David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Griffith proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The federal government’s failure to take responsibility for building a strong economy while providing fairness for all, not just some, Australians.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and International Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Right now this country is engaged in a battle of ideas for Australia’s future. On the one side of this battle we have a vision for Australia’s future which says that, when it comes to economic prosperity, you cannot have economic prosperity and social justice—that these are incompatible. There is another view, another vision—and it is our vision—which says that this nation and this people are at their best when we are a people and a nation committed to building a prosperous nation while at the same time not jettisoning our vision for a fair Australia and a fair society. In an absolute nutshell, that is the divide between us—a view of the world which says it is about ‘me, myself and I’, and an alternative view which says that we are about an Australia which, sure, recognises that individual hard work, achievement and success are to be encouraged and rewarded but which says at the same time that we cannot turn a blind eye to the interests of our fellow human beings who are not doing well. That has been the divide between us for a century and remains the divide between us today.

Ideas in politics are important. They in fact affect everything that we do. They shape our vision of what it is possible for the government to do for the nation. They shape the concrete dimensions of policies which are brought forth in this chamber. Ideas shape the content of legislation. They shape everything that is done in this place, and that is why on this occasion it is important to revisit what actually divides us. What are our different views of the role of government and society? What are our different views of what the state can do to help human beings? This divide between us is fundamental to the debate that we are going to have in the year ahead. It is a debate which also impacts fundamentally on the interests of Australian families.

But what are the values which the Liberals stand for? They talk about liberty, they talk about security and they also talk about opportunity, and all that is fair and fine—we do not have a problem with that. But what we add to this fabric of values is a view that you can do that and still have the parallel values of equity, of sustainability and of compassion. In fact, it is time to rehabilitate the word ‘compassion’ into our national vocabulary. Compassion is not a dirty word. Compassion is not a sign of weakness. In my view, compassion in politics and in public policy is in fact a hallmark of great strength. It is a hallmark of a society which has about it a decency which speaks for itself. For us in the Labor movement from which we proudly come and have come this last century, these values of security, liberty and opportunity are not incompatible with equity, with sustainability and with compassion, because that in our view is what the Australian people are about as well.

The Australian people are a decent bunch. When you talk to Australians around the world, they cannot help but be engaged in the interests of other people. Australians are not by their nature a selfish mob. The Australian people are deeply concerned about the wellbeing of others. What we have seen instead on the other side of politics is an attempt to corral that basic decency of Australians into an alternative vision for the country’s future—a vision which simply legitimises a doctrine of ‘me, myself and I’; a doctrine which says that we as a country can only be about the aggregation of personal greed. That is what it is about. They try to make you feel good about the fact that that is what you are on about. I think that is a great tragedy of the way in which this government has attempted to shape this country over the last decade.

The great danger that we face with the modern face of liberalism, this modern Liberal Party, is that it is not the Liberal Party of old. If you go back and read what Bob Menzies had to say about social responsibility and social justice, there is no way that Bob Menzies would fit into the world view that we are now being offered. You see, the member for Kooyong recently delivered a speech on Bob Menzies’ legacy within the Liberal Party on these questions of social responsibility. It is quite clear when you read that clearly that there has been an ocean of change between that Liberal Party and what it stood for, despite our criticisms of it and our disagreements with it at the time, and the market fundamentalism which has overtaken the current Liberal Party.

We have seen this complete right-wing takeover of modern liberalism, and it is an ugly spectacle to behold. It is in its essence about everything being an economic commodity. It is about everything being about the triumph of the markets. It even says that, when it comes to commodities, human beings are no more important than any other economic commodity. That is ultimately the view. If you want to go back to basic philosophical premises here, that is where we part company.

We as a movement for more than 100 years have said that human beings have about themselves an intrinsic dignity; it does not need to be explained. Because of that intrinsic dignity, humans are deserving of fundamental protections inside the workplace and beyond the workplace. Our opponents have come from a different view. When you strip their tradition back to its absolute philosophical core, it says that human beings are of no greater worth than any other economic commodity in the marketplace. You see that writ large in the pages of the industrial relations legislation that they have brought into this parliament.

Of course, it gets very practical and very meaty indeed when we see this visited on families, when we see this visited upon how families are supposed to have their life and being. I listened very carefully to what the Prime Minister had to say in response to questions yesterday and today about the impact of Work Choices on Australian family life. The Prime Minister is uncomfortable with these questions. He knows what they go to.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Andrews interjecting

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and International Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And I do not think the minister at the table should laugh at this, because he comes from a tradition which is respectful of this—and that tradition says that human beings in families are such a basic social institution that they deserve special protections. When you instead have a set of laws which says that you can be told to work at any time of the day, at any place and for virtually whatever rate of pay, that your hours can include weekends or whatever and that you can have your shifts and rosters changed at a moment’s notice, just pause for a moment. Let us think through where that all goes in terms of the impact on working families.

Let us pretend for a moment that we are not in this place. Let us imagine ourselves in the suburbs of Brisbane, in Wagga, in Perth—out there in any place in the country right now—with our families, trying to plan our weekend ahead. Put yourself in that position. Can I predict now that I will be able take the kids to soccer on Saturday morning? Can I predict ahead even—if I am a churchgoer—that we can go to church together on Sunday morning? Can I predict ahead that I can be at home on Saturday night for dinner with my family? Can I predict in any way anything that makes it possible for me to preserve my family life?

It is not an accident—and the minister at the table should reflect on this—that the Catholic Church has come out so strongly on this question. The Catholic Church does not come out and cheer for the Labor Party every day of the week; we know that. But, when you strip this back, it is about what happens to families. When you analyse it carefully, it is about a family’s ability to stay together and have time together. We all know, with our fractured lives in this place, how difficult it becomes when we as human beings cannot spend time with one another. However, the problem is that these industrial relations laws now set that disease in place right across the nation in every workplace, in every part of the country. What I fear most of all is the ultimate impact of this on the fabric of Australian family life. This country has been made great through the solidity of our families for its more than two centuries of European settlement and the honour in which families were held in the period beyond European settlement.

When I ask questions today in this place about family values and the self-proclaimed party of family values, I am serious about it, because I believe that this party in government has lost its own origins on this question. Menzies would never have legislated this. Menzies would never have the gall to legislate this. Menzies would have recognised that there is such a great breach in the social contract involved in this legislation that he could never have done it.

We offer a different set of values for Australia’s future. The government, at its essentials, is ‘me, myself and I’. As for us, we believe that there is a central place for the market. The market is a wonderful, creative and innovative thing in the economy and it produces unprecedented wealth. But we have also come from a tradition that says the free market has its limitations. There are such things as market failure. There are such things as public goods, like education and like health. There are also fundamental protections for human beings and families, who should be protected from the market.

The bogus proposition, which has been put by those opposite for over a decade or so now, is that somehow we from the Centre Left of politics in this country and around the world have been disoriented by the fall of the Iron Curtain. Our movement for a century fought against Marxism, if you bother to read your history. We have had nothing to do with Marxism and madness. We have always seen our role as what we can do to civilise the market. That is where we come from as a tradition. Why do you think Keynes and the rest of them were called upon to try to save market capitalism from itself after the Great Depression? Because social democrats believed that you had to have constraints placed around the market, otherwise it becomes too destructive indeed.

So, when it comes to our Labor values of equity, sustainability and compassion, we do not just believe that these in themselves are self-evident and worthy of being pursued; we also hold that they are values necessary to enhance the market itself. If we do not take sustainability and climate change seriously, what will happen to the future of the market economy? Sustainability is a core Labor value. It is also one that goes amidships into the agenda of the global market economy. If we do not rescue this planet from itself in terms of the damage being done to it by unrestrained market capitalism, let me tell you: the entire market system ultimately will fragment. That is the tradition we have come from proudly for 100 years.

Labor’s message then is this: we believe in a strong economy; we believe also in a fair go for all, not just for some. That is Labor’s message in a nutshell. When it comes to fairness, a fair go, some people think that this just mysteriously grew out of the soil one day in Australia. Do you know that it did not? Our movement etched it into the Australian soul through the 19th century and the 20th century. If you read the history of 19th century Australia, you will not see much about a fair go; there is nothing about fairness. With our industrial movement—which has been so criticised by those opposite today—and with our political movement from the 1890s on, we took fairness and a sense of the fair go, we won political office, we obtained concessions in the workplace and we entrenched fairness in the statutes of the nation. We etched the fair go also into Australia’s consciousness, our political consciousness. It is our legacy to the nation—a legacy that the current government seeks to peel apart bit by bit, step by step and piece of legislation by piece of legislation.

We want a strong economy based on nation building. In the days ahead—and in the weeks and months ahead as well—we will outline new and additional proposals about how we can do that better. But we will also be advancing proposals about how we intend to build and entrench our notion of a fair society, because these things travel in tandem. Those opposite have asked why we have raised federalism and questions on health in this parliament. There is no greater touchstone for the whole debate about fairness than health and hospitals. In the days ahead, you are going to see much more on this—and in the weeks and months ahead as well—because we believe that this is essential to any effective policy of fairness for our country.

So the battlelines are drawn in this great battle of ideas between us. In the 10 days or so ahead, when we leave this place, I will be travelling the country, taking this message out. This is not just a battle for ideas; it is a battle on the ground as well. I say to those opposite: we intend to prevail in this battle of ideas, on the ground, right through to the next election. We intend to prevail.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

May I take the opportunity to congratulate the member for Griffith, Mr Rudd, on his elevation to the position of Leader of the Opposition and also the member for Lalor on her elevation to the position of Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps that is where the niceties end. That was quite a dissertation invoking Keynes, Menzies and the fall of communism, but what the people of Australia really want to hear are some rock-solid commitments about how their lives would be improved should, in that dark hour, there be a change of government.

The matter of public importance put forward in this chamber today by the member for Griffith concerns ‘the federal government’s failure to take responsibility for building a strong economy while providing fairness for all, not just some, Australians’. Keynes and the fall of communism, obviously in the mind of the member for Griffith, have a significant role to play in that. Let us talk about fairness—fairness that starts with the opportunity for an individual to get a job; fairness that starts with the opportunity for an individual to take control of his life, to set it on a particular path and to deliver real and significant outcomes for his family. Fairness starts with a strong economy and a safe society. It cuts to the very fabric of what we are as Australians. We should ensure that our economy remains strong and that our society remains safe so that we can inoculate this generation and the generations that follow us from what could be very significant influences from outside that are often uncontrollable.

The member for Griffith raised the issue of our record, so let us talk about our record. In our view, fairness is about reducing the Australian government debt, which was $96 billion when we came into government. Today we have zero net debt. Average mortgage rates for the everyday Australian—there are no average Australians, but everyday Australians—averaged 12.75 per cent under Labor. Today they average 7.15 per cent under the coalition. Let us talk about small business lending rates—small business being the engine room of the Australian economy. There are nearly two million small businesses working hard every day to help to grow Australia’s output. The average small business lending rate under Labor was 14.25 per cent. Today it is 8.8 per cent.

We come to the crux of the issue: Australians at work. The unemployment rate under the Labor Party averaged 8.2 per cent. Today it is 4.6 per cent—the lowest level of unemployment in 30 years. I make the point that it does not matter who is in government—it does not matter whether you are a trade union leader or a trade union official; no government and no trade union can guarantee an individual a job. Only economic prosperity can guarantee jobs. Only a strong economy can guarantee jobs. When the Labor Party was in government, in 1992—they had control of the parliament and their union mates were all-powerful—with all the power of the legislature they could not stop nearly one million Australians from being unemployed. All the power of the Labor Party is not matched by the rhetoric. That is because they cannot deliver on their rhetoric. The delivery has to come in real and tangible benefits for the Australian people. The number of long-term unemployed averaged 197,000 under the Labor Party. Today that number averages 91,200, even after the population has grown. The average rate of inflation—the curse, the evil that cuts to the core; inflation is like a cancer on the economy—under Labor was 5.2 per cent. Under the coalition it is 2.5 per cent.

If you want to benchmark Australia against the rest of the world, against the OECD, the developed nations, in 1995 we were ranked 13th by the OECD in terms of quality of life; today we are ranked No. 8. Household wealth is one of the fundamental questions. Real net household wealth has more than doubled under the coalition since 1996. So today Australians are richer, they have greater opportunities for jobs and, importantly, they have greater choice. As a nation we are exporting more than ever—$164 billion a year compared to $99 billion when we came to government. At a micro level, what does that mean? It means that you have to have industrial change, workplace change, in order to deliver the reforms that will give you a strong economy, that will give you job security, that will help to increase your real net wealth and that will give families greater choice in the opportunities they seek for their children and for the generations beyond. If you were to cut to what it means at a local level, you need look no further than the first round of industrial relations changes, and the most controversial in the view of the Labor Party, which were the changes to the waterfront. Crane movements per hour in March 1996 were 16.9 cranes. After our reforms—this is as of today—they are 28 movements per hour, nearly double.

Rod Sawford (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is the cost of that?

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The cost of that is minimal compared to the real benefit to Australian workers—

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Adams interjecting

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Lyons!

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and the real benefit to Australian families. Today in question time, when I stood up and pointed out that the Australian government, through Centrelink and Medicare, distributes $50,000 a minute, every minute of every hour of every day to Australian families, I did so bearing in mind that the record level of expenditure for Australian families is at a time when the unemployment rate is at its lowest level for 30 years.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Adams interjecting

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Lyons is warned.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are more Australians in work; the real net worth of Australians is at its highest level ever, almost double that under the Labor Party; and Australians have higher real net wages, which have grown by 16.4 per cent in the 10 years we have been in government compared with going backwards under the 13 years of Labor. Real wages for workers went backwards under Labor. Under the coalition, over 10 years, a shorter period of time, real wages for workers have increased by 16.4 per cent. These are real net wages, not gross. So I say to the Labor Party that it does not matter what Keynes said, it does not even matter what our beloved Sir Robert Menzies said and it does not matter about the fall of Communism or the Berlin Wall. For Australians looking forward those things do not matter. What matters is the individuals and their capacity to choose how they can lead their lives.

The Liberal and National parties believe in choice. The Liberal and National parties believe that we should empower individuals so they can choose how to lead their lives and raise their children and so they can choose and shape their destinies without the central control of the parliament, of the executive, in their everyday lives. We believe that the parliament and the executive should provide a safety net, but that safety net should never become a cargo net from which Australian families can never escape.

We should never allow the so-called welfare safety net or the industrial relations safety net to close down the choices that individuals have. The member for Griffith in his address said that the new Work Choices legislation is somehow disenfranchising individuals, somehow taking away their basic rights and ‘removing fairness’ from their lives. Let me tell you what fairness is; let me tell you what choice is. These are real workers, the people I tend to speak to. In Port Macquarie 70 workers were able to negotiate an agreement that took the seasonal nature out of their work and provided them with permanent part-time work. Importantly, they were able to convert casual pay rates into their existing agreement. Do you know what that meant, Mr Deputy Speaker? That meant that, for the first time under our Work Choices legislation, those individuals were able to take a contract down to the bank and borrow some money so that they could buy a house for their families.

In Tamworth we met a truck driver who had signed up to an AWA. The agreement allowed him to spend more time with his 13-year-old daughter during the week. The truck driver pointed out that, for the first time, he was going to a school concert organised by his daughter. Why was he able to do that? He could do that because, under a new AWA, he had that choice.

In Cairns I met a sugar mill operator who has a worker who cuts the grass at the sugar mill. The mill operator said that the worker came up to him and said: ‘Can I have one of those AWAs, because I’m involved in the hospitality industry and my wife’s involved in the hospitality industry, and she starts work two days a week at 6 am. I would like to be able to spend more time with my family; can I start work at 6 am?’ Under the old agreement that worker would have been paid 1½ to two times more to start work at 6 o’clock. He would have been in breach of the agreement and, therefore, the sugar mill operator said: ‘I’m going to give you an AWA and you can work whenever you want. I know when the grass is cut.’ That is real choice for that family, delivered by Work Choices.

In Townsville I met an electrician who was able to spend a bit more time working on Saturdays, without the employer having to pay 1½ times or double time, and get home earlier during the week so that he could see his kids play sport. The fear of the employers had been that, whenever they negotiated these sorts of family flexible arrangements, they would end up having to pay 1½ or double time for overtime or weekend work. Under the new Work Choices legislation, choice is in the hands of the workers. They are able to spend more time with their families.

I will continue. In Launceston the member for Deakin, the member for Bass and I came across these examples all the time. We went to an industrial manufacturing firm where the workers had all gone onto AWAs. The AWAs had increased their personal leave from 10 days to 15 days per annum, and it allowed employees working overtime to have it paid as wages after 12 weeks or have it put into their superannuation, or they could take it off as time in lieu. So, under the new arrangements—

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

Mr Hayes interjecting

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Werriwa is out of his seat!

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They do not like hearing these examples; these are real workers that they do not like hearing about, Mr Deputy Speaker. In Launceston these workers in an industrial manufacturing plant actually have the opportunity to do overtime, accrue it after 12 weeks and then have a longer annual holiday with their families or take days off to go to the school concert or pick up the kids after school or have a picnic with the family during the week during the school holidays. That is the flexibility that delivers real family friendly outcomes.

Giving people choice is fundamental to individuals and to what we in the Liberal and National parties believe in. They have no choice if they are unemployed. They have no choice if there is a weak economy. They have no choice if there is a ‘recession we have to have’. They get choice if we have a strong economy. They get choice if we have low unemployment. They get choice if there is funding for health, education and child care at record levels. The families of Australia have more choice than ever because the Howard government is the most family friendly government that Australia has ever had.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me echo the words of the Leader of the Opposition: Australians want some very simple things from government and it is etched into our national consciousness—and that is the Australian ‘fair go’. Australians want fairness at work and fairness beyond. I agree wholeheartedly with the Prime Minister: fairness does start with getting a job and with having reasonable access to a job. But it does not end there. That is what this government does not understand.

Getting a job and having fair access to getting a job is of course crucial to our society. It is crucial to individual dignity, it is crucial to giving people choices about their lives and it is crucial to their social participation in our society. But fairness does not end there. It is also about how you are treated when you walk in the doors of your workplace. It is about whether you can walk in and know that you will be treated with simple dignity and respect by your employer, whether you will be treated as an equal and whether you will be able to look your employer in the eye, safe in the knowledge that the law provides you sufficient protections so that you do not need to be fearful. You do not need to be fearful about losing conditions that you have enjoyed in the past. You do not need to be fearful about what is going to be in your pay packet in the future. You do not need to be fearful about losing your job entirely and having no remedy once it is lost. You do not need to fear those things, because the law has put around you a safety net which means that fear does not have to rage through you. That is what the Howard government forgets. It says that fairness is about getting a job but it forgets about fairness when you are in that job. It most particularly forgets about fairness beyond.

As I said, I do not think the wants and needs of Australians are all that complicated. Beyond fairness at work, they want to know that their kids go to a great school. They want to know that in a time of illness or crisis for them or for a family member there would be a hospital that they could rely on to meet their needs. They want to know that we live in a safe country and that they can move about it freely and without fear. The tragedy is that, after more than 10 years of this government, if we look at its track record against the simple wants and aspirations of Australians, it is a failure. This country is less safe than it was as a result of the Howard government. This country is less safe because of the government’s foreign policy; it is less safe because of the way the government has conducted itself on the world stage.

The schools in our society are now at a stage where people fear that they are not giving kids the best possible start in life. I am the product of a state school system. I went to state schools at every level and, courtesy of the Whitlam government, I then went to university and obtained two degrees. I fear that it is harder today for a girl from a working-class family to make that journey than when I was young. I fear that that is the case. It is an unbelievably dim thing to say about your nation that opportunities for boys and girls from working families have actually diminished in the time since I was young and at school, and they have substantially diminished during the life of the Howard government.

When it comes to a particular passion of mine over the last few years, the health system, things have certainly diminished in a way which is a cause for concern for all Australians. The real tragedy here is that things have happened not as a result of economic crises or as a need to tighten belts in a time of economic recession but in a time of prosperity. We have and currently continue to enjoy what the member for Lilley has described as the modern-day equivalent of a gold rush—that is what the resources boom is. It has brought us great wealth and great prosperity, as has the opening up of this economy through the reforms which were hard fought for in the Hawke and Keating years.

What this government has failed to realise for more than a decade is that it is in the most prosperous of times that you make the investments for the future. It is in the most prosperous of times that you do the reforms that will ensure that your society, its schools, its hospitals and its other institutions are robust enough to sustain the difficult times which inevitably, at some point in the future, will come. This government has squandered the opportunity to invest and reform. What we need now is a government that is prepared to do just that.

This is a government that has grown tired. This is a government that has grown stale. This is a government that has grown arrogant. Even its best friends would concede that it is a government whose best days are behind it, not in front of it. The road for the Howard government is inexorably downwards. For Labor, the road is inexorably upwards, because we will be contesting at the next election on the basis of who has the new energy, the new vision, the new ideas and the new style of leadership to make sure that the reforms that this country needs actually happen. In that contest of ideas, which the Leader of the Opposition has referred to, the Howard government cannot have a winning place because people will look at its track record and they will say: ‘If those reforms were going to be made, why haven’t they done it already? Where is the start? Where is the enthusiasm? Where is the passion? Where is the vision?’ What they will see is the same old faces looking more tired, looking older, looking more stale and certainly looking no longer to have a vision for this country.

When we look at our healthcare system as an example of the kind of reform that this government has failed to deal with, we see a system that is riddled with contradictions. On the one hand, we live in a nation where a scientist has invented the cervical cancer vaccine, a medical miracle that is going to be made available to women and girls that will mean that women in future generations who sit in this parliament will have 70 per cent lower cervical cancer rates than the women who sit in this parliament today; on the other hand, we have pensioners taking their teeth out with pliers after a couple of glasses of alcohol because they cannot get access to a public dental system—a contradiction writ large, and a contradiction that does not seem to trouble the conscience of the Howard government. Well, it troubles my conscience, and I think it troubles the consciences of most Australians. They would like to be barracking for this country and saying, ‘Isn’t it fabulous; we’ve got world-class scientists,’ but I think they would like to be barracking for this country too and saying, ‘Isn’t it fabulous that we treat our elderly Australians with the dignity and respect which means that, if they need something done to their teeth, they can get it done, and they don’t need to go home, get the pliers out of the hardware drawer and do it themselves.’

If we are going to achieve that health care system, it is not just about showing more care and concern, though that is certainly needed; it is about showing the political will to reform our federation to make sure that the changes that our healthcare system needs to be sustainable for the future are made—and made now. There is probably only one smart thing that the Minister for Health and Ageing, Tony Abbott, ever said, and I am going to recount it now to the House. It is not often you can say that about Tony. He said: ‘The truth is that sooner or later there is going to have to be one level of government in charge of health. In reality, it is almost certainly going to have to be the federal government.’ That is not the only road to health reform, but at least there was a moment when the minister for health was prepared to talk about health reform. But the moment has come and gone. He no longer talks about health reform because he has been slapped down by his Prime Minister.

We on this side of the House have the reform zeal and the new ideas to know that, if we are going to have a great health system in 10, 20 and 30 years, we need to be brave enough to reform it and to reform the federal-state arrangements around it. That is what the Leader of the Opposition means when he talks about federalism. That is what he means when he talks about a new agenda, and that is an agenda for Australians for the future. (Time expired)

Bruce Baird (Cook, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I congratulate the new Leader of the Opposition and Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I hear from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that the road for Labor is inexorably up, undoubtedly leading to the bridge too far. It is particularly interesting to listen to the rhetoric that we have from the two new leaders opposite. We have this whole rhetoric that we are all Adam Smith ideologues, that the Keynesians from the past have gone and that Adam Smith and Edmund Burke have taken off in terms of economic fundamentalism. But what is the reality of the situation? The Weekend Australian, in its editorial, had this to say:

Labor’s narrative to date has been that Mr Howard is a throwback to the 1950s, an idealogue who lacks social compassion and has cut deeply into welfare and Australia’s social institutions.

That is what we heard today from the members of the opposition. The editorial in the Australian said:

Nothing could be further from the truth. According to the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling, Australians across the spectrum have prospered during the Howard years and middle-income earners have done substantially better than those at the top. NATSEM’s benchmark study of the Howard decade of income growth from wages, tax and welfare changes shows that, on average, Australians are earning 25 per cent more than they were 10 years ago. The federal Government’s doubling of its spending on family assistance to $28 billion has helped boost incomes and ensured that Australia is no less equal than it was a decade ago.

This is from the Australian editorial last weekend. It says:

According to Access Economics—

always the natural economists of choice for those opposite—

people are paying less in income tax than at any time in almost 25 years, and the average wealth of those aged 45 to 74 years doubled between 1986 and 2001.

It concludes that section by saying:

Unemployment at 4.6 per cent is half the level of when Labor left office, productivity has surged, there has been a boom in job creation and home mortgage rates now stand at 7.8 per cent, down from 10.5 per cent in 1996.

That is the Australian editorial. So much for the rhetoric; this is what an independent source says about how fair the Australian government has been, and this government has certainly shown that.

It is interesting, by the way, that you never find the members opposite talking about—and certainly today you did not hear the Leader of the Opposition or the Deputy Leader of the Opposition talk about—people who are out of work. They only talk about those who are in work, but the reality is that fairness starts with a job. Certainly I know that that is what the member for Deakin believes, as he says to other people in his electorate. With all the regulations that the Labor Party imposed when they were in government, there were over one million people out of jobs. Compare this to the situation that we have today, where we have a 16.4 per cent increase in the income and wages levels of average Australians—I emphasise 16.4 per cent—and we have a total of 1.9 million new jobs created under this government. We are talking about fairness. If fairness relates to creating new jobs, this government has certainly proven itself to be the fairest government we have seen in many decades. The reality is that 165,000 new jobs have been created just since we introduced the new Work Choices regulations and legislation. In comparison, the average is 50,000 jobs a year over the past 20 years. So we have a real comparison of what fairness is all about.

The opposition talks about the economy and how we have mismanaged it. The terms of the debate that we have today from the opposition are:

The Federal Government’s failure to take responsibility for building a strong economy while providing fairness for all, not just some, Australians.

What is the truth of the matter? Let us look at some of the key criteria, as you would judge an economy. The current government has restored Australia’s AAA credit rating—under Labor this rating was downgraded twice—and this is the hallmark of strong economic management. We have had 15 years of economic growth. If members opposite want to talk about economic fundamentalism, perhaps they would like to talk about Mr Keating’s move on privatising the Commonwealth Bank and Qantas, deregulating the banking sector economy and floating the dollar—they would call that economic fundamentalism, but those changes assisted growth. Under this government we have had continued and strong economic growth. We have been through the worst drought in recorded history, the 2001 recession in the US and the 1997 Asian financial crisis, and still the economy remains strong. In contrast, what did Labor give us? The 1990s ‘recession we had to have’.

We have had nine surplus budgets compared with Labor’s nine deficits in 13 years, with $69 billion of deficits in the last five years. We have repaid $96 billion of the debt accumulated by the previous government. As I said, real wages have increased by 16.4 per cent. Under Labor, real wages fell by 0.2 per cent. Tax reform has been generous and the government has cut personal income tax to the tune of $83.8 billion. What was the situation under Labor? They promised us ‘l-a-w’ tax cuts. Instead, in 1983, Labor increased every rate of wholesales sales tax and increased petrol taxes. Talk about fairness! Is that fair? I do not think so. Talk about a fair go for average Australians: it fails on every test.

There have been 1.9 million jobs created since March 1996. Unemployment peaked at 10.9 per cent in 1992 under the previous government with over 900,000 Australians unemployed. We have delivered low inflation. Inflation is currently sitting at 3.9 per cent. Under Labor inflation peaked at a staggering 11.1 per cent and averaged 5.2 per cent.

Mortgage rates are currently 8.05 per cent and have averaged 7.18 per cent since the coalition was elected. This is down from 10.5 per cent when Labor left office. This represents a $1,000 interest saving on the average new mortgage compared with the average mortgage interest rates under Labor. As we know, under Labor interest rates peaked at 17 per cent and averaged 12.75 per cent.  Was it a fair go for Australians when interest rates hit 17 per cent? I do not think so. Under this government, savings for the average household represent $1,000 on the average new mortgage.

Real household wealth has more than doubled since 1996, increasing by nine per cent each year. Australian households now have around $6 in assets for every $1 in debt. Under Labor, real net household wealth increased by only 2.9 per cent per annum. Was that fair? I do not think so.

Labor has opposed us at every step, at every reform that the government has introduced. The Leader of the Opposition claims that we are not providing for all Australians, but the evidence simply does not add up. We have the lowest unemployment rate for 30 years. We have created all these additional jobs. Wages have gone up by 16.4 per cent. Average disposable income for all Australians grew by 21 per cent. Yet the real income of lower income households grew by 22 per cent over this period compared to only 19 per cent for higher income households.

The facts are there for all to see. This government has managed the economy well and strongly. The result is that all Australians are the beneficiaries of this in income, low inflation, interest rates and growth in their own personal wealth. We have had an old throwback from dark Keynesian days that this is the way to go, claiming that we are part of some economic fundamentalism. In fact, this government is the only government to show real compassion. (Time expired)

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The key words in this matter of public importance are ‘fairness for all, not just some’ and the need for ‘a strong economy’. Most of us would agree that in certain areas the government has worked well in terms of a strong economy. I would like to relate those words specifically to the wheat industry, particularly to a question I asked of the Deputy Prime Minister today and more importantly to the answer that was given. At the heart of this matter, for the future of the wheat industry we require fairness for all and not just for some. Obviously, the wheat industry is a very important part of not only the agriculture sector but also our economy. Even though many people downplay the contribution that agriculture makes to the prosperity of this nation, it is still a very important ingredient in our national economy and is very important if we are to maintain a strong economy.

In relating the MPI to the wheat industry, I was extremely disappointed in the answer that the Deputy Prime Minister gave to the House today. He said this morning at a press conference that we must remember that the wheat growers themselves are the important ingredient—‘Let’s not forget the wheat growers’—and I agree with him on that particular issue. In March this year in Warracknabeal, Victoria, at a rally about the future of the single desk and the wheat industry, the Deputy Prime Minister gave a commitment to the wheat growers present—and I agreed with him and praised him in the House at the time. He said to the people who attended that rally that, if any changes were to take place in the export marketing arrangements, there would be a poll of registered wheat growers.

Michael Thomson from the Land has been one of the few people pursuing that issue, and I congratulate him on it, because I think he has picked up on wheat growers wanting to be part of the process. The Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister in their press conference before question time today highlighted the changes in the veto arrangements and, essentially, the transfer of control of the industry to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry for a six-month period whilst the future of the Wheat Board and the single desk arrangement is determined. I think I heard the voice of Michael Thomson—that lone voice in the agricultural press—asking the question again about a poll of growers on the future of their industry. The Prime Minister virtually denounced the concept and said, ‘We don’t run the place by poll; we don’t take advice from people; we are a government that makes decisions for those people.’ I think that again goes to the point of fairness for all and not just for some. Who are all those people that the Prime Minister will be making those decisions for, when he has not in fact asked the growers what their views are on the various options?

There will be a number of options and there should be a number of options. I agreed with the Prime Minister in question time today when he said—and I do not want to verbal  him—that people who believe there will not be any changes in the Australian Wheat Board are living in fairyland. Obviously there will be, but the people who should be privy to those changes and part of the decision-making process are the wheat growers.

The Deputy Prime Minister has gone off on a convoluted path by suggesting that he will consult with the peak bodies in the wheat industry—those that supposedly represent the wheat grower. I presume that those peak bodies that he and the government will take advice from will be the National Farmers Federation and the Grains Council of Australia. If you consider their track record of recent years and how they represent country people on particular issues then this should be of concern to their constituents. You have only to look at the contribution the former President of the National Farmers Federation, Peter Corish, made on Telstra when it was obvious that his constituent base was not in favour of the sale. When ethanol was being debated, the Grains Council of Australia were more concerned about the motorists of Australia having choice than about the constituents—the growers—that they were supposed to represent. As a grower, I would be greatly concerned if those two organisations represented the industry that the government and the Deputy Prime Minister are going to listen to when making determinations.

I believe the suggestion that I made in question time today—and it does not remove the right of government to make decisions—increases the opportunity for the government to make the correct decision that puts in place a system that best represents the growers. When the various options from the industry groups and individuals—whether they be part of the growing sector or part of the marketing sector—are proposed to the government, those options should be sent in writing to each grower and those growers should be polled on their views on the future of their industry so that they can have a one-to-one contribution. Many of those people are not members of the National Farmers Federation or its constituent bodies, they have no relationship to the Grains Council of Australia and they are not going to be considered if the Deputy Prime Minister goes back on his word, as he gave it in Victoria, and says: ‘We will just listen to the industry groups. We will consult with industry groups.’ I think that is a massive cop-out and a quite pathetic backdown from the Deputy Prime Minister. Why shouldn’t the wheat growers have their say?

The New South Wales Farmers Association yesterday sent an open letter to all members of parliament. Jock Laurie, the president, said:

The Association has publicly welcomed recent comments by Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile that the grain industry will be consulted, and we encourage the Federal Government to include the grain producing public—

the grain-producing public?—

in its definition of the grain industry throughout this decision making process.

I suggest to Jock Laurie that he is halfway there. But if these people are representing the growers—the grain-producing public—I would say that, rather than encouraging the government, they should be demanding that government consult with the individual growers. The Wheat Marketing Act was constructed for the growers. In any changes that are contemplated—and, as I said, I would not remove the right of government to make a decision that is contrary to what growers are saying—I would suggest that government consult with those people about the future of their industry so that we do not get a situation developing where it is fairness for some and not for all. If the National Farmers Federation, the Grains Council of Australia and the New South Wales Farmers Association are to be seen as the arbiters of grower opinion, I think a much fairer way and a much more productive way would be for the parliament to obtain the view of growers so that the cabinet can make a decision based on what the wheat growers want for their future.

I urge the Deputy Prime Minister to show some spine on this issue—not to be big in the country when he is in Victoria and then, when he returns to Canberra, be just a puppet for the Liberal Party. Let us stand up for the people whom we as country members are supposed to be representing and let them have a true say in determining the future of their industry. (Time expired)

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The discussion is concluded.