerage works and the UTas transformation project would provide long-term jobs, together with improving educational attainment for our young people.

This government's plan for economic growth did not involve listening to anyone who had concerns about public health, public education or obtaining a job. This government's plan involves a lazy transfer of income tax revenue on the off-chance that the debunked trickle-down economics will improve growth and employment outcomes in the Australian economy. There is a depressing lack of imagination in this government's vision for a future Australia. This government is led by a Prime Minister who is indistinguishable from the last Prime Minister and his policies, with everyone noting his disdain for many of the values that he once held to be true.

Tasmania has problems with low educational attainment and an underperforming economy compared with other states. Respected economists like Saul Eslake link the two issues together and suggest that further investment in education will drive improvements in economic performance. There is nothing in this government's plan, as represented in the budget and these appropriation bills, which recognises that truth. Indeed, it is significant that this government's so-called plan did not include any commitment to the UTas transformation project, which ultimately was the subject of a commitment in the very late stages of the last election campaign.

I am proud, as the then Labor candidate for Bass, that an announcement was made by Labor to support the University of Tasmania transformation project in its two northern campuses prior to the launch of the formal election campaign. Labor recognised that the transformation project was a vital infrastructure project delivering jobs to the Northern Tasmanian economy but also fulfilled a much higher function—that is, assisting young Tasmanians in achieving higher educational attainment, driving economic growth in the long term and improving our community on so many levels. In contrast, the government's economic plan for Northern Tasmania, as revealed in this budget, reveals little about the vision that the Liberal-National Party coalition has for Tasmania.

In my view, local government in the electorate of Bass need not wait until an election campaign to receive commitments from our federal government as to road infrastructure and the like; this is the stuff that federal and local governments have delivered for years in cooperation. It does not speak well of the commitment to infrastructure in our island state if the federal government relies upon the election campaign to deliver basic road infrastructure. Nevertheless, the federal government is to be congratulated for having committed to the University of Tasmania project and to Launceston City Council's Launceston City Heart Project. This project, for all the reasons previously expressed, is absolutely vital to the future of Northern Tasmania and should not have been in any way a matter of contention.

The plan for Northern Tasmania which Labor took to the election was a comprehensive reflection of our consultation with, and our listening to, the electors of Northern Tasmania. The people that I spoke to—during the course of more than 12 months doorknocking and speaking to people at campaign events—were concerned about maintenance of universal public health and an education system that delivered real outcomes for our students. Our communities were disappointed to hear in the course of an election debate that the federal government did not run hospitals and did not run schools. These were propositions that were put in answer to the fact that further funding was required to both health and education in Tasmania. There were real concerns in the electorate of Bass about funding for the Launceston General Hospital, and that concern remains whilst our health system is constantly under stress.

In my short time in parliament, I have listened to the Minister for Health and Aged Care, in particular, lauding the fact that this government is delivering extra funding. The minister refers to increased funding for health. The minister refers to the fact that the government is delivering more bulk-billed episodes of care for general practitioners and scheduling more drugs on the PBS and that this—in a lecturing tone—is only possible due to the government's commitment to a sustainable Medicare system. Now, this is, of course, code and cover for significant cuts to health which are having a deep impact on the front line in our hospitals, not just in Tasmania but throughout Australia.

This government's unfair 2014 budget counted as 'savings' significant amounts of anticipated expenditure on health and education over the forward estimates and out from that. It claims that, as the expenditure was not budgeted for, the savings are not cuts at all. This is an exercise in sophistry. If you talk to our hardworking doctors, nurses and allied health professionals in our hospitals, they will tell you the real impact this government's 'savings' have on the delivery of care in our hospitals—that is, on the front line. Those doctors, nurses and allied health professionals understand, as does the electorate, that health costs—so-called healthcare inflation—typically rise at a rate greater than the general inflation rate. They understand that the volume of presentations at our emergency departments and the acuity of a condition are not reflected in the model which claims to deliver additional funding year after year without taking into account increased demand, greater levels of acuity and greater costs for inputs—that is, the costs of delivering that care.

The same or similar is true with respect to our public education system. There was great support in my electorate for the Gonski reforms to be delivered in full. The people I spoke to understood that the majority of the extra funding, based on need, which was to be delivered under Gonski, was to be delivered in the later years. This government represented that it was on a 'unity ticket' with Labor at the 2013 federal election, but subsequently recanted its commitment to Gonski. Electors from across my electorate and across backgrounds recognised the importance of education as a public good, in improving the lot of all of our students and the community as a whole. I have previously used the analogy that public education is important for the child next door and for the child over the road, as those children need the best education for the community to thrive. Whilst an individual family might have some measure of control over the education of their child or children, it is in the interests of our communities that all children receive the best education so as to fight disadvantage, particularly economic disadvantage.

I have spoken earlier about the contrast between the economic plan taken to the election by the government and what was offered to the electors of Bass by the Labor campaign. It is useful to contrast what the Liberal government said was driving its economic decisions—in particular, the unfair 2014 federal budget—and what this government in fact delivered. Three years ago, the Liberals declared a budget emergency. I would ask them, then: what would they call the budget situation that we find ourselves in now? Despite all their unfair cuts and broken promises, they have tripled the deficit since 2014. Their first budget predicted the deficit for 2016-17 at $10.6 billion. Now we hear from them that the figure is over $37 billion. Net debt is up by $100 billion since the 2013 election. The 2013 Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook confirmed that net debt was $184 billion. The 2016 budget papers show that that has now blown out to $326 billion this year. The Turnbull government has failed its own test of fiscal responsibility. Despite the continual chants of 'jobs and growth', after three years of Liberal government spending is up, deficits are up, debt is up, wages are down and living standards are down.

This month, Prime Minister Turnbull graced my electorate of Bass with his presence, to sign a memorandum of understanding with the state government to progress the redevelopment of the UTAS Inveresk campus. Certainly I was thrilled that the Prime Minister finally confirmed the funding which was promised in the election—especially considering the reluctance of the Liberal Party to commit to this project during the election campaign until the last minute. The Labor Party knows that a positive future for Bass is dependent on improving educational standards in Tasmania, which is why we identified the importance of funding the university relocation as a key part of our positive plans for jobs, education and health for the people of Bass. We committed to the project months and months ago, recognising that this long-term investment had the potential to increase educational attainment, revive jobs growth and support a strong economic future for northern Tasmania. If the Liberals understood the importance of this critical project, they would have funded it in the budget—not eight days out from an election, which the more cynical individual might see as a last-ditch attempt to play catch-up and save the seat of the then sitting member.

The people of Bass, my constituents, expect much more from the Turnbull government. They expect a plan for jobs in northern Tasmania. We have an unemployment rate above six per cent and a youth unemployment rate which is, shamefully, above 15 per cent. I am baffled that the Turnbull government still seemingly has no clear plan for northern Tasmania when it comes to the critical infrastructure investment that we desperately need to encourage jobs growth, boost the health and overall wellbeing of Tasmanians and secure a strong economic future. I am, nevertheless, grateful that through the City Deals process, the City of Launceston will benefit from the transformation project, and also, the Launceston City Council's Launceston City Heart Project.

However, there is much more to be done, and much more should be done in a number of critical areas. The Tamar River sewerage improvement plan is one of these key projects that the Liberals did not consider important enough to fund in their budget. Launceston's combined sewerage system dates back to the 1860s. It is clearly insufficient to meet the standards and needs of a growing Launceston community. Just 33 per cent of wastewater plants met their environmental licence in 2015, and within the state of Tasmania there are 23 towns where residents are not able to drink the water directly from their taps. Without a modern, tertiary-standard treatment plant, water quality will not improve. The environment of our river will continue to be degraded and the health and safety of Launceston residents will continue to suffer.

Before the last election, TasWater guaranteed $400 million over 10 years to a $1.8 billion upgrade of that water and sewerage infrastructure, with the project contingent on external funding. I am proud that I was able to seek a commitment from federal Labor to provide $75 million for the extensive works required to consolidate and upgrade Launceston's water infrastructure. I said at the time it was important to make a start, despite the fact that the capital requirement was very significant and the project would take many years to complete. Indeed, the Launceston Sewerage Improvement Project is one of the largest urban infrastructure projects ever undertaken in Tasmania.

Infrastructure Australia has independently assessed the project as a priority on the basis that it benefits the economy and community as a whole. I am still of the view that it would be inequitable for the burden of such a significant capital project to fall purely upon the shareholders of TasWater and the ratepayers of Tasmania. The failure of this Liberal government to act on this project and commit to the necessary infrastructure funding is putting at risk the environment, and the health and safety of Tasmanian communities. (Time expired)

See this speech in context