Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I continue my contribution to the address-in-reply. The second priority issue raised by GetUp! is making high-quality primary, secondary and tertiary public education accessible to all Australians. GetUp! wants public education at all levels to be both world class and affordable. That means more funding to provide better trained and better paid professional teachers at all levels and ensuring the universal availability of edu-cation. It says it wants teachers to be better paid, the national curriculum more broad based and class sizes smaller. I note some recent survey work which suggests that perhaps the better pay issue might prove to be more important than smaller class sizes.

The third issue raised by GetUp! relates to respecting the rights and improving the living standards of Indigenous Australians. GetUp! wants the new parliament to address Indigenous issues in both a symbolic and a practical way, seeing the two as intertwined and mutually dependent. I think that is spot on. It expects parliament to make it an urgent priority to close the 17-year life expectancy gap and to make vast improvements to health, education, housing and other areas to improve the living standards of Indigenous communities. It has a couple of quotes. Firstly:

No Australian citizen should be living in third world conditions in a first world country.

Secondly:

It sends fundamental moral and ideological messages to inhabitants of this country and to the rest of the world about how we think about ourselves and treat all our citizens.

As well as those three priority issues, GetUp! identified seven other issues to round up a top 10. No. 4 was making high-quality, prevention focused health care accessible to all, putting an end to the federal-state blame game, and also seeking to address the private-public health care disparity. No. 5 was combating entrenched poverty and narrowing the divide between the rich and the poor, with affordable housing being a focus. No. 6 was withdrawing the troops from Iraq and urging the United States to change its approach to the ‘war on terror’. It said:

We want Australia to be a good global citizen ... We would prefer our resources be put into increasing our foreign aid as a percentage of GDP and working multilaterally to decrease global poverty. We expect future potential conflicts, such as Iran, to be resolved through the United Nations, not unilaterally.

I read another quote:

The current approach of the US in its war on terror is an absolute disaster for world peace, the lives of citizens and soldiers and human rights.

Issue No. 7 was protecting our human rights and civil liberties. It is looking for equal rights and recognition of same-sex couples and for protections to extend to Indigenous people, asylum seekers and refugees, and the disenfranchised. No. 8 was improving community infrastructure and planning. GetUp! said:

We want our taxes spent on community infrastructure and planning that improves and sustains our way of life. We want serious investment in public transport to both ease our environmental burden and allow equitable access to services for all—and we want support for it at a federal level.

Issue No. 9 was the protection of workers’ rights. It said:

We want WorkChoices to be repealed as soon as possible, and in a comprehensive manner. We want fairness restored to employee/employer relationships—fair pay, fair protections from unfair dismissal and safe working conditions for all workers. The right to collectively bargain for conditions the majority of workers want should be restored.

Finally, there was strengthening our democracy. GetUp! said:

We need reforms to strengthen our democratic processes that increase government accountability and transparency. We want Freedom of Information laws brought to the highest international standards and steps taken to protect whistleblowers.

It said we should restore political integrity and dramatically reduce the threshold for political donations and that bodies, such as the ABC and CSIRO, should be depoliticised. I think this is a very commendable set of propositions and priorities, but the more important thing is not so much whether or not I or other individual members of parliament agree with each of them but the fact that there has been a very constructive and creative process gone through by GetUp! involving tens of thousands Australians in thinking about the kind of country in which we live and the kind of country which we hand on to our children.

I indicated in my opening remarks that we live in a time of big challenges. We have had discussions about global warming, and I certainly hope that we have more discussions about global warming. There is no doubt in my mind that it is a show stopper. The amount of carbon that we have managed to put into the atmosphere in the last couple of hundred years has changed the earth’s climate and is continuing to change the earth’s climate. The increased frequency and severity of floods, droughts, bushfires and storms will be no good for Australia and will have very deleterious impacts in other parts of the world. When we think about the melting of the polar caps, rising sea levels and the threat to the Great Barrier Reef from coral bleaching as a result of warmer water temperatures, increased typhoons, cyclones and hurricanes—the severity of those things—it is clear to me that action is needed urgently to deal with it. The proposals that the government has brought forward for international cooperation through the Kyoto protocol, an emissions-trading regime and increasing the renewable energy target are all important initiatives. There is a role for the whole community in doing everything it can at an individual and a collective level to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and to move to more sustainable ways of living.

One of the issues that I think we have failed to pursue adequately, both in Australia and in other countries, is the need to transition out of petrol. A couple of the new members of parliament made reference in their initial speeches to the fact that Australia and, indeed, many other countries have a great reliance and dependence on petrol. We can see the price of petrol rising dramatically but very little is being done to move us to a future in which we should be using other fuels. In Australia we have an LPG distribution system which is quite sophisticated and advanced. I have an LPG car and I have no difficulty finding places to fill it up. Indeed, Australia has great reserves of natural gas located off the North West Shelf. Those reserves of gas could, in my view, be made to serve a domestic Australian automotive industry. It would have major environmental benefits through dramatically reducing the greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles and it would also bring regional development benefits, jobs and reduced prices for motorists. It would give Australia more energy independence instead of being, as we currently are, at the mercy of the international price per barrel of crude oil. Transitioning out of petrol is an important policy area, in my view.

I think we need to do much more by way of skilling young Australians. It is clear that there is a skills crisis and it is clear that it is generating inflationary pressures and pressures on interest rates. I believe that, rather than turning to skilled migration as the way to deal with this, what we should be doing is directly making the investment into educating and training our young Australians. The previous government had a lack of interest in and support for TAFE. They effectively undermined TAFE. We need to see more investment in TAFE colleges, secondary schools and universities to train young Australians and give us the skills to produce the kinds of economic activity which will support our ongoing economic prosperity and wellbeing.

The agenda of the GetUp! people made reference to urban transport, and I want to register my support for that. It is an area that the last federal government had no involvement in whatsoever. The road budget, the AusLink programs, can be used to support urban public transport. When you look at the congestion in my own city of Melbourne and in Sydney and Brisbane, we could do better in terms of the way we move people around. This is from an environmental point of view and also from the point of view of the comfort of those concerned. It is certainly no fun to spend your life on the outer motorway trying to make your way into central Brisbane or other similar locations. This has been an area of neglect and it is something which the federal government could well be doing.

There are important quality of life issues that we have not addressed as well as we should. There seems to be something of an epidemic of mental health issues amongst our young people. It saddens me to see so much depression and anger management problems and body image issues amongst teenagers. We need to look at the causes of these problems and what we as a community can do to assist people who are experiencing mental health problems by tackling the causes and providing better support for them.

There are issues surrounding obesity. It is quite remarkable to hear that we may now be coming to the first generation of Australians who have a lesser life expectancy than the generation before them. We are accustomed to improvements in our health and living standards, yet we have allowed lifestyle issues like diet and exercise to contribute to obesity in a way which is prejudicial to the health of the next generation of Australians. In my view, the obsession of young Australians with the internet and computers and the like contributes to obesity and represents a social problem that we need to recognise and tackle.

There are groups of Australians who have fared poorly under the previous government, and I hope that they will do better during the life of this parliament. There has been a lot said about the Aboriginal people, the Indigenous people, and how they have suffered. What we have seen in the last week has been amazing and wonderful, and I hope it leads to better things for Aboriginal people in the future.

I think our support for and relationships with the people of the Third World need to be better and closer. We can do more in terms of our aid budget and what we do to assist Third World countries, particularly in terms of moving to sustainable energy paths, having regard to the challenge of climate change.

Those opposite always present themselves as the party of small business, but in practice they do nothing for them. What they gave them during the life of the Howard government was red tape and the GST. I think we can do more to support small business, particularly in their dealings with larger business.

Some singles and some older people have not received the sort of support and acknowledgement to which they are entitled, and I hope that they fare better under this government, during the life of this parliament.

Above all else, I hope that we regularly ask ourselves the question: what kind of world are we leaving to our young people? I hope that we resolve that we will not pass on to our young people a country and a world which are in poorer shape than when they were passed on to us.

Margaret May (McPherson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian parliament is the centre of Australia’s democracy, which has been forged over more than a century without bloodshed and without civil wars, just robust campaigns—though some of us would certainly say we endured a civil war in the election campaign and the lead-up to the election on 24 November. Changes in governments are made by the will of the people, and last November we saw a change of government for only the sixth time in 60 years. Unlike the people of so many other countries around the world, we as a people should be proud of our robust and strong democracy and the manner in which we peacefully transition from one government to another—although that does not mean that the change did not bring some sadness to me personally and to many of my colleagues.

My win was bittersweet, with the loss of so many wonderful colleagues who fought the hard fight and have not returned to this place. I am proud of the fact that I was a member of the government that was supported by so many Australian people. Millions of people—in fact around 47 per cent of the Australian people—voted for the return of the Howard government, but sadly not enough. However, as we embark on the 42nd Parliament and we welcome the new members on both sides to this place, it is important that the positive legacies of the Howard government are not forgotten. There is no doubt our history will be debated and written about for years, but I think it is important that the history that is recorded and commented on truly reflects our achievements. The incoming Rudd government certainly has inherited strong foundations on which to build the future achievements of this country, and quite frankly it is time it started building and implementing its policy agenda and stopped the stunts and rhetoric. It is time it moved on. Make no mistake: we will be challenging and questioning as it proceeds to implement its policy agenda and its election promises.

Apart from my very deep disappointment that the Howard government did not get re-elected, I am very proud of being re-elected as the member for McPherson. It is truly an honour and a privilege to, once again, for my fourth term, be representing the people of McPherson. I say to the people of McPherson: I will not let you down. I will remain a strong and demanding advocate to ensure McPherson is not forgotten by the new Labor government and, to that end, I will ensure Labor promises are kept to ensure that our community remains strong and prosperous, older Australians are cared for, our young are given every opportunity to achieve their full potential and business continues to work in a strong economy that will ensure its success.

Not a member of this House was successful at the last election without the help of a strong team of volunteers and supporters—and I am no different. I did not win McPherson on my own. I was helped by many wonderful people who gave their time and energy to ensure we kept McPherson in Liberal hands, and today I want to pay tribute to some particular individuals and say thank you to the hundreds of people who worked on election day manning the booths on what was a very hot day in Queensland. In particular, I want to put on the record my sincere thanks to some very special people. Scott Paterson, my treasurer, had the unenviable task of raising the funds that were needed to mount the campaign. To Scott and his wife, Claudette, I say a very sincere thankyou. I also say thank you to the rest of the team who manned the shopping centres, manned the street stalls, worked in my office, stuffed the envelopes and answered the phones. Karen and Emma Andrews, a wonderful mother and daughter team, were with me every Saturday in shopping centres—and they even dragged along Chris, Karen’s husband, one day. Valerie and Albert Aumann were always there at those shopping centre visits. Thank you to Greer Waters and John Strickland. Sandy Brennan and Michelle Nassoor worked tirelessly on election day delivering the food and drinks to all the workers. Annette and Bruce Poppett—Annette worked in the office and the two of them also delivered food on election day. Helen Mills, a wonderful cook, brought the food into the office to keep the staff going and also delivered food on election day. Anne Philips, a wonderful supporter and volunteer in my office to this day, has been there for a long time and was wonderful on the computer with her data entry, supporting the staff and also working on election day. On election night we needed to feed hundreds of supporters, and I thank Judi and Mike Walsh and Jocelyn and Steve Penwarden for the wonderful effort in cooking the barbecue and feeding hundreds of workers on election night. We were all pretty bruised and battered from a very long day in the sun, and they did a remarkable job. I cannot name all the people who helped us. It was a very tough campaign. We had been on the campaign trail for months. But to all of those who helped—all those Liberal Party branch members and all the supporters from my community—I say a very sincere thankyou.

I would like to reflect on a few of the projects in my electorate that I would like to see committed to by the new Labor government. I was buoyed yesterday to hear the government has announced an infrastructure audit and the establishment of Infrastructure Australia. This is an important step forward in identifying those areas of infrastructure we certainly need—and on the Gold Coast we need roads. The last federal government did make a commitment of $120 million to build the Tugun Bypass, and in the lead-up to the last election day made a commitment of $455 million for the upgrade of the M1. I want to see the commitment to fund the upgrade of the M1 made clear by the new Labor government. The $455 million funding announcement during the campaign was great news for Gold Coast residents. The M1 is the major gateway from northern New South Wales, and we should be driving on the Tugun Bypass, which is nearing completion, by the middle of this year. With the rapidly growing population and the completion of the stadium at Robina, sections of the Pacific Highway will face further congestion and increasing demands well into the future. Funding for this project will meet the challenges and the demands of growth that we are seeing in our city. One of the city’s most pressing road bottlenecks is the M1, and I hope that the new Labor government will match the $455 million funding that we committed to see that that upgrade does take place. I call on the new Labor government to match that funding with Anna Bligh’s state government in Queensland.

I would also like to put on record the success of the Black Spot Program and the Roads to Recovery program, which saw a lot of our local roads upgraded in our city. They were both extremely successful programs. It would be great to see them continue. I think it is important for our local governments to have support from our federal government to meet the demands of cities like the Gold Coast, with its growing population and growing need for those roads to be upgraded.

We just heard from the last speaker, the member for Wills, about the skills shortage in this country, and there is no doubt we are facing a skills shortage. I recently had the pleasure of launching the 2008 academic year for the Gold Coast Australian Technical College. This was committed to by the last federal government. We have opened the doors and I am delighted to say that 150 new students will be going through that new Australian Technical College. The college was announced last year by the former federal government. Of course, it was great news for the young students and for employers in particular on the Gold Coast. It will go a long way to ensuring that those skills shortages that we are facing in our city will be met. The physical building will be completed by the middle of this year and, as I said, it will cater for 150 students who will complete grades 11 and 12 in English, maths, business and information technology.

The campus will provide on-site facilities for the range of crucial trades offered by the college, including commercial cookery, plastering and small group testing in automotive, metal and engineering, building and construction. The students will spend four weeks at the college undertaking academic studies, followed by four weeks in industry off site. This pattern repeats itself for the last two years of the students’ schooling. On completion, the students are then placed in businesses as full-time apprentices. Positions are available to all students on the Gold Coast from both independent and non-independent schools.

I understand the criteria and the competition for entering the college were pretty stiff. I know Mark Hands and his team went through an interview process. They wanted to ensure that the students who were enrolling in the college were committed to what they were doing and committed to their future. I would like to place on record today my best wishes to Mark Hands and to those 150 students I met a couple of weeks ago and wish them every success for the future.

We have heard from the incoming Labor government that the Investing in Our Schools Program will be scrapped. It will be replaced by an education revolution. Schools on the southern Gold Coast will be worse off under Labor’s decision to scrap the successful Investing in Our Schools Program. The Labor government will abolish the $1.2 billion program to pay for its election promise to put computers and trade centres in secondary schools. In the electorate of McPherson, around $1.6 million has been provided through the program to approximately 30 schools to fix projects it decided were a priority. Up to $150,000 in funding was made available to each of these schools to fix everything from run-down toilets and classrooms to funding upgrades of playgrounds and IT equipment. The program has been a huge success in McPherson and, with schoolchildren, P&Cs and the local community enthusiastically getting behind the projects, tangible results have been achieved that advance the education and wellbeing of our young students. Schools such as Burleigh Heads State School, Clover Hill State School and Caningeraba State School—all junior primary schools—received record amounts of funding to fix a lot of problems. School communities on the southern Gold Coast have particularly relied on this funding to make up for state government shortfalls. A strength of the Investing in Our Schools Program has been that the schools themselves identified the projects that would be of most benefit to individual schools, not some bureaucrat in Canberra making blind decisions.

The government’s decision to scrap this incredibly successful program is short-sighted, in my view, and indeed runs counter to their so-called education revolution. Primary schools in McPherson particularly will be hit hard because they will miss out on Labor’s funding for the education revolution, which is particularly for high schools and for the planned trade centres. I do ask: how will primary schools in McPherson address the shortfalls in funding for the infrastructure they so desperately need?

Most people in this place know of my involvement with the Titans Rugby League Football Club. In fact, I was one of those in the original bid teams when we went after the 16th rugby league licence for the Gold Coast city, and we were successful. This year we start with our first game on 14 March in round 1, and we will be playing the Cowboys. So I think we Queenslanders will be barracking one end to the—

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Neumann interjecting

Margaret May (McPherson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No—go the Titans! What will be very exciting for the Titans is that, on 14 March, we will be playing at Skilled Park, our brand-new stadium. There is a very special ceremony happening in April. We actually take on the New Zealand Warriors on the weekend of 25-27 April. At that game we will be stopping and remembering our Anzacs. I think it is fitting that on that weekend we will be planting a lone pine. It will be planted in a place of remembrance that we can use for ceremonies on important days. Of course, most members in this House would know that Lone Pine was the scene of one of the fiercest hand-to-hand battles of World War I and took its name from the single tree left standing after Turkish soldiers had cleared the plateau to make roofs for the trenches. During the withdrawal, a soldier picked up a pine cone, which his aunt then propagated at home in Victoria. Gradually, more trees grown from the original pine were propagated. I want to put on the record today my thanks to Norm Smith. He is one of my Vietnam War veterans. He has been raising a lone pine which will eventually be located outside Skilled Park on that very special April weekend. Thank you, Norm.

Mr Speaker, I note you have just taken the chair. Welcome and congratulations! Last week was Organ Donor Awareness Week, and we celebrated here in the parliament the gift of life. There are in fact 1,875 people who are still waiting for organ transplants in this country. It is very significant that only 198 people signed up last year for organ donation. Those waiting lists keep growing. I would say to all Australians and to the federal government: let us make a massive effort to ensure that Australians are aware of what they have to do to ensure they are on that donor list. In my electorate of McPherson a very special young man received a heart-lung transplant. It turned his life around. Chris Wills now has a life because of the gift of life. I would say to all members in this place:  see what you can do about raising the awareness of organ donation in your electorates.

Security in our communities is also something that really concerns me. My electorate, like many electorates around Australia, has concerns about hooning, graffiti and antisocial behaviour. The advent of CCTV has certainly allowed us to make great steps in ensuring that people in our communities can live safely knowing that those cameras are trained on antisocial people. I say to the incoming Labor government: give some thought to security in our communities and to setting up a fund whereby each of us can identify those areas of concern in our community and ensure that people can live safely and walk our streets knowing that any antisocial behaviour is going to be tracked by CCTV cameras.

In the short time left to me today, I would like to say how proud I am to have been named the shadow minister for ageing. This is an area that has been of particular interest to me over a number of years. I was a member of the health policy committee when I was in government. Now, as shadow minister for ageing, I look forward to working with the Minister for Ageing to ensure that the elderly residents of this country and our older Australians are ageing with dignity. We certainly have some challenges ahead of us. We know that we have an ageing population. We need to ensure that those people have services and infrastructure in place so that they can age with dignity.

I look forward to those challenges. I am very much into active ageing and I will certainly be putting forward some programs to encourage the older Australians in our community to take some care of themselves and take responsibility for some of their lifestyle choices. All of us in the House today could stop and think about the lifestyle choices we make. We know that obesity is on the rise in this country, cancer is on the rise in this country and diabetes is on the rise in this country. Each and every one of us has a part to play in ensuring that older Australians in our community do something about those lifestyle choices. Each and every one of us can set some examples in that way.

Once again, to the people of McPherson: thank you for your support. I thank you for the trust you have put in me in electing me to represent you once again in the federal parliament. To the incoming new members: I wish you every success in your new careers. It is an honour and a privilege to sit in this place. It is something I will never take for granted, and I hope that each and every one of you will get the satisfaction and the rewards that come with this job. It is hard work representing your constituents—we are going to sit that extra day; we all know about our five days a week. We on this side are, of course, committed to doing that, to representing our constituents in this House. It is a rewarding profession, and I think you will gain a lot more from it if you put something into it. I wish all those new members well and I thank the people of McPherson for the trust in me they have shown in re-electing me to the federal parliament.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Before I call Ms Rea, I remind honourable members that this is her first speech. I therefore ask that the usual courtesies be extended to her.

Kerry Rea (Bonner, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land upon which we are gathered here today and the traditional owners of the land which is covered by the electorate of Bonner, the Quandamooka and Jagera peoples. I wish to acknowledge elders past and present and, in so doing, make special mention of the late Neville Bonner, the first Indigenous member of parliament, a true gentleman and a great Queenslander. Mr Speaker, may I also congratulate you on your election to this very significant office.

Only 1,059 people have sat in the federal parliament since Federation and, of that 1,059, only 78 have been women. When you consider the millions of Australians who have contributed over the last 107 years to making this country what it is today, I am humbled by the incredible honour and opportunity I have been granted by the people of Bonner and Australia.

Democracy is a wonderful thing. It is highly likely that the next United States President will be either an African-American man or a white woman. In Australia, our Prime Minister and Treasurer are two blokes from Nambour called Kevin and Wayne. The last election was clearly a call by the Australian people to restore our democratic system of government as a positive force for change. For its health and vitality, its equitable progress and advancement, our system of government depends on an open, transparent and accountable political process, a robust opposition and a concerned and informed public. These are the foundations not only to make democracy work but to make democracy matter to citizens of our nation.

Our democracy must be robust to survive and succeed. It can only be so if all its citizens are able to participate freely, fairly and to their full potential. That is why the next step for our ever-evolving democracy must be reconciliation between the Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples of Australia. When prejudice and economic or social disadvantage prevent even one person from participating in society then we are all weakened. As the great Martin Luther King Jr said, ‘Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.’ Last Wednesday, the Prime Minister moved a formal apology to the stolen generations. It was an important step in achieving reconciliation, an important step to begin the process of healing the rift that has existed for too long between Australians. It was a day that made me so proud to be a member of the first Labor government in almost 12 years. For me, personally, there was no more poignant moment. My mother is now 88, the same age as many of the members of the stolen generations who sat in this parliament last Wednesday. Ten years ago my siblings and I discovered that her grandmother, Nellie Richards, was an Aboriginal woman from Central Queensland. It has made us all keenly aware of how different her life and my mother’s life could have been.

The focus of the day was deliberately and quite rightly the apology to Indigenous Australians. Further to this, we must also recognise the importance of this day for our whole nation and its democratic traditions. Reconciliation is vital, not just to acknowledge the wrongs Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have suffered in the past; it is also important for non-Indigenous Australians. Until we recognise that we are not two separate peoples simply inhabiting the same continent, we are denying a fundamental part of our social development. Our language, our placenames and our music have all been influenced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures. We share a history and we must embrace that with pride.

For nearly 12 years, all of us as a nation have been subjected to the most cynical use of our democratic sensibilities. They have been used to divide and drive wedges between us, but last Wednesday the people of Australia—all over Australia—came out of their homes in their thousands to acknowledge the government’s apology. It was proof that for so long we have been waiting for a chance to unite in a common cause, to feel whole rather than a mixture of different parts. We demonstrated the Australian generosity of spirit and the fundamental belief that working collectively, whether it is in the workplace or on the lawn of Parliament House, is a far better way for us all to individually succeed.

The corrosive politics of division that played on suspicion and fear are gone. The setting against each other of workers, practitioners of different faiths and citizens from differing ethnic backgrounds is gone and, ultimately, the refusal to acknowledge our responsibility and to show true respect for the Indigenous people of this country is also gone. It felt like a breath of fresh air, and the nation collectively breathed it and sighed with relief.

Up to this point, most of my working life has been devoted to serving the people of Brisbane as a city councillor. Building a city is similar to building a nation. It is the best way to learn how government and our democratic system work best to provide the community with the basic services and infrastructure they need to go about their daily lives. It taught me a lot. I have learned that building a community is about investing in the people that live there. It is about providing the infrastructure, both physical and social, that enables everyone to develop the lifestyle that best suits them.

If there is one lesson you learn from local government, it is a sense of reality. You are transported from the theatre of parliamentary politics and planted right in the middle of someone’s backyard or even their street. You quickly learn that no problem is too big or too small, and playing the blame game matters nought to someone who cannot sleep because of their neighbour’s barking dog.

Of course, being a member of the Brisbane City Council is a unique experience in local government. It is the largest council in the country, covering the whole metropolitan area of the city, with a budget of over $2 billion. Serving with Brisbane City Council was an experience that taught me the value of being involved at the grassroots of a local community. I would like here to acknowledge my friend Jim Soorley, a person who led by action, a true visionary and, I believe, one of the best lord mayors Brisbane has ever had. He set out to transform Brisbane. In the 13 years that I was part of the Labor council led by Jim, I grew up—and so did Brisbane. The city emerged from having a sleepy, country town image to become the bustling, cosmopolitan, modern city it is today. Much of the urban renewal that occurred in Brisbane was, of course, driven by the visionary Building Better Cities program initiated by then Deputy Prime Minister Brian Howe. This program invested federal government money into local government areas, enabling valuable inner-city land—traditionally, industrial areas now redundant—to be redeveloped into new suburbs. They were strategically planned to include affordable housing and community infrastructure, creating a village-like atmosphere in the middle of a major city.

Indeed, it was the achievements of the Brisbane City Council and my passion for local government that had a strong influence on my decision to enter the federal parliament. It is at this level of governance in our country that the lack of Commonwealth government investment in our cities and regions over the last 11 years has been keenly felt. I look forward to seeing a revitalised relationship between the federal government and local councils to deliver the infrastructure required to build even better communities—invest federally; think locally. I know that this government appreciates the local knowledge and expertise that local councils can bring to ensuring that Infrastructure Australia invests most effectively. So I say to my former council colleagues: I look forward to continuing to work with you to deliver for Bonner. I will never forget the lessons I learnt at the coalface.

These experiences have brought me here as the representative for Bonner, one of the most interesting electorates in the country. It covers the south-eastern suburbs of Brisbane, from the city’s southern border to the river, so, like the Prime Minister, I am a proud southsider. I often describe Bonner as ‘the lungs of Brisbane’. On three sides it is bordered by significant waterways: Brisbane River, Tingalpa Creek and Moreton Bay. From Mount Gravatt, in the south-west, to Moreton Bay run several major creek catchments, protected by large tracts of bushland. Then there is Moreton Island, which boasts the largest sand dunes in the world. This is all within an electorate fully contained within the fastest growing capital city in the country. What a privilege and a challenge it will be to represent. It is why signing the Kyoto protocol was so important to the Bonner community, and I thank the Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts for taking such a strong stance on commercial whaling. The islands of Moreton Bay are home to some of the best whale-watching sites in the country.

Of course, Bonner’s charm is not just its landscape; it is also the people. Around the bay side are some of the oldest suburbs in Brisbane, where a largely elderly population are facing the challenges that being elderly brings. The middle suburbs of the electorate are growing as fast as the rest of south-east Queensland. The suburb of Wakerley alone has become home to an extra 3,500 people just over the last three years. That is a lot of working families needing the physical and social infrastructure that more established suburbs take for granted, while trying to cope with rising mortgage payments. Homelessness is increasing. Many residents live in public housing and many are struggling to survive in an increasingly competitive rental market.

The most encouraging elements of the strengths of a thriving democracy are the ideals of justice, equity and a fair go and seeing those ideals practically implemented to extend and encourage the voice of those we represent in this House. The new priorities committed to by the Rudd government are reflected as welcome developments for Bonner. That is why the Prime Minister’s focus on housing affordability and infrastructure was welcomed by the whole community.

I look forward to working with the Prime Minister and the Minister for Housing to deliver a range of solutions that will assist the residents of Bonner to move more freely through all levels of the housing sector. These include policies that will address the causes of homelessness, rental assistance for those who wish to move into the private rental market but cannot, and the very innovative First Home Saver Account scheme that will enable so many more people to purchase their first home. This will mean that the prosperity that comes from the significant pace of population growth in south-east Queensland can be shared by all. The residents of Bonner are a socially diverse group.

From a significant Indigenous population through to all the communities who came here post war and the most newly-arrived refugees from Africa, this electorate is a snapshot of migration in Australia. I am pleased to be part of a new government that will build opportunities for all Australians. The government’s focus on education will ensure this. And I look forward to the education revolution beginning with the completion of the school hall at Gumdale State School.

As only the second federal member for Bonner, I wish to acknowledge the first, Ross Vasta, and thank him for the positive and cordial manner in which he conducted the campaign. I also wish to acknowledge the Hon. Con Sciacca, the former member for Bowman, whose seat was redistributed. He contributed so much to this parliament and his local community. I also wish to make mention of my good friend Garrie Gibbon, the former member for Moreton, who is in the gallery today.

I simply do not have the time to name individually all those wonderful people who helped win the seat of Bonner for the Labor Party or all the family and friends who have been the means of encouragement and inspiration throughout my life. However, there are a few to whom I would like to express my thanks here today. I will begin by thanking the Whitlam government. It enabled me to attend university; it improved the status of women that gave my generation opportunities never experienced before; and it had the foresight to provide affordable and accessible childcare, which allowed me to have a career and children. Without these reforms I do not believe I would be here today.

I would like to thank the nuns of Mount Carmel College Wynnum, who tolerated my rebelliousness whilst instilling in me and my fellow students the notion that women can do anything as long as they have a good education and keep their hemlines below their knees. I would like to thank my first boss and mentor, Ann Warner, who has never let me forget my principles and values and whose integrity as a person and as a politician will always be my benchmark. I would like to thank the many committed workers in the Your Rights at Work campaign, particularly the coordinator in the Bonner area, Barry Welch—a true community champion. I thank him and his many volunteers for demonstrating that the trade union movement has a long and proud history in community activity and community advocacy and for giving those workers in Bonner most disadvantaged by Work Choices a voice and a sense of hope.

To Mike Nicholls, my campaign director, I owe a special debt of thanks. Managing a candidate as well as a large group of volunteers is not the easiest thing to do. But, Mike, you did it with grace and authority and earned much respect as a result. To Greg Laumann and the Bonner campaign committee, I say thank you. I am indebted to your tireless commitment and support—in particular, Lynne Maree Lewis and her husband, Martin, whose presence at a campaign meeting with a full pot of freshly made pasta sauce for my family sustained us for about three days. I also thank state members Phil Reeves and Paul Lucas, who, despite their own senior government roles, went out of their way to assist in any way that they could. My staff, who are in the gallery, were also supportive friends and volunteers throughout the campaign. They are Melissa Webster, Michelle Curran, Toby Broughton and Susan O’Connor, without whom the campaign office would not have functioned, and Lynne Moffat, Christine Cosgrove and Darren Godwell.

I wish to make special mention of Glenda Venn. Glenda and I have worked together in my capacity as a councillor for 17 years, and we have gone through many political and personal upheavals together. Glenda alleges that she is retiring by the end of the year. Just in case we are unable to talk her out of it, I wish to put on record my deepest and sincerest thanks for her loyalty, her support, her sanity, her incredible ability to organise my chaos and, most importantly, her friendship. At this point I would also like to mention her husband, Graham, and his friend Tony Watson, who are listening today.

My thanks also go to my campaign organiser, friend, mentor and sounding board, Lindesay Jones and his wife, Norma. Those who know him know that I could not have been blessed with a better campaigner. Lindesay’s passion for the Labor Party, combined with his sporting coach background, has made him one of the most successful campaigners Queensland has ever produced. To the Queensland branch of the Australian Labor Party, in particular, state secretary, Milton Dick, I say thank you and wish you well in your new career—a great choice.

My deepest thanks and love go to my three children—Emma, Charlotte and Liam. Their love and support keeps me going. They keep me grounded and remind me that, whatever my day job is, my most important and enduring role will always be as their mother. My husband, Ian, is in the gallery today. When we met on a polling booth 20 years ago this year, neither of us would ever have imagined that we would be here together. We have shared so much—not just a love of politics. It is Ian’s support, care and love that has enabled me to succeed. Not everyone is lucky enough to find their soul mate, and I am so grateful that I have.

My wise and loving mother, Monica Rea, cannot be here today, but my brother Robert and sister Vicki are here on behalf of mum and my four other siblings—that is seven altogether, if you cannot count. It is very special to have them here.

In conclusion, I wish to dedicate this speech to my father, Jack. For the first 21 years of my life until his early death from cancer he was not only my father; he was my best friend. He instilled in me a deep respect for the Labor Party and its values. He gave me a sense of humour based on never taking yourself too seriously. Even though it is over 24 years since his death, I still seek his approval for everything I do because it was always so hard to attain. But today I think I can almost hear him say, ‘Well done, kid.’

Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I congratulate the new member for Bonner on her first speech in this parliament. Those of us who have been in this chamber for a while have seen some very good first speeches by new members on both sides of this parliament and it certainly augurs well for the future of this country when we have such good maiden speeches.

I intend to raise several matters in the address-in-reply to the Governor-General’s address. It will be quite wide-ranging. I start off by talking about some information I have received, a scientific report on aerosol plumes and the cause of droughts and El Nino events by regional dimming. I do not profess to be a scientist, but the information that I have had explained to me makes me intuitively think that this is quite correct. I think it would be very important for the new environment minister to actually take notice of this report and get it assessed. I actually think it would probably take less than a week’s assessment by a competent scientist, so it is not as if there would be great expense. I did seek leave of the previous person at the table on the government side to table the report and I seek leave for tabling that report.

Leave granted.

I appreciate that leave being given. I think it is an important report. What it is basically saying, in rough layman’s terms, is that things like volcanic ash or a lot of carbon particles in the air cause regional dimming. Obviously it will stop the sunlight coming through into the atmosphere below because it is blocked by these carbon or volcanic ash particles. Intuitively I think you can then say that it must have an effect on the climate below that smog cloud, for want of a better phrase. What I think this report will show is that there is quite a causal effect on the drought that we had, especially last year, from the regional dimming caused by the fires in Indonesia, where they have been burning down the forests to plant palm trees for biodiesel production. It can be shown elsewhere in the world, such as in the Amazon forests or in the Sahara desert or the pollution that is being caused in China by the extra development, that this is actually having an effect on the climate. So I hope that the minister has an open mind on this and will read this report and get it assessed officially. I would suggest that the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology would be two government instrumentalities that would be very useful in assessing that report. It may come back that it is a very good report or it may not, but I think it is worth going through that assessment.

It certainly was a very interesting campaign. I think anyone that gets involved in a campaign like the recent one realises that things can change, and they obviously have at the election. One of the issues that I want to address during this speech is the issue of climate change and in particular to consider scientific exposure of some of what I might call the colourful language that is being used on climate change. Perhaps we can quite reasonably challenge some of the doom-laden views often promulgated by alarmists. Again that happened today in question time when the minister for the environment talked about a four to six degree increase in global temperature. I do not think even the most rabid of the promoters of climate change or anyone in the IPCC report have even remotely suggested that we are going to increase the temperature by four to six degrees. I think at most we are talking about one degree or 1.5 degrees. Six degrees obviously would have an effect. I do not reject that we have climate change; I believe we have always had climate change. It has been going for thousands and thousands of years. If we want to look back at history, for example, around the 1300s the recorded temperatures were probably in the vicinity of two degrees warmer than we have now. As a result of that we were producing more food in Europe, where there was a much warmer period. Even if we have had a warming in the last 25 years, we preceded that by a cooling over 30 to 35 years, and that is just part of what normally happens. So I think we can question some of the statements that are made to suggest that the end is nigh.

Before I say more on that, I would like to extend my thanks to the hardworking Barker campaign team. Their dedication and assistance helped me to return to serve the people of Barker for a fourth term as a member of this House. This fantastic team has seen the electorate of Barker return my party in fine form. We did experience a swing against us, the first time since I was elected that I have had a swing against me. In fact, in the 2001 and 2004 elections I had the biggest swings in the state of South Australia. But basically that has disappeared with this election, so I am back to about where I started. However, we did win 105 of the booths, which is more than in 2004, and did achieve positive swings in 12 of those booths.

The results in the electorate of Barker were the culmination of months of hard work by my wonderful team, both prior to and during the election. Their commitment was fantastic and their loyalty was unwavering. I consider myself most fortunate to have such a fantastic team. My campaign team worked tirelessly on this campaign. In our campaign committee we had members from all over the electorate, and my electorate covers 64,000 square kilometres—which is bigger than Tasmania, to put that in perspective. There are distances of 500 kilometres between members of my team, so you can imagine the logistics of getting them together and working through those tyrannies of distance that you have in a large rural electorate.

I would especially like to thank my lovely wife, Sharon, whose positive and vibrant approach, together with her total support and commitment not only during the campaign but also over the last few years, supported me during this long campaign. I think any of those in this House will understand what our spouses go through not only in our campaigns but also during our whole period in parliament. They certainly do give up a lot and carry some of the burden that we have as members of parliament. In fact, I am one of those people who are lucky enough not to get stressed very much, but I think I might be a carrier. Our campaign staff, our spouses and families do get a bit more stressed than we do sometimes. I think they feel it a lot more than we do.

I would also like to thank my staff members—Beth, Karen, Deb, Haley, Megan and Kylie—who worked tirelessly throughout the campaign. They worked long and hard days. That is the sort of support and loyalty that I had from my staff, and I do not think that anyone could wish for better. I would also like to thank Tim Cartledge, who was my FEC president, and Norm Paterson, our FEC treasurer. He is a treasure as a treasurer and he has certainly been a great supporter of the Liberal Party for a very, very long time.

Mr Deputy Speaker, as you would be aware, election campaigns come at a great cost. That is the price of democracy. But, then again, I think elections are the oxygen of democracy as well, and it is very important that I take the opportunity to publicly thank those who lent their financial support to my campaign. Their generosity is greatly appreciated. Just as they have demonstrated their faith in me as their parliamentary representative, I would like to express my faith in the businesses and individuals in the seat of Barker.

Lastly, and with incessant appreciation, I would like to thank the Liberal Party branches of Barker. I have 24 branches, which is in anyone’s terms a lot to deal with. Certainly they are absolutely fantastic in the support they give to the Liberal Party both financially and on the ground. They are the lifeblood of the campaign. As I said, Barker is a very large electorate—it has more than 120 polling booths—so we rely heavily on the loyalty and commitment of our volunteers and party members. That I was returned to this House for a fourth term is a result of the dedicated support from all our supporters, and I thank them sincerely.

Being in opposition is new to me, indeed to many of us here. I have made a promise to the people of Barker that I am coming out to fight for them. I will not allow the Rudd government to make them easy targets in funding cuts. Regional and rural constituents are a resilient and determined group. The nature of their environment endows them so, and I commit myself to standing up for them over the next three years as we regroup to ensure that we are elected to government at the next election.

Nearly 12 months ago, when opening Labor’s climate change summit in Canberra, Mr Rudd said that his aim was to harness the nation’s best and brightest talent. On gaining office, he appointed Senator Penny Wong as Minister for Climate Change and Water. Minister Wong, since being nominated, has been to Bali and to Honolulu, which is probably quite nice, while steadfastly telling the water-desperate residents of my electorate that it will be the end of the year before she can see for herself the issues they face—and this is in her own state. The Minister for Climate Change and Water confirmed this view with her inauspicious start to question time last Wednesday by refusing to answer whether or not she had input into the ‘razor gang’ cuts to environmental funding and then giving contradictory answers as to the nature of the cuts. If that is the brightest and best talent, I share the fear of my constituents for the outcome.

We have a $10 billion plan to fix up the Murray-Darling Basin. About $6 billion of that will be to provide better infrastructure, mainly in areas where we have open channels so that we can reduce quite drastically the amount of seepage and evaporation from those open channels throughout the Murray-Darling Basin. Another $3 billion of that will be used to buy back water licences. But after three months, unfortunately, we have not seen any of that funding spent. That is a very large concern to me, because it is not until those infrastructure improvements are made and those overallocated water licences are bought back that we will really receive the great benefit to the Murray-Darling Basin.

To put this into perspective, that plan is designed to save between 2½ thousand and 3,000 gigalitres of water on an annual basis—up to 3,000 gigalitres a year. To again put that into perspective, the whole of South Australia—Adelaide and irrigators—uses about 750 gigalitres out of the Murray River. So we will be saving up to four times what we are using in the whole of South Australia. It is a very significant measure that needs to be taken. I was very pleased that we made that commitment last year. Unfortunately, we were held back for six months by Victoria and, in the end, we just said that we would go along without Victoria. We still have not, after three months, seen any great change to that suggestion that they come on board.

I, and members of my party here, recognise that climate change is a complex subject. There are genuine areas of uncertainty and scientific controversy. There are also a number of misunderstandings and myths, which are recycled, often by non-climate scientists, and portrayed as scientific fact. One of the factors which have complicated the public and political response to the climate change issue has been a widespread misunderstanding of uncertainty in science. The issues surrounding the greenhouse effect, global warming, climate change and their potential consequences have been vigorously debated among scientists, politicians and the general public in Australia and around the world since the 1980s. In fact, I remember that in the seventies the same scientists who are now saying that we have global warming were saying that we were going through a mini ice age. I wonder how they can change their views so quickly. The challenge was then and is now to identify and attempt to measure the elements of climate change, examine the possible and likely results and agree on policies that attempt to reduce the identified serious problems.

In November 2004, the then New South Wales Labor Premier, Bob Carr, launched a report his government had commissioned from the CSIRO on the future regional climate of his state. His press release stated:

NSW can expect fewer frosts but more-frequent droughts, heatwaves, rainstorms and strong winds.

Ironically, the CSIRO report contained an important, explicit and up-front caveat which essentially stated that the report related to climate change scenarios based on computer modelling and that the models involved simplifications of the real physical processes that were not fully understood. That caveat went on to say that no responsibility would be accepted by the CSIRO or the New South Wales government for the accuracy of the projections in the report or the actions on reliance of the report. That did not stop Bob Carr from making his definitive unsupported scientific conclusions.

It is fairly generally agreed that, in science, it is only possible to prove the falsehood of a proposition and not its truth, and that there is no such thing as absolute certainty. In the face of scientific uncertainty, Mr Carr’s unequivocal conclusion represented a serious overstatement, and this continues to be the case with the Rudd Labor government. If we are going to have problems as a result of climate change, which we have always had, I think the most sensible approach would be to adapt. In the end, some of the other suggestions that have been put forward are going to come at a great cost to the Australian economy.

As I said, I do not deny that climate change is occurring. The fact is that climate is always changing; change is what climate is. History tells us that the rates and magnitudes of warming during the late 20th century fell within the limits of earlier natural climate change and it follows that it cannot be attributed solely, or even partly, to human origin. It is also a fact that the average global temperature has not increased during the eight years since 1998—which was a warm El Nino year—despite an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide of four per cent over the same period. The recent rate of average global temperature rise has been between one and two degrees Celsius per century, which falls squarely within natural rates of climate change for the last 10,000 years. Average global temperature has been several degrees warmer than it is today many times in the recent geological past.

There is also room for uncertainty in inferences drawn from the recent rise in global temperature. The recent rise in itself is real enough, but that does not necessarily mean that human activity is to blame. There you have it, Mr Speaker. I will be speaking more in this the 42nd Parliament on climate change and how we should be responding to it. I thank the House.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Before I call the member for Dobell, I remind honourable members that this is the honourable member’s first speech. I ask the House to extend to him the usual courtesies.

Craig Thomson (Dobell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I say right at the start what a great honour it is to be here today representing the people of Dobell in this place. Not many people get the honour and privilege of representing in federal parliament and to be counted amongst them is an immense privilege.

At this stage, I need to acknowledge the fantastic advice and assistance I received from Mark Arbib, Karl Bitar and Sam Dastyari from the New South Wales ALP head office. All of the Labor shadow ministers in the last parliament were great, but, in particular, Wayne Swan and Anthony Albanese need to be acknowledged for the support they gave to and tireless work they put into my campaign. Senator Hutchins has been a fantastic supporter for many years and has helped to create the opportunity to win back Dobell. Along with former member Michael Lee, he has provided tremendous insight into the many issues that affect the people of Dobell. I would also like to acknowledge the work of former Prime Minister Bob Hawke. He visited my electorate four times, along with many other electorates around the country. The shot of old Hawkie charisma was just the lift that my campaign needed.

I must thank Criselee Stevens, Sue Mueller and Matt Burke, who were there every day throughout the campaign. They are dedicated people and, to my relief, all agreed to work for me following the election. Branch members one and all need to be acknowledged, but, in particular, Bernie and Isobel Lowe, Pat and Owen Llewellyn, John Hawkins, John Shanny, Marie Watson, Bob Mulvey, Gloria Watson, Bill Smith, Richard Keating, Adam Wardroupe, Brian Sullivan, Robbie Kellog, Alan Wilcock, Barry Broadhurst, Darcy Waller, Brian Kirk, Jack Higgs, Ceri Aubrey, Iris and John Knight, Dermot Keane, John Redfern, Jim Briggs and, finally, Peter Cooley, who drove a busload of people down here today; they are in the gallery. I also acknowledge the assistance of Daniel Parish, who donated the use of a full-sized bus for six months of the campaign. Assistance from Mark McLeay; Struan Robertson; Karene Walton; the member for Wyong, David Harris MP; Councillor Neil Rose; and Mark Robinson also needs to be acknowledged. Special thanks must also go to Zoe Arnold, who has been a great support to me throughout this campaign.

This was a campaign in which unions were at the centre of crucial debates on industrial relations. The support I received from the entire union movement but in particular from Unions New South Wales, the TWU, the CFMEU mining division, the PSA, and of course my own union, the Health Services Union, was phenomenal. Michael Williamson, the HSU national president, was a marvel in relation to the long-term support he provided to me. I would also like to acknowledge the support and friendship of my former state branch secretaries, but in particular, along with Michael, I would like to acknowledge Dan Hill, from Western Australia, Lloyd Williams, from Victoria and Chris Brown, from Tasmania.

Finally, I need to acknowledge my friends and family for what they have had to put up with and to acknowledge that in some cases they have had to make permanent sacrifices so that I could be here today. Politics is a great and exciting profession, but it can extract a high personal cost from those involved and those close to the candidate. To my parents, who are here tonight, my sister, Jane, and my brother, Struan, through to Christa, my partner of 15 years: thank you. You have all taught me so much and supported me in all my decisions.

I am a unionist, a former trade union official of the Health Services Union. Can I say that I am immensely proud of that fact. This election showed everybody that ‘union’ is not a dirty word, and we should never again allow our country to go down the path on which the former Prime Minister and his cohorts opposite were trying to take us. The economy and how its proceeds are distributed are always the major issues in any election. Those sitting on the benches opposite chose in this most recent election to forget that the purpose of developing a strong economy is so that it can drive and fulfil the aspirations of this great country’s citizens. A government that presides over an economy that is performing strongly has, in my view, an obligation to make sure that improvements in citizens’ lives result. It is socially divisive when most of the benefits of a strong economy go to those who are already prosperous.

Without needing parliamentary privilege, let me say that the electorate of Dobell is blessed with physical beauty unsurpassed by any other region in Australia. It is also the home of the soon to be crowned A-league champions, the mighty Central Coast Mariners. We are uniquely located, midway between the cities of Newcastle and Sydney, but with a population of over 300,000 on the Central Coast we very much have our own stand-alone identity, separate from those of Sydney and the Hunter region. Our world-class beaches, intricate lake systems, unspoilt national parks and pristine valleys are a source of constant pride for all of us who live there.

The physical beauty of the Central Coast, however, is not matched by its present economic strength. Despite 17 years of uninterrupted national economic growth, many hardworking families on the Central Coast have not seen the benefits of these good economic times. The Central Coast has the lowest median household income in New South Wales and consistently has double the national unemployment levels. The youth unemployment rate in the Wyong LGA is at an unacceptable level of over 19 per cent.

For those of us who work, the conditions are often harsher than for those who live in major cities. Anywhere between 30,000 and 60,000 Central Coast people commute to Sydney to work. Over a third of the full-time employees in the many new housing estates on the Central Coast commute to Sydney. These people are spending anywhere between two and five hours a day commuting. Many parents are off to work before their children are awake, and they are back after they have gone to sleep at night. It is not uncommon to hear of people on the Central Coast spending more of their income on transport than they do on housing repayments.

I am a proud member of the Australian Labor Party, which holds as a fundamental belief the creation of a competitive economy that delivers opportunity for all Australians. A strong economy should and can coexist with social justice. We as a Labor Party are serious about our role as a regulator to ensure fairness wherever markets fail. I am proud to be a member of a Labor government that at its outset is serious about urban planning and development; water infrastructure; universal, quality health care; and the economic and social benefits of a world-class education system.

The people of the Central Coast deserve a member and a government that deliver for them. They deserve a parliament that better channels national prosperity towards universal opportunities for the generations ahead. The former Howard government’s boast that ‘workers have never been better off’ sounds very hollow in Dobell.

The former Howard government was never honest about its intentions for working families and instead attempted to disguise its intentions through spin, Orwellian language and doublespeak, and that is precisely why it can never be trusted on these issues. Just look at the naming of some of the industrial legislation it brought before this place: the Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Dismissal Reform) Bill, the Workplace Relations Amendment (Better Bargaining) Bill and of course the Fair Pay Commission. Each piece of legislation is designed to do absolutely the opposite of what its title implies. That is, the ‘fair dismissal reform’ bill makes it easier to dismiss employees, the ‘better bargaining’ bill makes it harder to bargain collectively with your employer, and the Fair Pay Commission was created to reduce the outcome of national wage cases. No wonder that in the union movement we most feared the ‘building better and stronger unions’ bills. The public is sick and tired of political spin and wants politicians to speak clearly and honestly. The best way for us to promote ethical language in public conversation is to say what we mean and mean what we say.

This led me to think about my childhood. I grew up in country New South Wales, in Bathurst, a town that, when I was there, had less than 30,000 people. When I was a kid growing up, we had a real sense of community. When people moved into the neighbourhood, they were surrounded by neighbours inviting them for drinks and the kids for a kick of the footy. People made an effort to make newcomers feel part of the group. Those leaving the neighbourhood were always given a rousing send-off and welcomed back fondly when they came to visit. If anything happened to someone in the community, people rallied round and helped.

My New Zealand grandfather had a heart attack, which meant my mother had to go to New Zealand to nurse him for six weeks. While she was away, my father had no problems with meals—even though he could not cook—because the neighbours were always bringing around meals specially prepared for us or inviting us over for dinner. There was nothing special in this—it happens all around Australia that people respond to those in need. Whilst mum was away, we were on a roster, with different people picking us up and taking us to school and sporting events and all the things we were normally involved in.

Our neighbours made sure that no-one in the community was left feeling isolated and alone when they needed help. Clearly this meant putting themselves out, not for their personal or individual reward but from a shared sense of making sure there was a fair go all round. These are everyday Australian values that make us who we are and bind us together.

At the same time, in the workplace, unions were accepted by the employer and, whilst there were often fierce disagreements and strikes, no-one ever questioned the legitimacy of the union or the employer. It was part of the Australian way. Just as in sport, bitter confrontation did not go on forever because the Australian way was to go to the independent umpire, the Industrial Relations Commission, to help resolve the dispute. Whilst occasionally we on the union side had some bad luck with the umpire’s decision, we knew that a strong, independent commission that helped protect the weaker from the strong was essential for our community. These things were taken as unquestionable truths in our society. It is these values of community—values of sharing a common sense of belonging, of looking out for those less fortunate—that those on the opposition benches threatened at the last election.

I started by saying that the language we use as politicians should be simple, straightforward and honest, easy to understand—childlike, one might say. That had me thinking about messages we teach our children as to what is good and bad, from an early age. A lot of these messages are based on our religious beliefs. I think it is worth having a look at some of those values and then comparing them to the former government’s values on the same issue. Value: ‘Do unto others as you would have them do to you.’ Former government: ‘Don’t worry about what others might do to you. If you can, do it to them first.’ Value: ‘Make sure you share with the other kids.’ Former government: ‘Take as much as you can. Don’t share. Fairness is not part of the system.’ Value: ‘If you have done the wrong thing, say you are sorry.’ Howard government—we know what their position is on ‘sorry’, don’t we. Value: ‘Play by the rules and accept the umpire’s decision.’ Former government: ‘If I don’t like the rules, I’ll get rid of the umpire.’

The meaning of Christmas, as well as children’s stories, would change for the worse if we imposed the Howard government’s values on it. With no vacancies in Bethlehem, Mary and Joseph would not have been given the stable unless they were prepared to pay above the market rates. Joseph would not have been a carpenter, because there would have been no apprenticeships. Mary would have had to quit her job, as there was no maternity leave. We know those three wise men would not be giving handouts without some form of mutual obligation.

In terms of fairy stories, the ugly duckling would have been locked up in a detention camp for being different. The sheriff of Nottingham would have been the hero and Robin Hood some market interventionist attempting income redistribution. We all know here that Snow White would have had those seven dwarfs on AWAs. In the former government’s world, fairy stories would have all been written by the Grimm brothers. These are not values we want as a nation. These are not values that reflect the Australia that I know and want to see flourish. As a Labor government, we cannot afford to treat the electors as fools through political spin. We need to be honest and forthright and to pursue values that bring our nation together rather than divide us.

The industrial relations agenda of the former government was about taking away simple rights that all Australians valued. How can dad coach the footy team or join the surf club or the SES if he has no input or certainty about the rosters and the days that he will work? How is the economy improved by a radiographer losing rights through unfair dismissal? No amount of spin or clever advertising could hide the effect that these laws have on the lives of ordinary families. I believe that is largely why we are sitting on this side of the chamber and not the other.

However, as the government we have to stand for more than a decent workplace. We need to look at other fundamental values in our society that have been eroded or overturned, and to propose positive policy responses. In my union role I have seen two areas in particular where the former government let us down. These important areas need to be addressed by the ALP in a Labor manner whilst in office. Under Labor, a strong and robust economy should create a humane society that will distribute benefits to those most in need. The two areas in particular that I want to concentrate on are aged care and dental care.

A critical lack of staffing is the greatest problem facing the aged-care sector. With the rapid expansion of the industry to cope with an ageing population, shortages are becoming more acute. The lack of staff, however, is not all due to a tightening in the labour market. The former government’s deliberate policy has been to neglect the question of staffing standards for this most critical area. There is clear evidence both in Australia and internationally of the link between staffing levels and the quality of care delivered to the elderly. Staffing shortfalls jeopardise the health, safety and quality of life experienced by residents in aged-care facilities. There is a greater risk they will be injured, be attacked by other residents, be given the wrong medication, not get sufficient exercise or treatment from specialists, receive inadequate clinical care and not be properly supervised even in an emergency situation. Workforce shortages also have a clear adverse effect on staff.

Aged-care staff are committed, motivated and strongly believe in the importance of the work they do. But for those in workplaces with inadequate staffing levels it is a demanding and stressful job. Working in aged care, for too many staff, has become more dangerous and less fulfilling. The National Institute of Labour Studies report commissioned by the previous federal government included a survey of over 6,000 staff, which found only 13 per cent of nurses and only 19 per cent of staff overall believed they had enough time to properly care for residents; 40 per cent of nurses and 25 per cent of allied health workers spend less than a third of their time providing direct care; almost half the personal carers spend less than two-thirds of their time on direct care; and the major complaints of staff were that they did not have enough time to spend with residents, and the facility they worked in did not employ sufficient staff. International research confirms the link between staffing and care. The most comprehensive report commissioned in recent years was the report to Congress by the US Department of Health and Human Services on minimum staff ratios in nursing homes. The report, finalised in 2001 after four years of work, found strong and compelling evidence of a relationship between staffing ratios and the quality of nursing care. It found poor staffing levels had contributed significantly to an increase in the number of bedsores and the incidence of malnutrition, dehydration, weight loss and other preventable disorders and diseases.

Reports by the Australian Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency confirm the direct link between a lack of staff and poor care, as well as highlighting the inconsistent approach adopted by that agency. I want to look at two examples of that. At the Elizabeth Lodge facility in Sydney the agency found staff shortages and training problems affected clinical care, the management of medication, continence management, behavioural management and leisure interests. One recreation officer—that is one recreation officer—had to look after 129 residents, 16 of whom were in a dementia ward. At the Valencia Nursing Home in Western Australia inadequate staffing meant residents were only washed on alternate days. That is despite all 45 residents being incontinent. Care staff said they were too busy to talk to residents.

It is clear that the current aged-care system is failing to deliver sufficient staff to provide the care and safety that residents require. Regulatory requirements for staffing, stripped away by the former government, need to be reintroduced and significantly extended. Minimum staffing levels covering all care and ancillary staff are the only way to provide a basic guarantee of care and safety for residents and their families. Accreditation standards need to be rewritten so that they are measurable and enforceable. A government that looks after the economy and creates a strong economic base needs to be able to ensure that the elderly are looked after.

The second area I want to touch on is dental care. In dental care, Labor can make real improvements to people’s lives. State governments have struggled to adequately look after dental care since the Howard government withdrew its contribution from the funding mix. What is required is a Labor solution to this problem. For some strange reason in Australia, for medical purposes the mouth is not considered part of the body. That is, Medicare effectively looks after all other parts of the body that may fall ill or be hurt in an accident, except for the mouth. I believe this has to change.

Australia prides itself on its universal healthcare system, yet we have a tremendous gap in the services we provide. Having to wait years for treatments for painful tooth and gum problems is totally unacceptable. Australia’s overall dental health is the second poorest among developed nations. It means that countries like Turkey provide better dental outcomes for their citizens than Australia. We were seen as being so bad in this area that in 2006 some Thai Buddhist monks came and volunteered dental services to the people of Queensland because of our chronic needs in dental health. So, whether it is A Current Affair with stories of people performing home dentistry or The 7.30 Report talking to industry experts, the answer is the same: dental care in Australia is in crisis and that crisis requires a national solution. Most Australians will suffer decay in at least 10 teeth by their late 30s and we have one of the highest tooth extraction rates in the developed world. Nearly 60 per cent of all care from public dental services is emergency care, with more than one tooth pulled every hour these dental services are open. It is essential that we have in place an affordable dental scheme that does not have people putting off going to the dentist until they have a chronic situation. My union did some research, through Auspoll, looking at the affordability of dental care. That Auspoll research was conducted in eight marginal seats and found that half the adults surveyed said they put off dental treatment that they needed because of the cost. Fifteen per cent of parents said they put off treatment for their kids because of the cost. Currently, public dental waiting lists have up to 650,000 people on them. The frightening thing is that these waiting lists are really just the tip of an iceberg when you have almost 50 per cent of people saying that they put off dental care because it costs too much money. Some Australians have been waiting for up to 10 years to get chronic dental issues resolved. It is time to end the pain and fix the problem.

In my electorate Mrs Hanley told me that after an extraction for an abscessed tooth in May 2005 she was advised that she would have to wait at least 12 months for a partial denture to be made. She has no molars in her lower jaw and cannot eat meat, salads and nuts. Dental care is of particular importance to the Central Coast because we have a large population of elderly people. We also have a high level of tooth decay that adversely affects the young and the elderly. One of the other 650,000 people waiting on the waiting list was Mrs Hanley’s husband. He has been on a list for over three years waiting to get his broken tooth fixed. TheDaily Telegraph told of three-year-old Cooper Agius, whose young teeth have been eaten away by medication he was taking for serious respiratory conditions. He was told he needs new crowns and root treatment, but his parents were told to sedate him for 12 months until he could get public emergency dental treatment. Again, a strong economy needs to be able to ensure that people’s dental health is not jeopardised because of its cost. We need to ensure that the fundamentals of the economy remain strong, that inflation is under control and that the benefits of that strong economy flow to all Australians, but particularly to those most in need and most vulnerable such as the elderly and those with dental problems.

We in the Labor Party are in the privileged position of being in government. For the sake of the people of Dobell, and the people of Australia, it is important that we use our time responsibly to ensure a strong economy so that we can improve the lot of our fellow Australians as only the Labor Party has been able to do in the past. It is a heavy responsibility that the Australian people expect us to deliver upon and a challenge that I look forward to with relish.

Petro Georgiou (Kooyong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on your election to this very important position in the parliament and I hope you keep on enjoying the job as much as you seem to be enjoying it to date.

Through the Governor-General’s address, the new government has indicated an ambitious agenda covering a wide range of policy areas. I wish to focus on one of the subjects covered in the address—that of social inclusion. This is defined in the address as ‘improving the opportunities for all Australians to participate fully in Australian economic and social life’. That is certainly an aim shared by both sides of the parliament and one that I strongly support. I do not take issue with any of the specific initiatives that the government says it will implement to promote social inclusion. They deal with a variety of important subjects, such as the gap between the mortality rates of Indigenous and non-Indigenous children. My concern is that two important aspects were not mentioned: promoting the social inclusion of migrants through English language teaching, and multiculturalism. I will not speculate on the reasons for their omission, but I note that, in Labor’s detailed election policy document An Australian Social Inclusion Agenda, there was also no mention of the disadvantage experienced by migrants or of multiculturalism.

The necessity for programs to assist migrants and particularly refugees has been acknowledged by successive governments for a long time, though that acknowledgement has not always guaranteed the provision of adequate resources. In July last year, the then shadow minister for immigration, who has been elevated to a significant portfolio, announced that a Rudd Labor government would commit an additional $49.2 million to help migrants learn English. The Prime Minister and his senior ministers have all been adamant that the government will implement its pre-election commitments, so I trust that any omission of a reference in the Governor-General’s speech to the strengthening of English language programs and settlement programs was not significant. Hopefully, the prioritisation of social inclusion will protect this program from falling victim to the government’s razor gang, because the necessity for English language teaching and settlement programs grew enormously last year when the government of the day introduced a new citizenship test. Proponents of the new test have argued that it is intended to, and will, promote integration. But, as I and many others contended when the test was proposed, in all probability it will prove to be a barrier of exclusion rather than a vehicle of inclusion. In the debate last August I said:

The fact that Australian citizenship laws have been made more inclusive in the past has provided a basis of trust, confidence and achievement. The fact that we accepted people with modest English language skills as citizens has broken down barriers, not maintained them. The establishment of this test will, I believe, diminish Australia. I do not believe that this will be apparent immediately, but I believe that it will happen, as the test excludes people who are committed to Australia and who could pass the present test. Their opportunities will be restricted, their participation will be impeded and the fairness and vitality of our society will be eroded.

That prognosis was bleak, but it may already be eventuating. Since the first test was introduced on 1 October, the number of applicants for citizenship has fallen dramatically. In the nine months immediately preceding the introduction of the test, there were never fewer than 11,000 applications a month. Since then, applications have plunged to just over 2,000 in October, 3,500 in November, 3,200 in December and 4,200 in January. In the decade preceding the test, the average number of applications for citizenship was 99,450. On current figures, the total number of applications in the 12 months following the introduction of the test is projected to be just 39,336. Is there a cause-and-effect relationship or are other factors responsible? You cannot attribute the decline to the holiday period. There was no seasonal variation in the previous 10 years and the rates are far lower in the comparable months in that period. You cannot attribute it to the fact that there are not enough people who, due to residency requirements, could apply, because there are approximately one million people in this country who are eligible to apply.

Whatever the explanation of that downturn in citizenship applications, it is troubling. Citizenship is an important element of social inclusion. It carries a range of privileges and responsibilities, which include the right to live here permanently, as distinct from the permission to remain which is granted to permanent residents; the right to apply for an Australian passport and seek consular assistance from Australian diplomatic representatives overseas; the right to register as Australian citizens children born overseas; the right to seek the full range of employment in the Defence Force and the Public Service; and, most importantly, the right to vote.

But it is not just a question of the sheer fall in the numbers of applicants; it also a question of what has happened to the reduced number of people who sat the new test. Unsurprisingly, the test is proving to be a harsher barrier for refugees than for other migrants. Around 30 per cent of those from Sudan, 25 per cent of those from Afghanistan and 16 per cent of those from Iraq were unable to pass. These results compare with a failure rate of around three percentage points for migrants in the skilled stream and 10 per cent of those who come in on family reunion. The fact is that it is the most vulnerable that this test hits the hardest. The personal cost of not getting Australian citizenship may be far greater for refugees than for other migrants. Some are stateless, so a lack of citizenship is an ongoing source of deep emotional insecurity. Many refugees, both stateless and otherwise, do not have passports, so they are unable to travel to reunite with family members scattered around the world by their flight to survive.

When the bill was introduced and the new test was being considered, few members of the House shared my view that it was so ill-conceived and unfair that it should not proceed. At the same time, many did have reservations and proposed that some protections be put in place. The Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs received evidence of strong concerns about the impact of the new test from a number of informed individuals and groups and, accordingly, it recommended that the operation of the citizenship testing regime be reviewed three years after the bill’s commencement. The committee also recommended that the proposed citizenship questions be tabled in the parliament, and I quote from the report:

Given the apparent level of community disquiet about the questions that might be included in the test, and that, as a general rule, delegated legislation should be transparent and disallowable, the committee suggests that the test questions be tabled in the Parliament to provide additional reassurance to those concerned. It would also help to ensure transparency and accountability of the proposed regime.

This was supported by both the Liberal and the Labor senators on the committee and more generally. The then opposition leader, Mr Rudd, commented that Labor had questions about the test, stating:

Show us the tests. Let’s see what sort of scrutiny they need to be subjected to.

The then shadow minister, during the debate on the citizenship bill, said:

I think that, as a matter of transparency, the government making the questions available is completely in the interests of citizenship being a process of unifying Australians. It is a logical thing to do, and it is completely in the interests of the government to do so.

The arguments for transparency that the opposition put in June 2007 are no less compelling eight months later now that it is in government and has the power to implement its positions. Indeed, if one listened to the debates in this parliament over the last few days, one would say that it is even more compelling because the word ‘transparency’ or the virtue of transparency has become almost cant.

The test questions have not been published to date and I have made several inquiries of the government to try to find out when or if they will be published. Thus far the requests for further clarification have been in vain. I suspect that this indicates that demands for transparency made by the Labor opposition are different from the capacity to meet those demands now that Labor is actually in a position to do so. I note as well that, last year, Labor tried to ameliorate difficulties that the test would cause migrants of a non-English-speaking background by amending the legislation to require that the Adult Migrant English Program and other settlement services be improved to assist migrants to participate fully in the Australian community and to pass the citizenship test. That amendment failed, but Labor now has the opportunity and the power to make good on its commitment to increase funding for these programs.

The government has stated that in April it will commission a review of the operation of the test, after it has been operating for six months. Given the government’s support for the test, I do not anticipate that this will be the fundamental review that we really need to have. I do not anticipate that it will inquire into whether the test really does provide a strong incentive for people to learn English. I do not anticipate that it will examine whether the knowledge people have to have to pass the test will make them more grateful and better citizens than those who acquired citizenship in previous decades. I do not anticipate that it will consider whether the test is penalising, excluding and alienating people who would make worthy members of our community. I do not anticipate that the review will do all this, but I believe that it should at least identify and ameliorate some of the harshest and most arbitrary features of what I believe is an expensive and counterproductive folly. Whether the review can do so depends on a number of elements that have not been announced as yet or, perhaps, have not even been decided. Most important is the independence and the calibre of the people who are appointed to undertake the review. They will need to have credibility, firmly grounded in their demonstrable integrity, knowledge of the area and sound public policy skills.

A second key element is the terms of reference of the review. The terms of reference must allow the reviewer to rigorously assess whether or not the test is achieving its objectives and whether or not there are any adverse consequences. I hope the Prime Minister’s recent intervention to ensure that aspiring applicants have to be aware of a cricketing champion of 50 years ago does not mean that the review will be limited to tweaking some of the questions.

When the initial post-test data was published, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship said:

If people are not succeeding, we need to find out why, and how we can help to support them better.

I agree, but to do that the review will have to be resourced to conduct such research as may be required to assemble evidence about the operation and implication of the test. The review must hear, in a rather more effective way than the last consultations did, the voices of those who are eager to become citizens but who find the test too daunting. It must take advice from education and health professionals about how difficult it is to study when you are a survivor of traumatic experiences before coming to Australia or when you are a middle-aged adult who does not speak English well and who is working long hours in an abattoir, cleaning offices or driving a taxi.

The review should also examine how other countries go about testing applicants for citizenship, and the lessons from these tests. This was certainly not done properly prior to the introduction of the test. For example, the UK was consistently put forward as a good model for Australia. We were not told that the UK does not test people about British history because it was considered unfair to ask immigrants questions that many British people would have difficulty answering. The report of the review of the Australian test should be published to allow discussions before the minister makes any changes. This would also be in keeping with the government’s promise of greater transparency in decision making.

I now turn to the other social inclusion issue which I mentioned at the outset: multiculturalism. A year ago this term was officially banished from the Australian government’s political lexicon. It was banished despite the fact that multiculturalism was one of the policy responses which was instrumental in Australia’s astonishing capacity to meet the challenge of an ethnically and culturally diverse society. It was a multiculturalism which explicitly insisted on a commitment to core values as the basis for a shared identity, as well as respect for diversity. The opposition at the time was critical of the government’s abandonment of multiculturalism, and the new government has resurrected the word in the title of the office of Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs and Settlement Services. I would be interested in whether this is more than a rhetorical gesture or an act of sheer symbolism. Two things will tell us. One is when the government publishes its policy on cultural diversity. The website of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship has a section for the government’s policy and for a while it has read:

This section of the website is currently being updated.

I and, I believe, many other people in the community eagerly await the news and trust it will come soon.

The other indicator of the government’s intention will be the outcome of what the Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs and Settlement Services has described as:

... an examination of how best to foster and promote the benefits of cultural diversity in the Australian community.

This examination was announced in a media release of 8 February which was boldly headed ‘A new lease of life for multicultural Australia’—lovely. Regrettably, the media release does not indicate who is undertaking the examination, what the terms of reference will be or what process will be followed. Contrasted with the declarations about the importance of transparency, one can only describe this as being distinctly opaque. If the government wishes to provide more information, I am sure that it will find in the community many people who would be willing to help.

I commend the government for identifying social inclusion as a priority of its work. I urge it to not ignore the formidable barriers to full and effective participation in Australia’s economic and social life encountered by both citizens and permanent residents who have thus far been overlooked in the government’s social inclusion agenda. To recapitulate my remarks, I call on the government to do three things. Firstly, the government should strengthen English language teaching and settlement programs. This is a commitment that must be honoured in full. Secondly, the government should ameliorate the adverse impacts of the new citizenship test. Thirdly, the government should reinvigorate the policy of multiculturalism, which has proved to be an astonishingly intelligent, successful and rewarding response to the fact of our ethnic, linguistic and cultural diversity.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Before I call the member for Forde, I remind the House that this is the honourable member’s first speech. I ask the House to extend to him the usual courtesies.

Brett Raguse (Forde, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is indeed an honour to be elected to the chamber and, more importantly, a privilege to be here representing the people of Forde. However, before indulging too much in my own views and perspectives, I would first like to congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on your appointment and likewise congratulate all the members of the House for their success in the election, either as new or continuing members. This 42nd Parliament coincidentally includes 42 new members who, like me, are only too aware of the responsibilities that have now been imparted to them. The 24 November election was a historic victory for Labor and a well-deserved outcome for the honourable member for Griffith and our new Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, who as the leader of the Labor Party for only 11 months prior to the election created a viable and palatable platform and gave voters of Australia confidence in a new era of leadership that resulted in a transition to the Labor government.

As a new member from Queensland, it was clear from our results that voters wanted change. The seat of Forde recorded a swing of 14.43 per cent, the largest in the 2007 election and one of the largest since Federation. Many have speculated on what caused the extent of the swing. I believe many factors played a part in the final result, in particular the strong message delivered during the campaign that Labor could deliver on a preferred new future for us all. We as a party, and now a new government, have built expectations, and we now need to work towards delivering on those expectations. Having been a regular business traveller to Canberra in the mid-1990s, I would always include a self-imposed visit to Parliament House and this chamber. On one memorable occasion, in December 1996, after parliament had adjourned for the year, I stood in the public gallery where my friends and family gather today. I was quietly reflecting on the importance and the reverence of the House and the thought of the enormous privilege it would be to one day sit as a member in this chamber. But, to me, that seemed like an impossibility, with family commitments, business commitments and a stringent party process that would determine the person most appropriate to represent an electorate. It seemed daunting and sometimes I believed it was something I would never really have the opportunity of achieving.

Despite the enormity of the task, my own Pygmalion or self-fulfilling prophecy must have subconsciously started me on that journey. In fact, if you ponder the logistics of such adventure, it is one of Himalayan proportions. I say ‘Himalayan’ with the utmost respect and admiration for those who have scaled the famous Mount Everest. In effect, many more people have conquered the summit of Mount Everest, some 3,500 in the last 55 years, than have had the honour to serve in this chamber—1,059 Australians in 107 years. However, despite those sobering statistics, 11 years after my realisation in 1996 I became a proud new member who is so very honoured to be here to serve the people of Forde. Besides that, I would not make a good mountain climber anyway!

Forde is a hugely diverse electorate, with very little profile in the wider Australian community. This is something I intend to change—to put Forde on the map. Forde is named in honour of Francis Forde, better known as Frank Forde, who was Prime Minister for only eight days, from 6 July to 13 July 1945, following the sudden death of the Labor Party Prime Minister John Curtin. It is important to note that Frank Forde was the last Queensland Prime Minister prior to Kevin Rudd—63 years ago—and was the father-in-law of Queensland’s first woman Governor, Leneen Forde, who served Queensland from 1992 to 1997.

At 3,167 square kilometres, Forde is geographically large compared to neighbouring electorates but, as a south-east Queensland seat, also known as the Gold Coast hinterland, it is nestled against the neighbouring federal electorates of Rankin, Fadden, Blair, McPherson, Moncrieff and, over the border in New South Wales, the seats of Richmond and Page. Forde is geographically and demographically diverse, from high urban density in the north to large farmland and rural holdings in the south-west. It finishes at the New South Wales border, on the beautiful Border Ranges.

The seat of Forde involves parts of seven state electorates and three local government authorities: the Gold Coast City Council, the Logan City Council and the Beaudesert Shire Council. It includes the traditional lands and custodians of the Mununjali and Yugambeh nations and their elders—proud and productive Indigenous people who have pragmatically worked towards building a strong and enduring community. Due to the increasing demand for urban land in south-east Queensland, the areas of future potential development in Forde will become critical areas of growth and an economic powerhouse for the greater south-west of south-east Queensland. But, to do this in a way that makes economic sense, it must include a stringent planning regime to ensure environmental, social and economic imperatives to deliver long-term benefits. We must ensure that existing rural industries are supported and that good-quality agricultural land is enhanced. The farming sector to the south-west of Beaudesert has weathered torrid times, with the long period of recent drought making life difficult for farming families who had not had the level of government support they needed.

We must lock up areas of high environmental sensitivity while making sustainable, efficient and sensible decisions on areas of development. To do this means a plan of action between Commonwealth and state governments and the private sector, with the cooperation of the local government authorities in facilitating planning and progressing appropriate development approvals. The electorate at the moment has some of the largest areas of proposed development in the nation—from the large industrial estate of Yatala, just south of Beenleigh, which is regarded as the fastest growing industrial development in Australia, to the proposed intermodal transport and logistics areas of Bromelton to the west of Beaudesert. Bromelton is cited as being the largest inland port in this country, connecting the planned major road and rail freight corridors. Billions of dollars of investment are planned over the next decade. To ensure sustainability we need to understand the integration of needs for an area ready to undergo massive expansion. Industrial centres require a ready workforce, and a ready workforce requires well-planned residential communities planned around lifestyle.

Housing supply and demand in Queensland and particularly in Forde at the moment is volatile. Increased demand for housing is being driven by intense economic growth but is also due to the tardy sequencing of land release, which unnecessarily inflates the cost of housing. The integration of planning to provide appropriate health, public transport, education and community services is essential, along with the provision of timely infrastructure. A planning commitment by all levels of government is necessary to enable the timely sequencing and rollout of these new communities.

There are two major residential areas planned for Forde. Greater Flagstone, which lies to the south of Greenbank near the Bromelton development, will provide for 100,000 residents by 2030 and Yarrabilba, which lies to the south-west of Beenleigh and Yatala near the Yatala development, will provide for 70,000 residents by 2040. These developments will potentially deliver the lifestyle communities I mentioned. Better government understanding of the inflationary pressures caused by bureaucratic duplication and local red tape is essential to finding planning solutions that have a positive effect on economic outcomes, particularly outcomes that deliver the strict low-inflation regime sought by our Prime Minister and Treasurer.

Forde is diverse and includes parts of Loganholme in the north, Beenleigh and the beautiful Tamborine Mountain to the east, and the towns and shires of Beaudesert in the greater south-west. It is a unique place. With the retirement of my predecessor, Kay Elson, a long-serving Liberal member, the people of Forde had the opportunity to make a change. With this change I became the fourth member for Forde since its inception in 1984. The former Prime Minister, John Howard—who in his 11 years made only two visits to Forde, the latest being in October last year during the election campaign—said that Forde, to him, was where he could go if he wanted to know what was bothering Middle Australia. Well, on November 24, as we know, across the country and in Forde, Middle Australia resoundingly believed they had had enough.

The immediacy of my challenge is to ensure that we focus the attention of the federal government on needs and on the serious lack of both physical and social infrastructure in the electorate. The Labor campaign for the November 2007 election was built on the notion of a fair go—a fair go in work; a fair go for business; a fair go for older Australians; a fair go for our youth by providing opportunities in education and training; and a fair go for families. Every initiative of a new Labor government would find a point of reference within the electorate of Forde. Everyone was affected by the frustration of the lack of engagement by the previous government. Queensland was forgotten, and everyone on all sides of politics knew it. In my electorate, my support base straddled all sides of the traditional political fence. Both small and large business operators saw the opportunities presented by a potential Rudd government and got on board.

As I mentioned, housing availability and affordability are at critically low levels. The rate of mortgage stress and default of housing loans in Forde is one of the highest in the country. The previous lack of cooperation and coordination between the state and federal governments has meant that a number of communities in Forde are without basic transport services. For an electorate without adequate roads, transport infrastructure and services, the impacts have a dual effect on the people living in the various townships and communities across Forde. The cost of running two cars, because there is no public transport, is compounded by the effect of rising fuel and grocery prices. People in the electorate are hurting. One of my pledges to the people of Forde is to provide better opportunities to talk to their representatives in government. Coordination between the three tiers of government—council, state and federal—and regular community briefings will form part of our community engagement strategy.

High on my list of priorities is our youth. Our future is so much determined by how we nurture, support and mentor our youth. Education and training is paramount in providing them with the skills and strategies for dealing with their future lives while maintaining their individuality and motivation. Our understanding of the social aspects of their development through tangible and intangible support is critical.

I had a very humble and somewhat uncertain beginning. My mother, at the age of 17 in 1960, was pregnant and was not married. This was at a time when community perceptions and prejudices were heavily weighted against unmarried mothers. With no provision of support and a family that was not able to support her, it was decided before my birth that I would be adopted. I was very lucky to be adopted into a family who not only nurtured and raised me but imparted, amongst many things, the important values of life. I enjoyed a good public education. After graduating from high school in 1977, I took on an apprenticeship as a hand and machine compositor—also known as a comp—a trade within the printing industry. I am one of only three compositors that I am aware of who have served in this House. The two previous compositors were Australia’s third Prime Minister and first Labor Prime Minister, John Watson, in 1904, and Senator Bert Milner, whose untimely death on 30 June 1975 caused a string of events that saw the demise of the Whitlam government later that year.

For me, the events of 1975 were largely responsible for my political awakening. On 11 November, 1975—incidentally during my junior exams—the Whitlam government was dismissed. While history well records the conventional and constitutional explanations for such an action, the political cause can largely be attributed to the machinations of Queensland’s then National Party state Premier, Johannes Bjelke-Petersen, who appointed a less than Labor-friendly replacement senator. The conditions of this appointment were catalytic in bringing down the national government. In Queensland, without the existence of an upper house, some of the long-accepted conventions of the Westminster system were compromised, which further led to allegations of dishonesty and corruption throughout executive government.

If you were a Labor Party member in Queensland, you may well have found yourself on the Police Special Branch files with an offensive dossier. The democratic freedoms we all enjoy in this country were severely compromised with the denial of freedom of expression, the outlawing of public congregation and the restriction of choice in what displayed many aspects of a totalitarian regime. However, the questionable activities and the promotion of cronyism by that government resulted in the conviction and sentencing of a number of former state government members on fraud and a variety of other charges. These events firmly galvanised my concern about political conservatism.

The conservative actions of the Howard government on many social issues also became the antithesis of reform, particularly on the important social reforms that emerge through changing times and expectations. This cannot be better demonstrated than by the refusal of the former government and its stance on all matters related to the reconciliation and the now celebrated apology brought down by the Rudd government on that historic day last week. I am sure the academics and the historians will analyse the actions of the Howard government and the machinations that continued in order to find excuses for why an apology should not be forthcoming. The Bringing them home report clearly explained the purpose of saying sorry to recommence the processes of reconciliation commenced by the previous Labor government. The philosophical arguments over the taxonomy of the words do not make any difference to the reality that, if there are social injustices affecting a community, governments must rise to the challenge of resolving these injustices. Reform is about recognising that something is not working and fixing it. In fact, I would argue that this is why this House exists—to debate, analyse and reform by finding a better way of doing things and to provide the appropriate legislation to deal with that change.

Reform should establish the notion of: ‘It’s not about blame; it’s about change and the need for change when it is so obviously warranted.’ The conservative philosophies and actions of the former Howard government were proven by their inflexibility when dealing with issues of social sensitivity. While the Work Choices legislation was certainly a major cause of the Howard government’s downfall, it also demonstrated to the voters that the government was arrogant and failing on many other levels. If the difference between reform and conservatism is the ability to right previous injustice, then we must always look towards reform, particularly if past decisions continue to hurt and disaffect members of our society.

Last week I was intrigued by comments from some of the opposition who seem to have the view that they have exclusivity when it comes to business expertise—an outdated, conservative and almost archaic boss-to-worker mentality—and that the coalition is business and Labor is the worker. The Labor Party proudly protects the rights of workers. A depth of expertise in all areas of business and professional practice is well represented on this side of the House. To suggest, as they did last week, that we on the Labor side have never run businesses or employed people is amusing, if not grossly naive and uninformed.

I have, for a significant part of my working life, been a small business man, employing people who incidentally were also members of the union. As a former small business owner and operator who employed a significant number of staff, I understand well the dynamics of running a business. I was a member and executive member of two chambers of commerce and served as president of one and vice-president of another over a number of years.

I spoke previously about my original trade as a compositor. But, with the opportunity to study as a mature age student, I commenced a commerce degree, converting to a teaching degree and further study, resulting in the completion of an honours degree in education. I took up positions as a teacher, lecturer, faculty and college director and, with the move back to the private sector, rolled out education and training programs in multimedia throughout Australia and South-East Asia. This led to varied business interests, including publishing small community newspapers and other media productions.

My desire to enter politics resulted in a move three years ago, when I took up offers in parliamentary and ministerial service for a state member and two senior Queensland ministers, as a policy adviser.

Mr Speaker, I further seek the indulgence of the House while I mention those special people who have had a great influence on my life and who have made my accession to this House a reality. As a member of the Labor Party, I pay tribute to the Labor cause and the generations of Labor members and elected members who have proven our philosophical stance, conscience and commitment to giving all Australians a fair go. I pay tribute to our Prime Minister and other elected Labor members in this House who fought a hard but honest campaign to convince a majority of Australians to hand Labor the responsibilities of government.

I have so many people, who played varying roles, to thank, and there is simply not enough time in this response to name them all. For that I apologise, but I will not forget them! I want to pay tribute to my mum, Lyn Raguse, who, at almost 87 years of age, has been my inspiration and my conscience. She is an Irish migrant of 81 years who still carries a good argument and is someone against whom I still have difficulty in winning a debate! I pay tribute to the memory of my father, John Raguse, who died too young at 62 and whose stoicism and strength taught me tenacity. This style of tenacity gave me strength to campaign relentlessly. I pay tribute to my childhood brother and sister, Mark and Kim Raguse, for the shared happy and eventful childhood years.

I pay tribute to my four children—Aaron, 19; Matthew, 17; Hannah, 13; Emma, 10—and their mother, Annette. They have supported me through the years and have lived with the effect of politics on family life. I pay tribute to my birth mother, Denise Fletcher, whom I finally met at the age of 29. She weathered the early trials of life yet emerged triumphant with the support of her husband, Laurie Fletcher, a man who has also inspired me with his gentle yet unrelenting support for his family.

I pay tribute to John and Daphne Loveday, who treated me like a son and were always there to support me. I pay tribute to my brothers and sisters and their families—the Fletchers—and my sister Nicole Byrnes, who made a number of personal sacrifices to help me achieve this win.

I thank Steve Searle and his wife, Alison, who always believed that success was possible. Steve’s energy and absolute commitment to the campaign were, for me, humbling and perpetually appreciated. I thank two very special and inspirational friends, Roland and Shirley Lindenmayer, who proved my theory that people from all political persuasions can come together for a common cause and influence a positive outcome and prove that democracy does work.

I pay tribute to Jim and Sandy Dennis, who were there from the start and never failed in providing help wherever and whenever needed. I also pay tribute to Jim’s mother, Mary Dennis, who, at 84, continues to hold the Labor faith. I thank Isobel Tarrago and her daughter, Aveline Tarrago, and Lucy and David Banu for their warm and generous support.

I pay tribute to my loyal friends Noni Hazlehurst and Ian Marden, who, with busy filming schedules interstate, always made the effort to be available. I pay tribute to Normie Rowe for his overt and enduring support for Vietnam veterans and for making sure we always remembered.

I pay tribute to Brett and Pam McCreadie for their hard work, friendship and the support they garnered from the QPSU. I pay tribute to those I honour as my political mentors, who, with their own busy and demanding schedules, always made time to help with advice: state members and ministers Desley Boyle, John Mickel, Margaret Keech, Evan Moorhead, Gary Fenlon, Michael Choi and Desley Scott. I also pay tribute to federal members and senators Joe Ludwig, Wayne Swan, Craig Emerson, Tony Burke, Jennie George, Bernie Ripoll and former minister Con Sciacca.

I pay tribute to my friends and family who are here today in the gallery: my two sons, Aaron and Matthew; Aaron’s partner, Alexa; Ada and Jamie Banks; Di Lydiard; Steve Alcock; Rosalia Sieira; and, in absentia, her partner, Paul Roderick.

I thank Jenny Atkinson, my campaign manager, who, with the support of several hundred campaign workers and the help of her daughter, Samantha Fuller, formed a solid team who unrelentingly pushed our cause forward. I say thank you to Maarten Sherrington and his family—his wife, Louise, and their children, Tom and Rose—who all made so many family sacrifices to ensure that Maarten was always available, particularly during those intense weeks and months of campaigning. To my other staff, Stuart Fenech, Annette Curry and Jason Whitlock: I thank you not only for what you have already achieved in my office but also in anticipation of the vibrant and exciting three years ahead of us.

I must pay special tribute to my partner, Marlene Sieira, who has weathered both a state and federal election campaign while managing her own career responsibilities and pressures. She has continued to be a stabilising influence, despite her own personal pain due to the loss of her father, Ben Sieira—a true gentleman—in 2006.

In closing, I would like to reflect on the words of the honourable member for Griffith, our new Prime Minister. In his first speech, which strongly reflects my own disposition, he said:

I do not know whether I will be in this place for a short or a long time. That is for others to decide. But what I do know is that I have no intention of being here for the sake of just being here. Together with my colleagues it is my intention to make a difference.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you to the members of this House for your kind indulgence.

Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.