Jennie George (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take this opportunity in my introductory remarks in the debate on the address-in-reply by thanking the electors in the seat of Throsby for providing me with the privilege of representing them again, in the 42nd Parliament. It is indeed an extraordinary privilege and honour to be an elected federal MP, and my colleagues and I all take our responsibilities very seriously. I want to also thank the constituents for the faith they placed in federal Labor, in Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and, I hope, in me as their local member, which was reflected in the almost 10 per cent swing to me as the Labor candidate on the two-party preferred results. They may not be aware that the seat of Throsby now holds the distinction of being the seat in New South Wales with the highest percentage of first preference Labor votes, at 65 per cent. I am indeed delighted with that result.

I give my commitment to the electorate to continue to work very hard on their behalf, delivering improvements locally across a range of innovative national programs that the Rudd Labor government will institute, be they in the important areas of health, education or the environment. Of course, I see it as my responsibility to ensure that the specific promises made in the lead-up to the election are delivered to my constituency, including, very importantly, the commitment to a GP superclinic in the Shellharbour area to address problems with lack of GP services and the commitment made to a combined Centrelink-Medicare office to service my community at Warrawong. And the funding for the feasibility study into the Maldon-Dombarton rail link is an important infrastructure project that I hope will be advanced with the election of the Rudd Labor government.

I think there is wisdom in the saying that you are only as good as the people behind you—and, in my case, with me. So I want to take the opportunity again to place on the record my thanks to my hardworking electorate staff, who represent me so efficiently and so well and who always provide a caring hand to the people who come to my office for assistance. I want to thank my campaign director and the team of over 200 branch and volunteer members who worked on the 40 booths that we staffed on election day. I want to place on record my thanks to a range of unions locally who worked very effectively in the Your Rights at Work campaign. Of course, the issue of Work Choices, as we all recognise, was a very important component of the victory by Labor at the federal level. And, last but not least, I want to thank my partner, Denis Lennen. I think all members appreciate the important role that is provided by family members, friends and partners in ensuring that they can undertake their responsibilities, as deemed important by their constituency.

I want to say a few words tonight about some of the challenges that I see confronting the federal Labor government and the importance of addressing those challenges if we are to deliver on the big agenda that we put forward in the lead-up to the federal election. Our agenda for reform, very importantly in areas of social reform, is predicated on continuing national economic prosperity. In that regard I have to say that I think the former government, while they pointed to a range of positive economic indicators, missed the opportunities that the terms of trade have presented to our nation. There is no doubt that the terms of trade boom has provided us all with a once in a generation opportunity to modernise our economy so that we can more successfully meet the challenges of the future. Strong global demand for Australia’s commodity exports has seen our terms of trade rise to a 50-year high. The Reserve Bank recently stated that the rise in the terms of trade has boosted real national income in the order of eight per cent. That is the equivalent of around $80 billion in the last year alone. But as we know, ironically, the ongoing terms of trade boom has revealed some of the weaknesses in our economy and, specifically, the capacity constraints that the Reserve Bank had warned us about for a long time.

I think the Howard government squandered the opportunities that these boom times have given the nation. I think they failed to appreciate that these boom times are the best times to invest in strengthening the economy to set us up for the future. It is my belief, which I know is shared by people on our side of the chamber, that we cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the Howard era. So in an economy which we know is now operating at close to full capacity, our efforts will need to be directed to expanding the supply side of the economy. A lack of investment in the nation’s infrastructure and the skills of our people has contributed to the current predicament of inflationary pressures. As we have indicated, the inflation genie is well and truly out of the bottle. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am finding it hard to make my comments with the chatter that is going on in the room.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will ensure that the chatter quietens down.

Jennie George (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying, the lack of investment in the nation’s infrastructure and the skills of our people is contributing to the current predicament of inflationary pressure in the economy. While government spending was growing very rapidly, particularly always in the lead-up to elections, the spending was not adequately directed to addressing the supply-side constraints on our economy. In fact, what we did was leave to the Reserve Bank the heavy lifting on the challenge of tackling inflation.

But, as all we know, monetary policy is a very blunt instrument. Its impacts are most acutely felt by those already burdened by substantial financial pressure. Despite the promises that we had from the Howard government about keeping interest rates at record lows, the fact is that there have been 12 increases in interest rates, which have risen by three per cent since 2002 and by one per cent in the past six months. So it is no wonder that people I represent are constantly telling me about the financial pressures they face on a daily basis.

That is why the Prime Minister has made it very clear that we have a responsibility as a government to tackle inflation and apply downward pressure to the extent that we can through the budget decisions that we make and, in that way, complement the efforts of the Reserve Bank through the blunt instrument of monetary policy. We also believe that our future prosperity will require sustained productivity growth. The more we can increase productivity, the more our economy can grow into the future without fuelling inflation and without the risk that it poses to increased interest rates. There is no short-term fix to these challenges, but we are committed—and I think we have the vision and the wherewithal to ensure that we do better than the former government in investing in the key supply inputs of economic growth, in particular in our workforce, in our infrastructure and in skilling the Australian people.

Despite comments made by opposition speakers in the House since parliament resumed, we cannot ignore the fact that we have indeed inherited the highest level of inflation in 16 years. That is a legacy that was bequeathed to us, and we cannot run away from that fact. But we have taken the responsibility for tackling this inflation legacy. We are not just saying, ‘Oh, well, it’s a problem we inherited. Let us just blame the former government for that.’ The Prime Minister and the Treasurer have made it very clear that it is now the responsibility of the federal Labor government to tackle that inflation legacy.

We have a number of prongs to our strategy to fight inflation. The first is the importance in this coming budget of exercising fiscal discipline and reining in the kind of profligate spending that we saw, particularly in the lead-up to the last election. If you do not want to take my characterisation of the previous government’s measures as profligate spending at face value, you only have to refer to comments made by the former Treasurer, the member for Higgins, when he on several occasions expressed his public concern at the ‘sustainability’ of the former government’s pre-election spending. So I think the member for Higgins was already sounding the alarm bells, and we certainly will heed that message. As the Minister for Finance and Deregulation has made very clear in the House, the days of reckless, politically driven spending and programs that were nothing more than rorts are over. After 12 increases in interest rates and with inflation at a 16-year high, families and businesses—the people we represent—will suffer if the inflation genie is not reined in. To that end, it has been made very clear by both the Treasurer and the minister for finance that we expect to run a strong budget surplus of at least 1½ per cent of GDP.

In that regard we also have a responsibility to do more about encouraging private saving. In a couple of articles I have read in the last couple of weeks the emphasis has been very much on the inflation issue, but people are also alerting us to the very high levels of private debt in our economy. I think it is a growing case of serious concern that we will need to address when you consider that debt has been growing faster than GDP for the past 44 years. There are estimates that the level of debt is now higher than it was in the era leading up to the events of the Great Depression.

We must maintain our focus on encouraging private savings, and in that regard the announcement about the first home savers account and the incentive to save through superannuation show that Labor understands and is committed to the further encouraging of private savings. We have heard a lot from the Deputy Prime Minister about Labor’s agenda with the education revolution and our solid commitments to investing in the training and education of our people. This is important not only in terms of raising human capital but also, as we all know, in addressing the skills crisis that has been on the agenda for the last decade and about which the former government did very little.

I want to commend the government for the early introduction of the bills relating to our skilling agenda. I also want to compliment the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government for the speedy legislative decisions that we are now debating about establishing Infrastructure Australia so that we can provide long-term planning and coordination of vital economic infrastructure to relieve all those bottlenecks that we are so conversant with. These are bottlenecks that are constraining output, pushing up business costs and further fuelling inflationary pressures.

The last arm of our fighting inflation strategy is to do more to encourage workforce participation. While there has been debate about the tax cuts, they will be phased in. They will deal with the effective marginal tax rate dilemma which we have, on our side, talked about for a considerable period of time—that is, the disincentive to participate in the workforce, particularly for the second income earner. We do want to provide incentives for people, particularly women, to rejoin the workforce. We hope the labour supply will rise by around 65,000 with the tax reforms that we have outlined and the economic modelling that underpins them. Together with other changes, we estimate that not too far down the track we will be seeing an additional 2½ million hours of work on a weekly basis. So you do not take the tax cut issue alone but link it into our agenda for encouraging workforce participation to see, hopefully, the benefits on the labour supply side that will come with those changes.

Similarly, I welcome the commitment that has been made by federal Labor to the childcare tax rebate. As we know, the out-of-pocket expenses in many areas are causing huge constraints on household budgets. The education tax refund will also ease the pressure on household budgets. I believe Labor’s announced strategy to tackle the inflation problem will help keep downward pressure on interest rates, although we recognise there is no magic bullet. But through our budgetary policies we can lend a helping hand to the Reserve Bank’s efforts to keep inflation within the target range. Certainly, the cost of living pressures are major issues that are identified by constituents in their representations to me.

Prior to the election I did a local survey asking constituents to identify the issues that were causing them most financial grief. Of the five that stood out, the first was rising petrol prices—and more recently the rise in the cost of LPG. I commend the early intervention in these issues with the appointment of a petrol commissioner whose brief will also look at diesel and LPG costs.

The second issue that was identified was increasing health costs. While it is regrettable that we have had another round of increases in private health insurance, I think our minister did a sterling job in making the private health insurers account for and provide the rationale for the increases they were seeking. So, unlike previous years, it seemed to me that it was not just the regular tick-off that had occurred.

The third issue was increases in interest rates—and I have touched on that—and that is an ongoing issue that must concern all of us on both sides of the chamber. The fourth issue was rising grocery bills, and that issue was explained very well by the task force that Labor had in the lead-up to the federal election. My colleague the member for Ballarat chaired that task force. Rising grocery bills is still an issue of concern and I welcome the commitment that Labor has made for the ACCC to undertake a range of measures relating to that very important issue. The fifth issue identified was the impact of Work Choices. I am delighted that before we rise this week we will have, I hope, the transition bill in place that consigns Work Choices and the insidious statutory AWAs to the dustbin of history.

In the concluding time that I have I want to also commend Labor’s announced policies to deal with the issues of housing and rental affordability. Those are major issues in my electorate. The 2006 census identified 11,000 households in the Illawarra that were facing mortgage stress, and that is a severe underestimation because we have had further interest rate rises beyond the data gathered in that census. What I found really alarming was that, in the time between the earlier census data, between 2001 and 2006, there had been a 100 per cent increase in the number of households in the Illawarra suffering from mortgage stress. In my electorate alone, 43 per cent of people who rent privately are now in rental stress, according to the 2006 data. Both rental and housing affordability are key issues of concern in my electorate.

I am delighted that we are now debating the outline of the First Home Saver Accounts, which is going to make a difference. It will help young people in my electorate save for their first home through a special low-tax superannuation style savings account. I hope our Housing Affordability Fund will be an important mechanism to leverage federal funding for infrastructure so that when land is released we can assist in that land release, providing there are complementary savings provided by state and local government to lower the development charges. Our National Rental Affordability Scheme, which aims to provide properties at 20 per cent below market rental values, will help because there is a huge backlog of people waiting for public housing, and our better approach to land release will also free up housing, development and community infrastructure land. So I am very excited about being the member for Throsby under a federal Labor government and I look forward to delivering to my constituents the benefits, the promises and the policies that Labor took to the last election.

Michael Johnson (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am delighted and honoured to rise in the parliament today to speak in the debate on the address-in-reply to the Governor-General’s remarks regarding the opening of the 42nd Parliament. This is the third parliament to which I have had the great privilege of being elected—of course, coming here in the successful re-election of the Howard government in November of 2001. When I made my maiden speech in this House on 13 February 2002, I understand I was the 986th person to have been elected to the Australian House of Representatives since our formation as a federation in 1901, and I think this illustrates just what a rare and remarkable honour it is to be elected to this place.

With the class of 2007, I understand that we have welcomed to the House of Representatives our 1,059th member. I take this opportunity to extend personal congratulations to those 31 men and 11 women who come to this parliament representing their constituencies across the length and breadth of this wonderful country. The influx of 42 new members is one of the largest in recent history, outdone only by the 53 members elected in 1996 and the 69 new members elected in the 1949 election, when the House of Representatives expanded from 75 members to 123. So there is clearly an enormous turnover of members. More significantly, of course, it represents a fundamental shift in the parliamentary and political landscape of Australia.

Obviously for me, as a sitting Liberal member returned to this House by the people of Ryan, the election was a great disappointment in terms of the defeat of the Howard government. But, as someone who believes fervently in the democratic practice of our country and the values of representative democracy and free and fair elections, I say that one of the greatest assets of our country is that people can go to the polls on a given day and have their say to choose their political representatives—to choose their voices in the national parliament.

The coalition now faces a challenging road to rebuild itself as a group of parties that can go to the next election to seek the mandate and the support of the Australian people. Of course, it goes without saying that this will take good policies, quality candidates and a united party if we are to earn back the confidence of the Australian electorate. I take this opportunity to congratulate the Leader of the Liberal Party, Dr Nelson, and the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, Ms Bishop, for the confidence that the Liberal Party placed in them in electing them to their respective high positions.

I also want to briefly pay tribute to a former colleague of mine in this parliament: the Hon. Mal Brough, the former member for Longman, who I think will be recorded as one of the most successful and courageous Indigenous affairs ministers of our time. For those who knew Mr Brough, he was certainly a minister with genuine affection for Indigenous Australians. He was a minister who had great passion for his work and a great desire to see the situation of indigenous Australians changed from one of great disadvantage to one where they could share in the opportunities of our country.

The gap between black and white Australia is unacceptable, and it must be the priority of this government and, indeed, of all future governments that are elected to this place. The Governor-General, in his remarks at the opening of the parliament, spoke of the significance of the new government’s focus on Indigenous affairs. I certainly welcome that. I hope that this government will be true to its rhetoric. I hope that this government will be true to its high platform of making a permanent impact on the state of affairs in this country in terms of the gap between black and white Australia. I will, however, say for the record that I am not quite sure that history will be kind to this government, because of its focus on ideology rather than outcome. I think that history will not be kind to this government in the years ahead, when we look back. Now that we have given an apology to those who are very deserving of that apology, the focus must be on the cause of authentic and meaningful practical reconciliation that will give Indigenous Australians across this country a very real share in the great prosperity of our nation.

I also want, in this presentation, to make some remarks about the loss to the parliament of the Hon. John Howard, the former Prime Minister. He, of course, was a stalwart of the Liberal parliamentary team after his election in 1974 to the seat of Bennelong. I have no doubt that he will be recorded in Australian political history as the most successful Prime Minister since Sir Robert Menzies and certainly one of the most successful politicians of his generation.

I have often commented on the fact that one of the most remarkable features of his stewardship of this nation, and of the government of which I was proud to be a part for two of my terms hitherto, was the willingness to take very courageous decisions and, in many cases, decisions that were very unpopular with the electorate but were clearly in the best interests of this country. I think that is the test of any government, whether at state or national level. It is the capacity of the government to make the very hard calls—the capacity of the government to make the hard judgements when they might not go down well with the wider community. So far, I think, we have seen a fair bit of bread and circuses and very little substantial decision making from the new Rudd Labor government.

After all, one is elected to government for a purpose. One is elected to government to make an impact and to make the hard calls. If it was easy, then of course, anyone would be doing it. The Howard government can stand proud for some of the very courageous decisions it made during its time in office. I will just touch on a handful: reforming the waterfront; the gun control issue, in the first term of the Howard government; introducing sweeping taxation reform, particularly the introduction of the GST; the introduction of welfare to work measures; and, in the last parliament, the Northern Territory intervention.

Most importantly, however, the Howard government can stand very proud for having implemented a very successful range of policies that saw the paying off of $96 billion of Labor government debt which hung over the heads of all Australians when the Howard government came into office in 1996. Let us just consider for a moment this figure of $96 billion. It is a profoundly large sum of money, such an amount that one really cannot get one’s head around it. To break that down into a more meaningful context: when the coalition came to office in 1996, that $96 billion of Labor government debt represented $9,073 per taxpayer, or $5,230 per Australian. So in 1996, as a 26-year-old, I owed $9,073; my sister, who was not a taxpayer at the time, as a 16-year-old, owed $5,230. This gives some perspective to what a huge amount of money that $96 billion of Labor debt represented.

If anyone asks the question of why those on the coalition side of politics continue to raise this figure of $96 billion of debt, the response is quite straightforward. A government, just like a household, has an obligation to pay off debt. If it does not have the revenue stream, it does not have the financial resources to invest in the nation’s future; it does not have the funds to invest in critical aspects of the economy such as education, road infrastructure and hospitals. That is why the Howard government made it a central element of its economic policy to repay that $96 billion of Labor government debt.

Of course, today the new government does not have the misfortune of having inherited an enormous amount of government debt. After all, a government that is fundamentally broke is not able to do much for its citizens. So there is no way that I, as the member for Ryan, am going to let the constituents that I represent in this parliament forget the capacity of Labor to manage the economy. I know that those opposite are going to try and improve their lot, their skills. I certainly wish them well, but I have very great reservations about their economic management skills.

It is not to be forgotten that the new Prime Minister opposed so many of the initiatives of the Howard government which did so much to pay off this enormous government debt and he did so much to oppose the initiatives that really brought Australia forward out of the economic malaise of the mid-1990s under former Labor Prime Minister Keating. We all know that he clearly opposed the introduction of the GST, he opposed the privatisation of Telstra, he opposed tariff reduction scheduling for manufacturing industries and he opposed the protection of small business owners by voting against unfair dismissal laws. These are not the voting actions or voting patterns of a fiscal conservative, but of course the Australian people were convinced that he was a fiscal conservative. We will see in the next 2½ years whether conduct reflects rhetoric.

The new Labor government takes the reins of a nation that is no longer drowning under the burdens of public sector debt and high unemployment. The country has been relieved of $96 billion in Labor debt and now has a AAA credit rating and the lowest unemployment rate in over three decades—for some 34 years. This is something that all of us should be very proud of, irrespective of the colour of our politics. The most significant thing that a government can do is to provide the climate in which all Australians who seek employment—young Australians, men and women—can acquire jobs. There must surely be nothing more crippling, for a young person in particular, than to stare into the climate of the times and see that his prospects for employment are very minimal indeed. The Howard-led coalition government of 11½ years leaves an economic picture for the new Labor government that is quite outstanding. We have higher pensions, better living standards, more funding for health and education, more money for the state governments and an economic resilience that surely is the envy of the rest of the developed world—and I have not even touched on the 10 out of 12 budget surpluses that the former Treasurer delivered.

I am not quite sure which other country’s economy the new government would have preferred to have inherited. The Treasurer talks very frequently about the inflation genie being out of the bottle, but I am not sure whether he would have preferred to have under his stewardship the Chinese economy, the American economy, the French economy or the British economy. Maybe he would prefer the economies of Malawi and Rwanda, which one parliamentary secretary spoke of as a reference point for how good Australia was in the dark recession days of the Keating era. I would have thought that the new government would have been very pleased to have the economy that it has inherited rather than the likes of the Chinese economy—or the American economy, which currently faces a major challenge.

For the coalition, the foremost challenge is to hold the Rudd government accountable for the campaign promises it made to the electorates across the country, including to the people in my electorate of Ryan. The Rudd government did make some very significant election promises, and it needs to be held accountable for those promises. If the government delivers on its promises, then it should be commended for delivering them. Equally, if does not deliver, it should be hung, drawn and quartered by the Australian electorate. I can certainly make a commitment here that, as the Liberal member for Ryan, I will keep a very close eye on the Labor government and its rhetoric. The government left a very heavy inference in the community that grocery and petrol prices would go down and the solutions to very difficult, complex problems would be resolved once the people of Australia elected a Labor government. As we know, in life things are not always as simple as that. There is a bit more to government than just making rhetorical comments. The members of the coalition, and I as the member for Ryan, will certainly be watching like a hawk the policies and the conduct of the new government.

I want to touch on the issue of climate change. A big issue that the now Labor government raised in the election campaign was its capacity to bring Australia in step with the rest of the countries that it said the former Howard government was not in step with. On behalf of the people of Ryan, I want to ask a question about the costs for the families and businesses of Ryan. What costs will the Australian government’s policy solution incur? There must be some cost—some financial imposition. Climate change is a genuine and significant issue. We all accept that; I certainly accept that. Equally, I am also candid enough to say that there must be a financial cost. All I want to know, as the representative of the Ryan electorate, is what the cost will be. In the parliament, there have been circumstances when the shadow environment minister has asked questions of the executive about petrol price rises and so forth. In my opinion the ministers, reflecting their inability to provide an answer, were dumbstruck and quite seriously out of their depth.

I want to comment upon a very significant development last week. The federal opposition, on behalf of the carers of Australia, was able to force the Prime Minister and the Labor government to back down from quite remarkable plans to axe the $500 seniors bonus payment and the $1,600 carers payment for those who look after disabled dependants. It defies belief that a Labor Prime Minister would target one of the most vulnerable groups in our society as part of his drive to save money in the budget. If inflation is as serious a problem as the government wants to make out, I would have thought cuts could be made in other areas, but not in the areas where the most vulnerable people in our society would be affected.

No doubt most members of this parliament—and certainly, I suspect, most members of the government—would have had their electorate offices flooded with constituents expressing great anger, frustration and disbelief. I certainly have a range of constituents from the Ryan electorate who made it very clear that they were dumbstruck by the message they were receiving on their television sets and in the newspapers that a newly elected Labor government would dare to touch an area that made a significant impact on the lives of ordinary Australians who are, in fact, doing the country a favour by looking after their loved ones rather than having them in institutions. Regrettably, time does not permit me to read the very eloquent and moving statements of my constituents, but I do want to assure them that I have heard their concerns, their anxieties and their voices. I take the opportunity to express their views, as they have asked me to do, for the record because I think they are deserving of acknowledgement in this parliament.

In conclusion, I want to thank the people of Ryan for showing their faith in me and returning me to this place. Ryan is an electorate that sits in the western suburbs of Brisbane. Its most iconic landmark is probably the University of Queensland. It is a wonderful part of Brisbane in which to bring up a family. As one of the younger members of this parliament, I acknowledge the great faith that the people of Ryan have placed in me by re-electing me to my third parliament. I assure them that I will honour their faith in me. (Time expired)

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas. I think this is the first time I have spoken while you have been in the chair. Congratulations on being elected to the Speaker’s panel. I know that you will acquit yourself in a fine and upstanding manner, as you do in every job that you do in this parliament, including your position as Chair of the Standing Committee on Health and Ageing.

The previous speaker boasted about the Howard government’s record and its economic management skills, and I had to stop myself from laughing. It was the government that allowed Australia to develop the highest inflation rate in 16 years, oversaw 10 interest rate rises in a row, ignored the skills crisis and failed to address the major infrastructure needs of our nation. It was a government that sat on its hands and did nothing except create fear.

It was an arrogant government. Nothing typifies the current opposition’s arrogance and shows that they have not learnt from their loss at the last election more than the campaign they launched last week, which was based on speculation, not fact, frightening and causing anxiety for tens of thousands of carers throughout Australia. This campaign was based on speculation. There were no facts; there had been no announcement from government that there would not be a carers bonus in the budget. Rather, it was at the whim of those in the opposition struggling for some relevance within the parliament. They linked into an issue about which they thought they could drum up a bit of publicity and create a bit of fear and anxiety. I am appalled that they could be so insensitive as to try to create fear amongst people that are vulnerable. It says to me that they have not learnt anything from their election loss.

At the last election, the Australian people elected the Rudd government because they knew that the Labor Party was the party of the future and that the Prime Minister would be a fine leader of this country. The Labor Party, under the leadership of Kevin Rudd, is committed to nation building, to building a better future for the nation and working families. The Australian people recognised that the Howard government was out of touch, had lost its way and had absolutely no plan for the future. Nothing typifies this more for me than the statement made by the then Prime Minister, John Howard, prior to the election that ‘Australian families have never been better off’. It showed me and other members of the Labor Party that he was out of touch and that he did not go out into the community and talk to people that were struggling and doing it hard—people that had suffered the 10 interest rate rises in a row.

If there is any message I would like to give to the opposition it is that they need to look at the reasons why they lost the last election. They need to come to terms with the fact that they are the opposition now; they are not the government sitting on the opposition benches. They need to be truly sensitive to the needs of the people in Australia that look to us in the federal parliament to behave responsibly—not to engender fear when there is no reason for a fear campaign. They need to learn, develop some policies, get their facts right and make themselves relevant.

I would like to thank the people of Shortland for the trust that they have placed in me by electing me to the parliament for the fourth time. The people of Shortland are very special, as is the electorate of Shortland. I know most members feel this way about their electorate, but I think I can justify making the statement that Shortland is probably one of the most beautiful electorates in the nation. It is a long, thin electorate nestled between the lake and the sea, and along with that we have some very special and unique issues. I was very pleased that one of the first acts of the Rudd Labor government was the ratification, the signing, of Kyoto. That is very important to the people I represent in this parliament. We know how important protecting our environment is. We know that climate change is an issue and we know that by making that initial commitment we are saying it is on the agenda, we are going to address the issues of climate change and we are not going to pretend it does not exist. We need action, not inaction. Once again, I thank the people for the trust they have placed in me. I promise that I will work for them and see that they have a strong voice in this parliament.

I would also like to thank the team that worked with me in the election. They are a very dedicated team. The members of the Labor Party in the Shortland electorate worked very hard to see a Rudd Labor government elected and to see me elected. They spent many hours letterboxing, coming out doorknocking with me and helping in a variety of different ways. I would also like to thank my staff, particularly my Campaign Director, John Buckley, and my family. My husband, Lindsay, is one of the very hard-working ALP members in the electorate and somebody that not only believes in what the Labor Party stands for but also has supported me throughout my time in parliament, so I thank him specially. And I thank my children, although now they are grown-up the impact of my being a member of parliament is nowhere near as great as it was when they were younger.

I was exceptionally proud when, on the first day that this parliament sat, we had the Indigenous welcome to country. It set the theme for what the Rudd Labor government was about. It created a whole new environment within the parliament and I think most members on both sides of the House would have felt that. On the following day, when we had the apology to Indigenous Australians, once again I was proud to be a part of that historic event. I think it was one of the members on the other side, Christopher Pyne, the member for Sturt, who said that it was a historic day, but it did not need to be as historic as it was because we should have made that apology 11 years ago. But as a parliament we finally made the apology and members of this particular 42nd Parliament are fortunate to have been part of that apology.

One of the big issues in the election was the Work Choices legislation. I had people coming to my office asking me what they could do to help unseat the Howard government, and many of those people were motivated purely and simply by the Work Choices legislation. I have had a number of people over a very long period of time come and see me about issues that related to the previous Work Choices legislation—people who have been disadvantaged and people who have had their lives turned upside down because of that legislation. And there were a significant number of people within the electorate that wanted to sign petitions and wanted to work with me during the election.

When I thanked people, I should have thanked those people that were involved with the Your Rights at Work campaign. They came out and worked on some of my polling booths, and the polling booths that had the Your Rights at Work paraphernalia displayed were where I had the biggest swings. In an electorate like Shortland, achieving 13 or 15 per cent swings on already safe polling booths showed that that campaign touched the very hearts of people within the electorate who had felt that the Work Choices legislation was really disadvantaging them. Given that Shortland electorate is the 10th oldest electorate within the nation, it showed that those older members of the community were fearful of the effect that it was going to have on their grandchildren. It was said to me a number of times, ‘This does not affect me directly, but it will impact on the lives of my children and my grandchildren.’ Once again it shows how far-sighted, how intelligent and how practical the people of the Shortland electorate are.

I would like to touch on the issue of skills shortages. In the Shortland electorate, we have a large number of people who in the past relied on industry—people who undertook traditional apprenticeships, people who saw their role in life as working in those professions. Under the previous government, young people leaving school were unable to get those traditional apprenticeships. There were a number of new apprenticeships, but they were not preparing people to meet the areas of skills shortage that existed within the community. That was identified by the employer groups in our area and by the people who were seeking work.

One of the key commitments that the then Rudd Labor Party, now the Rudd Labor government, took to the election was to address the skills shortage. We would create opportunities for all those young people who wanted to undertake traditional apprenticeships so that they could do just that. I know that that has been embraced by people in the electorate of Shortland and it has been embraced by the schools within Shortland. I have visited a number of schools since the election. I have talked to them about the computers in schools program that Labor went to the election with and I have spoken to them about the trade schools. Next week I will be visiting all the high schools again to discuss computers in schools and the trade schools again.

I encourage members of the opposition to do the same, because it is a unique opportunity for your schools, for the schools you represent in this parliament. I was speaking to my staff member earlier today, and he said that the schools that he has spoken to when arranging the appointments for me to go out to visit them have all been excited about the fact that these initiatives are being put in place. They are excited about the computers in schools program and they are excited about the trade centres. I would encourage members to look at it creatively and to make sure that they do not let political rhetoric stand in the way of getting resources that are going to benefit the people they represent in this parliament. It is a great initiative, something the schools are welcoming, both government and non-government schools, and it is something that all members of parliament should embrace.

The Infrastructure Australia Bill 2008, the bill to set up Infrastructure Australia, has passed through this House. Once again, it is legislation that is picking up on the inaction of the previous government—the fact that, instead of investing in the future of the country, it was blatantly looking after its mates and allowing to develop in Australia a situation where those people who were very well off were taken care of but those who were doing it hard found it even harder to survive. That really shows in the fact that the gap between those on the lowest incomes and those on the highest incomes widened during its time in government. I think it is the role of government to support everybody within the community.

One area that I am particularly interested in is health and the government’s health reform agenda. I think that it is time that governments stopped blaming each other for the problems that exist within the health system. It is a time when governments of all persuasions, whether state or federal, or local, for that matter, should come together and look at what they can do to address the real health issues confronting the communities we represent. The chronic shortage of doctors, which has existed for a long time—and a shortage of not only doctors but also allied health professionals—needs to be addressed. Labor is putting in place GP superclinics that will help to address that in some ways. In the electorate that I represent, Shortland, we have a real problem because the doctors in three areas of the electorate have closed their books. The government’s reform agenda is about addressing these issues and actually solving the problems.

Regarding problems with dental health, Labor’s Commonwealth Dental Health Program will be reinstated. I cannot understand why the previous government ever removed it. It was a program that was working. I was a state member of parliament at the time that the Howard government was elected. When they decided to discontinue the Commonwealth Dental Health Program, pensioners and people on low incomes came to my office for help because they were no longer able to get the dental treatment they needed. The Rudd Labor government will be fixing that. We will be providing services to help those 650,000 people who are on the dental waiting lists throughout Australia.

I would like to quickly touch on homelessness. There are a number of different aspects to homelessness. In the Shortland electorate, we have a youth hostel and a women and children’s refuge. They provide crisis accommodation for people who find themselves homeless for a variety of reasons. They are two excellent organisations operating within the electorate. They do absolutely everything you could ask of them to provide support and service to the people who need them. But we need far more than we have at the moment. It is one of the issues that the Prime Minister is addressing at the moment.

But homelessness is taking on another face within the Shortland electorate. There is a chronic shortage of rental accommodation. People are being forced out of their homes because of the interest rate rises. I have had a number of families that cannot find accommodation come to my office. Many of them do not have rental records. The system that monitors people’s rental records is something that they cannot access. It is very difficult to find information about it, and that does not help at all. Homelessness has a number of different faces. Solving the private and public housing shortage is something that this government will embrace.

Finally, there were two main issues that I made a commitment to the people of the Shortland electorate on, and they were funding of the Fernleigh Track and a Medicare office at Belmont. The Belmont Medicare office was operating when the previous government came to power. It had a higher throughput than a number of offices that they kept open, but it was in the heart of a Labor held electorate and they closed it in a mean-spirited way. Fernleigh Track is a fantastic asset within the Shortland electorate. It is a vital tourist track and something that is embraced by the community. In closing, I would like to once again thank the people of Shortland for the trust that they have placed in me by electing me to this parliament. I promise them that I will serve them faithfully throughout the term of this parliament.

Fran Bailey (McEwen, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in this debate on behalf of the people of McEwen. I want to place on record my appreciation to the 44,165 people who gave me their first preference, 5.5 per cent more voters than those who cast their first preference for the ALP. To the many hundreds of other people who marked the number 1 in the box beside my name but sadly neglected to fill in any other square, I thank them for their confidence in me but in the future I would be even more grateful if they would complete the ballot paper by numbering every square. I am very proud to represent all of the people of McEwen.

The result in McEwen, as everyone knows, has made national political history by becoming the most marginal electorate in the entire country and also because the ALP have petitioned the High Court to overturn the final decision of the AEC. By the way, they want the Australian taxpayers to foot their bill. This is in spite of the ALP and their candidate giving an assurance that they would abide by the umpire’s decision on the recount in McEwen. In taking this action, the ALP are questioning both the conduct and the role of the AEC. This stands in stark contrast with the public comments made by the ALP at the close of the recount, when they stated that the AEC was a thoroughly professional organisation and thanked them for their fairness.

The electorate of McEwen is now the biggest Victorian electorate, by population, by a country mile, with more than 107,000 registered voters. Just three years ago, where cows grazed in paddocks there now stand around 15,000 homes. In this debate, I want to raise a number of issues that are of critical concern to people across the huge and diverse electorate of McEwen. I do not think there would be a member of this House who has not been touched by the hardship of drought, either in their own electorate or vicariously. To put this into perspective for my electorate, every rural local government authority has been declared to be in severe drought and the three shires that are more regionally based on the outskirts of Melbourne have had their rural areas declared in severe drought also. Imagine then how the farmers, the small business people and the tourist operators in these areas felt when they were told without any consultation that water, their very lifeblood, was to be diverted from their area to approximately 200,000 homes in Melbourne via a pipeline from Yea to the Sugarloaf Reservoir which was to be known as the Sugarloaf pipeline.

This is water that is needed to grow produce for both our domestic and export markets. It is water that is needed to sustain our magnificent natural environment of the north-east—the Eildon catchment area; the Goulburn River, which flows into the Murray-Darling system; the Acheron and the Yea rivers. It is this environment that is responsible for attracting tourists who pump millions of dollars into these regional economies. It is the water that defines this region and provides the basis for many communities and a lifestyle that has supported many generations. However, not only were these communities not consulted about such a massive diversion of water but the Victorian state government did not conduct any scientific or environmental assessment of the impact this diversion would have on the environment or the flow of the Goulburn River, which feeds into the Murray-Darling. In fact, on 28 December 2007 the Victorian Minister for Planning, Justin Madden, said an environmental effects statement would not be required for the Sugarloaf pipeline.

Imagine if a private company attempted to start a comparable major infrastructure project and attempted to bypass the normal measures designed to protect the community and the environment. This clearly demonstrates the Victorian government’s arrogance and complete lack of care or understanding of the needs of these rural communities which are dependent on this water for their livelihood. Not only have the state government arrogantly flouted the rules that apply to everyone else, but they have bulldozed ahead with their plans and have already appointed the construction engineers. When they appointed the John Holland construction company as the successful firm to construct the pipeline, no decision had been announced on their preferred route for construction. So the question needs to be asked: what information was detailed in the tender documentation to enable these engineers to accept the job?

While telling the public that the route was still under discussion, as Melbourne Water officials did at a public meeting in Yarra Glen on the night of Wednesday, 30 January this year, had the state government already decided on the route? Again, there was no consultation with landholders or any of the affected community. How else could they have entered into a contract with the construction firm if they had not indicated their preferred proposed route?

The question needs to be asked: why would this state government take such a decision to divert 75 gigalitres of water? And, by the way, that is equivalent to one-fifth of the capacity of Sydney Harbour. Why would they take this amount of water from a region that has been in severe drought conditions? The water catchment of Lake Eildon, according to the CSIRO, will not reach more than 30 per cent capacity before 2020, and many farmers dependent on their water supply from Eildon have not been able to get their full water entitlements because of the depleted levels of the catchment.

Initially the state government claimed that water would be saved from fixing some of the ageing and leaking irrigation channels in the Goulburn Valley. They said that one-third of this so-called extra water saved would be retained and sold to irrigators, one-third would be returned to the environment and one-third would be piped to Melbourne to service approximately 200,000 homes. But the state government have never released any research to substantiate their claims of water to be saved, and there is no environmental or water scientist who can verify or agree with their claims. The state government refuse to allow any independent analysis of these claims by, for example, the Auditor-General. There is a very simple reason why they will not: they know their claims that water can be saved cannot be substantiated. Even if those savings were real and could be substantiated, the responsible course of action would be to make the savings first, before diverting any water from an already stressed area. But of course that is not what is happening.

The Sugarloaf pipeline is being pushed along at great speed, and it is the intention of the state government to have this built before one litre of their imagined savings from the work to be carried out on the irrigation channels is harnessed—and this comes at a cost of around $1 billion. On 18 February this year, following sustained opposition from irrigation farmers, broadacre farmers and local businesspeople, the state government released a 186-page document titled Project impact assessment. This document sets out very clearly in the first chapter that the purpose of this project is to transfer water to Melbourne. The report then details in chapter 2 Melbourne’s water supply situation. It says:

Inflows into Melbourne Water’s reservoirs over the past 10 years have been significantly lower than in the previous 100 years. The year 2006 saw the lowest stream flows in recorded history ... This followed a period of 10 years in which there were 3 major drought periods ... This extended dry period has resulted in a long-term decline in storage reserves—

with those reserves at only 29 per cent of capacity.

No-one denies any of that, but the Eildon catchment area, where they plan to take water from, has been in severe drought conditions throughout this entire period and its capacity has plummeted to a critical level of only nine per cent. At that level, they are barely able to provide sufficient water to flush out the Goulburn River if there is an algae outbreak. As we stand here today, Eildon’s capacity is only 16.6 per cent. The report states quite clearly up-front:

... the key objective is to increase water security for Melbourne in light of predicted lower inflows which are expected to occur as a result of climate change, increased population, and continued metropolitan growth.

So we are left in no doubt whatsoever that the main aim of this pipeline is to secure water for the future of 200,000 homes in Melbourne. The real question here is at what cost? The needs of country people come a very poor second to the needs of those lucky people living in those 200,000 homes in Melbourne. The Victorian state government is prepared to sacrifice the livelihoods of country people so that approximately 200,000 homes in Melbourne can have enhanced water entitlements in the future. Let me quote further from this document:

Key findings contained in the PIA are summarised as:

The Sugarloaf Pipeline Project will not significantly impact environmental, social or economic values associated with the project;

The level of investigations and assessment undertaken is appropriate to assess the key issues associated with the project and to determine preferred pipeline corridors, taking into account mitigation and management option identified for those key issues ...

That is the rhetoric, but the reality is a very different picture. At the back of the report there are 18 pages of appendices. I will not go into all of them but I will give you a bit of a snapshot. They include: ‘Design Assessment Report’, ‘Environmental Implications of Transferring Water Assessment’, ‘Hydrogeology Assessment’, ‘Flora and Fauna Assessment’, ‘Socio-Economic and Tourism Impact Assessment’ and ‘Greenhouse Gas Assessment’. But here is the crunch: every single one of those 18 pages, which are supposed to be containing those appendices, is blank. Can you believe it? They have released this report to the public with 18 blank pages!

This is not just a very serious problem for the people of my electorate but a serious national problem because the waters of the Goulburn River feed into the Murray-Darling system. An action under the EPBC Act has been referred to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts. Given the total lack of environmental assessment by the Victorian state government, I do sincerely urge the federal minister to give this application his very close attention. There is just too much at stake for the health of our environment, the water flows and the future viability of all the small business people affected by this unprecedented and very callous decision by the Victorian state government.

We do not have an awful lot of time in this debate and I do want to touch on a couple of other issues. The Labor government, as we heard on day one, is wedded to accountability and being transparent. So I want to get on the record that, during the election campaign, so-called cast-iron commitments were made in my electorate. These included a $3½ million indoor sports stadium in Diamond Creek. Is the government going to honour this commitment? When will they make the funding available? Will the funding be determined by other levels of government coming forward with their funding first? These are matters that we really must know about.

As well there is the $1 million GP superclinic in Wallan. This was announced by the now Deputy Prime Minister and the now Minister for Health and Ageing in Wallan. There was no consultation with the local community or the GPs. Of course, since the election, there has been a big question mark over these GP superclinics, so I would like to know if the government is going to deliver on this commitment. We would like to know where it is going to be located. Are the government going to deliver on the podiatry, physiotherapy, chronic disease management, GPs and after-hours GP services that were promised during the election campaign?

I listened to the previous speaker talk about computers in schools. I do not think anyone disagrees that computers in schools is a great idea, but I would like to know who owns them. Is it the school, the families, the children? When something happens to them, who bears the cost for repairs, maintenance, insurance et cetera? Do you know what the parents in my electorate are really interested in? They want an answer to the question: why has the Investing in Our Schools Program been abolished? This was a program that delivered more than $14 million into schools across my electorate for programs. For example, one school got its first permanent building. The children of that school had been educated in temporary portables that had been recycled many times. The families of children from those schools are asking me, ‘How can you talk about an education revolution if your kids are going to a school where the buildings they are being educated in have exceeded their lifespan by at least 20-odd years?’ They want a good, clean toilet block. They actually want buildings that do not leak. They do not even have basic funding for maintenance. I think we have to get answers to this.

The government have been saying a lot about skills, and we have all been very concerned about skills. They have never given credit for the 87 per cent increase of skills under the Howard government. But one of the first actions that they have taken is to cut $98 million in four key areas, which really affects the people in my electorate. They have cut FarmBis, the Advancing Agricultural Industries program, apprenticeship incentives for agriculture and horticulture and the living away from home allowance for school based apprentices. These programs were really valued by people.

Another election commitment was blazoned in pamphlets all over my electorate. It was: ‘We want every local student to get the best chance in life. Labor will build new labs and workshops in local schools.’ They went on to name the 20 secondary schools in my electorate that were going to get them. I want to ask on the record: when will these 20 schools in my electorate get their labs and workshops? The government has gone on record that they are not going to cut funding to government or non-government schools. I want answers to all of these questions. I can assure the Rudd government that I will not just be asking for answers to these questions in this debate today; I will be asking until I get answers to these questions. (Time expired)

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

I have only been in this place for a short period of time, having come in at a by-election, but I have been here long enough to appreciate that in the cut and thrust of election campaigns it is very easy for people to be caught up in making promises to all and sundry simply to secure votes. The Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Lindsay Tanner, spoke recently at the National Press Club about some of the approaches of the former Howard government and Labor’s responses to those in the election. It is not my approach, nor one that I would support, to simply go out and—some would, uncharitably, call this pork-barrelling—make promises that, in honesty, you know you cannot commit to. That is not a practice that politicians should adopt. At the end of the day, the very thing that gives politicians a bad name is going out and making ‘commitments’ that they have little chance of being able to deliver.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you will appreciate that my electorate, in the south-west of Sydney, is very much a growth area. We have already seen extensive growth in the population, and it is set to grow further, notwithstanding the fact that this area is some 55 to 60 kilometres outside Sydney. If you can think of Sydney as having affordable land, this is an area where younger families do try to purchase a house and land, so it is an area dominated by young families and one where significant growth is planned. One of the most significant commitments made by the Rudd government to the people of south-west Sydney in the lead-up to the election was to widen the F5 freeway between Ingleburn and Campbelltown. The F5 is also the Hume Highway and is one of the main thoroughfares between Sydney and Melbourne. There are a large number of truck movements along this road. But, as I indicated, it is also a fast-growing area and, as a consequence, we have huge bottlenecks on this freeway in both the mornings and the afternoons. That has slowed the travelling  time for residents setting out for work in both the mornings and the afternoons. It is not just people’s travel convenience that is affected. It also affects local contractors who set out in their businesses to serve their clients and who need to operate in what has become a very extended peak hour period on one of the main arterial roads linking the south-west of Sydney to the major economic centre of Sydney. The depth of feeling of local residents about this was very much expressed when I received 2½ thousand signatures on a petition I sent out concerning the F5.

On numerous occasions after I came into this place I asked the then minister in the Howard government about their position on widening the freeway. That went on year after year while we had to persevere with the traffic bottlenecks and there was no relief in sight. It was Kevin Rudd who came out and made a commitment to the people of Campbelltown to upgrade this significant piece of infrastructure, not just for local residents but to ensure that it could do what it was designed to do, and that is to help commercialise the employment lands of the south-west of Sydney in order to generate jobs for the thousands upon thousands of people who have moved there. That, in turn, will have a significant impact by taking an amount of domestic travel off this road. That was one of the things that went down like a treat in my area. At one stage the member for Macarthur wanted to call it a range of things, but Labor came out and committed to approximately $140 million for this significant piece of infrastructure upgrading. More importantly for our commercial developments in that area, people saw that this was Labor’s commitment to commercialise the employment lands of the south-west of Sydney with a view to generating jobs and accommodating the natural growth occurring out there. That was a very significant feature of the last campaign.

There is not much pretence in the south-west of Sydney. They like going to their football on the weekends to see the Wests Tigers win, as they did last week. But, more importantly, they like to see things occurring that are actually good for their families. And good for their families are local jobs, education and opportunity. These are the things that really came to the fore during the last election—and that was certainly not lost on me.

As part of our campaign, Labor committed $350,000 to investigate the Maldon-Dombarton rail link. That link does not yet exist, but if it ever came to fruition it would connect the port of Port Kembla to the main southern rail, which intersects with Campbelltown and the employment growth areas of the south-west of Sydney. It would be a significant infrastructure upgrade. For some time I have been arguing that we should look at the development of areas such as Liverpool, Campbelltown and Ingleburn as inland ports. As history shows, employment is generated around ports for approximately five to 15 kilometres. If we are able to attract cargo for ships, it would more easily reach the south-west of Sydney through a dedicated freight rail line, which is now planned. If those containers were being offloaded in the south-west of Sydney there is a very good chance that jobs would be generated for the future of kids in those areas. That is why I am very passionate about the growth of the area, not just a haphazard occurrence but a well-planned operation. It is no good to simply say, ‘Let’s open up more land for housing.’ It must be done in tandem with opening up land for the development of employment opportunity. We need to have a very clear view about growth centres, and the development of facilities in the south-west is one area I think we can capitalise on.

Not surprisingly, one of the other significant things that occurred in south-west Sydney during the campaign was the impact of the industrial relations debate. I do not think many people in this place were not aware of my views when it came to the Howard government’s extreme industrial relations laws. I have worked representing not only trade unions but also employers. Indeed, at one time I was on a tribunal, so I think I have seen industrial relations from all perspectives. I try to bring a pragmatic approach to the debate. In that, I sought to bring to the fore the application of fairness and decency in the way we treat people. People can talk about workplace relations, or industrial relations, as it was known in my day, but really the heart of this debate is how we treat one another and how we would want people to treat our kids.

Without stretching the argument, eager as I was to maximise my vote in the last election, I did such things as go to train stations at a quarter to six in the morning to talk to workers as they went to work, and again when they were returning at six or seven in the evening. Not everyone wants to talk to you at those hours, I might say, but when people walk back from a train to talk to you, and you think you are about to get a mouthful of something, and they say to you, ‘The reason I’m not going to vote for the conservatives this time is because of industrial relations,’ you do take note.

I know that when talking after the event people can put whatever gloss they like on these things, but the fact is that it happened with a degree of frequency that certainly resonated with me. It was not that these people were coming back for some ideological reason, saying, ‘This is what we’re going to do.’ By and large the reason that people actually took the opportunity to come back and did come back in the wee hours of the morning to have a talk to me about these things was this: they were parents concerned about the industrial relations environment that their kids were going to move into or, alternatively, they were grandparents worried about the workplace environment that their grandkids were going to move into. This was an extension of people caring for their families. Clearly, one of the things that was not considered to be high in people’s priorities was to see an environment of ‘catch and kill your own’. They did not necessarily want people to be corralled, in terms of regulations and all the rest of such things, into joining unions. What they wanted to know was that if Labor got in they would repeal this legislation and bring back fairness and decency.

Given what has occurred in the first 100 or so days of this government, I think the government has gone on to act on that. We have actually been true to what was said. We have certainly proceeded on the basis of addressing those particular issues. Without stripping flexibility out of the system, we have looked to engender in the system fairness and decency. I think history will show that that was absolutely the right position. But what is going to be more important is what the people in those families think this means for their loved ones as they are growing up in the workforce.

The other thing that I feel was quite significant is the issue of climate change. Just because the people of the south-west of Sydney live some 50 kilometres outside of the main economic areas of Sydney, that does not mean that they are any less motivated when it comes to issues such as climate change. A lot of the people who spoke to me about this issue were looking down the track in terms of their families and the environment that their kids would grow up in. It is noteworthy that the idea of sitting back and doing nothing was really not on their radar. So what Labor said it would do—that is, sign Kyoto—had major resonance in the south-west of Sydney. In Macarthur we have the Macarthur Centre for Sustainable Living, which is co-funded by the federal government. It has been designed to look at various sustainable energy development programs that could be adapted by households through retrofitting, whether it be with water tanks, solar water heating or other forms of efficient energy usage systems. This organisation is well patronised by the people out there. It is not just about their living and working in the south-west of Sydney; it is also about their wanting to do the best for their environment.

As for the issue of ratifying Kyoto—and I know that the opposition, when they were in government, struggled long and hard in thinking about that; and I would have hated to hear the debates that occurred in their party room, although no doubt we will read about those in someone’s book in the not too distant future—that was absolutely critical. We had to make a stand on it. We could not wait until the Americans had decided to do it and then kowtow to them and say, ‘We’ll sign too.’ This issue required a stand. It is about some degree of maturity by us as a community. Signing Kyoto deals us back into the game in terms of how we now relate to the international community over internationally based changes to ameliorate the effects of climate change. That is going to be a long process; there is no question about that. The fact that we have committed this country to a program to be a part of that says a lot about the commitment of the government to locking itself in over a significant issue in electorates, that being climate change, as opposed to our being doomsayers. It is time we started taking responsibility not just for the problem but also for resolving those issues out there. Signing Kyoto has made us a part of that resolution process, and I think that is something that should be applauded.

One of the other things that was key in the last election was education. The member for McEwen just indicated that she thought the provision of computers in schools was very laudable—and so it is. Being a father of three and a grandfather of four, one of the things that motivated me to get into politics—and hopefully motivates all of us—was that I genuinely wanted to do the best for my community but also as a parent I wanted to do the best for my family. If we can give our kids a head start by giving them the tools for education, we do it. This is going to do this on a slightly wider scale. This is to achieve the result of every kid in years 9 to 12 having access to a computer. That is a very significant thing to do to prepare kids not only for tertiary education but for advanced vocational education and for the workforce generally. We need to give our kids a head start on these things. This is not an issue that should necessarily be reduced to politics, although on this occasion it seems it required the election of a Rudd Labor government to make this commitment. This is something that we should be committed to do, just as we are discussing the development of trade training in schools. Once again, this is about giving kids an advantage. Let us give those kids who are not going to go into tertiary education but are going into the labour force every opportunity to succeed. That is something that we want as parents and that we should all be aspiring to do as members of parliament, regardless of what side we are on in this place.

It is an absolute honour and a rare opportunity to be in public office. I am the 1018th person since the Federation of Australia to have had the honour of representing the local community in the federal parliament. That is not something that is widespread, and it is something that, quite frankly, I do think about regularly. If this ever became a job where I needed to do or say something just to get re-elected, I do not think this would be the place for me. To be in public office is such an honour that we can afford to be ourselves. We can afford to talk as genuine representatives of our community and not be afraid to go out and discuss our commitments with our community. Certainly when you do that you do not always get bouquets thrown in your direction; you get the occasional brick. But, if you are not thick-skinned, you ought not to be here either.

Realistically, an election is a time for renewal. It is a time when there is a new mandate and change is going to occur. This is a new generation of thinking in Australia. It is a very important period. We think it is going to be a central period in revitalising this country.

I would like to thank all those people who have been of assistance to me: my branches, my various party members, my staff and, in particular, my wife, Bernadette, and my family, who have stood by me. I will do this as long as they stay standing by me.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the opportunity this evening to reflect on the last three years and also on the outcome of the election and the contribution of so many people in supporting me in representing the seat of Goldstein. I would like to thank the people of Goldstein for their trust during the election. It is a big thing to represent some 130,000 local people, over 300 community groups, 40-plus aged-care facilities, all of the 50 schools in my electorate, 5,000 businesses and 60,000 households. It is a wonderful thing to be able to come to this place and seek, as best you can, to represent the priorities of that community. I have been in and around the political system for a significant part of my life, but the last three years was the first time as a representative of the people—the first time that I had stood for parliament—and I do not regret a minute of it. It has been a wonderful experience.

I will come back to my activities in this House a bit later. The most enjoyable part, I think, has been my association with the local community. I did not know how much I would enjoy the experience of representing them, meeting them, absorbing their views and doing my best to fairly represent their views in this place, no matter how people voted. I must say, it has been a great joy to me to be able to get around and make the acquaintance of so many.

I have seen the efforts of significant parts of my community. I think we are privileged as parliamentarians to be able to see the number of people who are involved locally in a voluntary capacity. Most people in the community have one or two extracurricular activities. That is what they do and it is an important part of their life. As a parliamentarian you get to be exposed to everyone’s extracurricular activities and the volunteers that are involved. In my electorate there are 130,000 people, including all the kids. There are somewhere in excess of 20,000 people who volunteer in some capacity, and without them our community would not work. My electorate of 17 suburbs has tens of thousands of people who, of their own volition, are providing their own time, effort and skills to make that community work. It is a privilege to know those people and to do what I can in a small way to help their cause.

I have taken a particular interest in a lot of the organisations who provide disability services. It has been an eye-opener for me to see the sacrifice. I am in awe of the sacrifices made by the people in those organisations, many of them volunteers. The professionals go the extra mile, endlessly. What they do for so many people in our community who unfortunately often have some sort of disability is something which is really hard to come to grips with. You wonder how you would cope and what sacrifice you would make if you were put in their circumstances. I really do live in awe of the sacrifices made by so many of those people. At Marriott House, Lloma Shaw, the chief executive, is just an outstanding woman. There is MOIRA disability services, Bailey House and many others, including Family Life services, which works so closely with families who are having difficulties, through mediation and all the rest. There are so many organisations and I really am privileged to be associated with them.

I would like to thank my team in my electorate. We have local volunteers. I have the good fortune of having close to 700 Liberal Party members in my seat. They are a very active, very interested, very competent and very experienced group. I had the great benefit of taking over from David Kemp three years ago and inherited a very strong organisation and a strong body of people who really have done most of the work for me.

As a party, we lost government at the last election with, in some cases in Victoria, a swing a touch over five per cent. The swing in Goldstein was 1½ per cent less than the national and state swing and I do attribute much of that result, which was a better result than in many other places, to the work of those involved in my re-election to this House. All of my campaign team, headed so competently by Jeannette Rawlinson, should be extremely proud of the result, and I would like to thank them in particular. Jeannette Rawlinson, who has been my campaign director on the two occasions that I have stood for the seat of Goldstein, has done a just outstanding job. My deputy campaign director and chairman of my federal electorate council, Rob de Fegley, has been a source of great advice. I trust his judgement enormously. His feel for the seat and the issues in the party has helped me do my job in here and in other parts of Australia. He provides feedback and brings insight to that job.

Others on the committee included Brett Hogan, Ian Mence, Kaye Farrow, Yolande Henderson, Stephen Gage, Bert Moffatt, Leo King, Paul Nettelbeck, Raymon Frederico, Hanife Bushby, Roy Aspinall, John Foley, Peter and Katrina Grove, Trevor Beaumont, Jo Goss, David Feldman, Colin Gourley, Andrew Hudgson, Andrew Tame, Daryl Williams, Stephen Hartney and Stan McConnell. As you can see, there is a huge list of people who were on my campaign committee. All of them were very actively involved in the campaign and there was a good mix of experienced and young people amongst them. It was a great team effort. My team certainly carried the bulk of the load and enabled me to carry out a range of responsibilities in the electorate and beyond. I thank them for their work. I also thank the over 300 volunteers who worked tirelessly, particularly on polling day, across the 37 booths in my electorate, as well as the dozens of others who went from my electorate to assist in areas of the state where we did not have such a strong party membership.

I would like to thank my electorate staff: Kathy Foley, Sam Russell, Megan Cox, Nick Troja and Anne Lane. All of them worked above and beyond, not just through the campaign but for many months. They have all been my Rock of Gibraltar and I really do thank them with all my heart for their work, for their sacrifice and for the loyalty that they displayed. Equally, I would like to thank my former ministerial staff. They played such a big part in helping me in the lead-up to the campaign and in helping me do the best job I could last year in my role as Minister for Vocational and Further Education. My chief of staff, Julie Abramson, is an outstanding woman who helped me in my earlier role as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and last year in my role as Minister for Vocational and Further Education. I also thank my wonderful personal secretary, Margo Beales, who was with me in business before I entered parliament, as well as Andrew Coombe, Suzi Hewlett, Stuart Eaton, Mary-Anne Mellor, Kathryn Hodges, Ben Davies, Donna Schmeider, Jane Farr and Robyne Head, who helped out locally for me during the campaign. I think we all realise in this place the importance of good, loyal, committed staff. That is something that both sides enjoy. Certainly I, as much as anybody, have been greatly blessed with the quality of staff that have worked with and for me.

I would also like to record my pride in some of the achievements, many of which were very significant for the local community, many of them driven by the efforts of local community groups over the last three years. A lot has been achieved in the seat of Goldstein with local community groups. As I said at the outset, it has been a great pleasure not only to be involved with so many of these groups and to get to know them in my first three years as a parliamentarian but also to properly understand my patch and, I hope, get to properly and effectively represent their interests.

Aged-care facilities were justifiably rewarded with more than $4½ million of new aged-care places in the Bayside area. Demographically, not only are many young families coming into my part of the world but also we have a large senior community. The aged-care facilities are second to none and provide a great service for the seniors in the seat of Goldstein. Other achievements of which I am particularly proud include the Sandringham Yacht Club, which received a grant of over $400,000 for a really important initiative. It will contribute towards building a training centre at the yacht club. It is the second sporting club in Australia which has become a registered training organisation—after the Bulldogs, which do a great job in the western suburbs in Melbourne with their training programs. This followed meetings I had with it. I discovered it had started to provide for literally thousands of young people. Last year, several thousand young people attended training programs at the club, using small yachts. It taught them leadership and teamwork and introduced them to sailing. Many thousands of those are young kids from more disadvantaged parts of the south-east suburbs. The club draws kids not just from my electorate but from far and wide.

I think it is a wonderful thing the yacht club is doing and it is a great contribution to the community. It has opened new horizons for literally thousands of young people who may never have thought that they had the opportunity or the wherewithal to be part of the yachting community. It caters for people from all walks of life. It is a great sport and it is a great thing that the Sandringham Yacht Club is doing. I am very proud to have been associated, as the patron of the club, with this wonderful development that it is involved in.

Family Life is an organisation in my electorate that now extends well beyond my electorate in providing mediation services for families in difficulty. In the last three years it has been successful with programs in excess of $2 million that it is providing on behalf of government to local communities. It is a very difficult process, trying to avoid courts in cases where family relationships have broken down et cetera.

The Sandringham Bowls Club is a great club and a very progressive club. It was successful in getting $119,000 for an innovative water conservation project. It put together money it had raised, together with money the local Bayside council had put in, to be fully self-sustainable, from a water point of view, in the coming years. It is a great symbol, a great project to the local community. Senior members of the community should take note of this initiative—this very innovative, leading-edge technology. It is currently being introduced, but it will stand as a great symbol and an example to the local community of the need to make the most of the scarce water resources that we have.

I am also very proud that, since 2004, the local schools in Goldstein have shared in $5.3 million of funding for over 90 projects at all of the 50 primary, secondary and special schools within my electorate. The Investing in Our Schools Program was a very significant program. It enabled the local school communities to decide for themselves what was most needed. There have been some super projects and wonderful infrastructure that have filled lots of gaps that were not being met by the state government, and I am really disappointed that that program has been shelved by the Rudd government as one of its early forays into the education field.

One of the many things I am particularly proud of is the Green Vouchers for Schools program, and I am really disappointed that the new government has downgraded it very significantly. Most of the schools in my electorate had started the process of putting in rainwater tanks and solar hot water systems. It has been amazing to watch the enthusiasm and focus that that gave to the whole community in the short space of two or three years. I will also endeavour to keep the new government accountable for all its election commitments in Goldstein over the next three years. Already we have had a watering down of the commitment to provide a laptop to every school student—it has been watered down to providing access to a laptop to students in secondary schools. This is disappointing but, on behalf of the whole community down there, I will seek to ensure that these commitments are met.

In the short time that I have left I would like to say that my first three years in parliament have been a great experience. I have thoroughly enjoyed the opportunities that I have had in the House of Representatives. In the first few months, I was a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration and the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. I came to appreciate the significant work of both sides of the House with regard to those committees and, in many respects, I was disappointed not to be able to continue with a couple of the projects that we had embarked upon. I spent six months as chair of the Federal Government Task Force on Workplace Relations, which was a very stimulating time, and 12 months as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Working with the Muslim communities at a very difficult time stretched and motivated me. I came to value the members of that community, and I look forward to continuing to help them with their integration into our community and achieving proper acknowledgement of their contributions. In respect of African refugees, I am disappointed that I am unable to follow on with lots of the ideas and the opportunities I had to help them to become wonderful Australian citizens.

Last year was again a most stimulating time as Minister for Vocational and Further Education. In many ways I have had training wheels on, but having lots of different projects and many different opportunities has meant that, firstly, I have not been bored for a second and, secondly, I have been highly motivated and stimulated. I have enjoyed it immensely. It really is what you come to this place for, no matter which side of the House you are on.

I am very proud to have been a part of the Howard-Costello government for three years. I do think they have left a wonderful legacy. In years to come, they will be remembered for having provided a golden age of  uninterrupted economic growth and for paying dividends to people in social terms—for the jobs, the quality of life and the peace of mind that have been delivered to people for so long. I do think there have been significant changes. In many respects I think the welfare mentality that permeated a lot of our community has progressively been turned into an aspirational mentality, with people increasingly accepting responsibility for their own destiny. (Time expired)

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me start my speech on the address-in-reply by congratulating you, Mr Deputy Speaker Bevis, on your election as Deputy Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to be back in this place for another three years. It is an opportunity for me to thank the electorate of Hindmarsh for electing me again. This was my fourth campaign, a campaign fought just as hard as any other campaign. Over four elections since 1998, when I first ran, we in the electorate of Hindmarsh have managed to turn the seat from an eight per cent safe coalition seat into what is now regarded as a fairly safe Labor seat. In the first campaign in 1998, we needed a swing of eight per cent to win the seat, and we found ourselves in front on the night by 600 votes. This led to my running again in 2001, and even though there was a slight reverse, a very small reverse, in that election I decided to take the plunge again in 2004, where I won by 108 votes and became the member for the most marginal seat in the country. This election was a little different. The result on the night of 24 November had me 10,000 votes in front, and it felt good. It actually felt that I had been finally legitimised. Regardless of the vote on the night, and regardless of the margin, I feel very humble that the electorate have given me so much support with their votes. For me, the way that we will continue to service the electorate and work in the electorate has not changed, regardless of whether it is considered a safe seat or a marginal seat. I think each and every one of us in this place, whether we are in a marginal or a safe seat, has an absolute duty to our electorate to work as hard as we can for the people that have put us here.

The election held on 24 November 2007 was a release of public support that had been strengthening over several years. It was a mood for change which became particularly evident in opinion polling in late 2006, and with the election of Kevin Rudd as the federal Labor leader the floodgates were opened. The public demonstrated their dissatisfaction with the Howard government throughout 2007 and, in the end, voted for change. The result was the loss of 21 coalition seats and a swing of 5.4 per cent to Labor. That is 1½ times higher than that of the election result which deprived Malcolm Fraser of the prime ministership and elevated Bob Hawke to the status of Labor hero. It was a truly remarkable result and a very clear and loud statement by the public, who said, ‘We need change.’ The change the public called for consists, in part, of genuine leadership of our nation: leadership that promotes movement, not stagnancy; leadership that prepares for our future and does not dwell on the past; leadership that involves alliance and encourages those being led toward a better life; and, most importantly, leadership that is focused on genuine, meaningful outcomes to issues of public policy that address the required investment in our future, in people and in social, environmental and economic infrastructure.

This form of leadership has been sadly lacking in Australia for many years. The prospect of long-term structural investment in our future has been displaced by one-off vote-buying bonuses that in themselves offer no encouragement for future behavioural change or economic progress. The public clearly saw through the vote-buying exercises. They saw a need for long-term strategic policy making and investment, and this is what they voted for in electing a Rudd Labor government. Whether it be investment in education and the development of a high-value, highly paid workforce, whether it be in reshaping our national health and hospital system with meaningful, sustainable structural change in relations between levels of government, whether it be in Australia in future becoming a hub in our region for various economic activities or whether it be in grasping the nettle and making effective commitments to the fight against dangerous climate change, these and many other areas of public policy focused the public’s attention, especially last year, and continue to do so today.

The prospect of a government that actually engages in meaningful and effective public policy development and implementation offered too much of a change from the previous government for the public to ignore or deny the opportunity for federal Labor to govern. The public wanted change to focus on its own and its nation’s future. The prospect of a Labor government gave them cause for hope, a level of expectation and, in some cases, a certain excitement, I would say. Australia is keen to engage in the 21st century and with a Rudd Labor government Australia will engage in the issues of the time with a new vigour and new and dynamic expectations, and will create a new and better future.

The challenges we face as a nation are highly complex, but the message from the 2007 general election is that Australians are prepared to face the challenges. We believe in ourselves and in our capacity to work through our problems. There is a level of optimism about our future that comes from our belief in ourselves as Australians capable of progressing through what will be a highly challenging century with a government that prizes innovation and expects challenges to be met through advancement of multiple social and economic players.

The drive for progress, lacking federally for over a decade, was immediately evident upon the election of this government. What we saw, literally within days of being elected, was that the Rudd government ratified the Kyoto protocol and engaged with the community of nations as a combatant of climate change. Within hours of the swearing in of the 42nd Parliament, the government honoured its longstanding commitment to acknowledge the stolen generation with a formal apology. This was unthinkable under the previous Prime Minister and it is still even now unbelievable to multiple members of the opposition.

Within a breathtakingly short period the newly formed Rudd federal Labor government has commenced the rollout of trades training centres to Australia’s 2,650 secondary schools and commenced the government’s $1 billion computers in schools package that will allow every Australian student in years 9 to 12 to have access to a school computer. It has invested $150 million for an immediate national blitz on elective surgery waiting lists, launched the $50 million tender for the purchase of water licences in the Murray-Darling Basin, increased the utilities allowance and the seniors concession allowance to $500 a year, increased the telephone allowance from $88 to $132 a year for those pensioners with a home internet connection and announced the appointment of Australia’s first petrol commissioner. The Rudd Labor government has also progressed legislation within the parliament that will reform the personal income tax system for the benefit of low- and middle-income earners and it has increased the low income tax offset from $750 to $1,200. Most importantly, one of the bills that is being progressed through parliament will achieve one of the things that the majority of Australian voters wanted to see changed last year—it will bring a halt to new AWAs.

There is much more to come. There is more hope for timely responses, for structural systematic changes that evolve into new relationships and divisions of responsibility and greater expectations of meaningful and long-lasting action through multiple sectors of the community. Within 12 months of the election of the Rudd Labor government, Australians can look forward with anticipation to the withdrawal of Australia’s combat forces from Iraq. There will be 450,000 new training places to tackle the skills crisis. The government’s teen dental plan will assist the first of one million Australian teenagers between the ages of 12 and 17 with dental costs. There will be the end of the former government’s wasteful Pacific solution. There will be an interim report by the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission and a long-term health reform plan for modern Australia and the announcement of the government’s design of Australia’s national carbon emissions trading scheme. These are just some examples of the drive and ambition of members on this side of the House that excited the nation into voting for a Rudd Labor government.

The Australian public has hoped for change and is seeing evidence of it almost on a daily basis. One of the most substantial areas of activity that the community will be watching with considerable interest is the development of a national carbon emissions trading scheme. It is proposed that the architecture will be devised by the end of this calendar year. It is also anticipated that Australia will have engaged in the national carbon trading system in 2010, probably prior to the next federal election, and it is good that this is the case.

If there is any area of social, economic and environmental policy that illustrates the chasm between the Rudd Labor government and the opposition, it is that which is in response to the prospect—some would say inevitability—of dangerous climate change. We have seen the New South Wales government’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Scheme operating for several years. Involving the supply side in the development of efficiencies and cleaner generating capacity, and the demand side again in efficiencies in business and homes around the state, and encouraging the sequestration of carbon through revegetation projects, the New South Wales government’s scheme led to the world’s first mandatory emissions trading scheme.

The community support for the scheme can be observed through the increasing interest of individuals and organisations in using elements of the scheme to voluntarily show their own commitment to carbon neutrality. These are the citizens and organisations that have no obligation under the rules of the scheme to participate, but they wish to and they do, simply because they believe in the scheme’s objectives and the overall obligation of each and every one of us to do what is not only in our own personal interest but in the interests of Australia as a whole. There is real and strong support for action in the abatement of greenhouse gases. The question on most people’s lips is not one of whether we should decrease emissions but what level of emissions cuts we should set to be reached by us by the year 2020—only 10 years after the commencement of our national emissions trading scheme.

The European Union called for cuts in the range of 25 per cent to 40 per cent by 2020. Irrespective of what 2020 target Australia agrees to internationally or commits to individually, substantial work will inevitably be required on a permanent basis. Efficiency work such as that occurring within New South Wales on the demand side and the South Australian Residential Energy Efficiency Scheme, which will commence soon, is of immediate importance. Efficiencies constitute too great an immediate and substantial reduction in emissions not to be implemented now. Of course work is necessary not only in the development of renewable energy technologies but in the extensive amount of work in their rollout around the country, and this will take time. So I find it strange that in the media the debate about what baseload generation capacity is—or, more to the point, the value of renewable energy generation in baseload terms—continues to undermine the place that renewable generation will increasingly play in our energy mix.

I would like to give some perspectives on this point offered by many Australian scientists and columnists, who address myths that underlie doubts about renewable energy, especially wind power, being a valuable and potentially highly significant proportion of our total future energy mix. Some myths include, for example, that since wind power is an intermittent source it cannot replace coal-fired power unless it has expensive, dedicated long-term storage; secondly, because of wind power’s intermittency it has no value in meeting peak demands; and lastly, to maintain a steady state of voltage and frequency requires much additional expense. Some 25 years ago CSIRO and ANU scientists used Monte Carlo computer simulations—mathematical probability models of electricity grids containing various amounts of wind power capacity. Their conclusions have been subsequently confirmed and built upon by several overseas authors—that is, that any given quantity of wind power generating capacity can be factored into baseload power capacity, whether it be one per cent, 10 per cent or 70 per cent, as is currently happening in places such as WA.

Neither coal-fired power stations nor wind turbines nor hydro systems are all running at all times. The Australian national electricity grid network mandates backup. Its electricity inputs are managed so as to minimise spikes in generation, drops in delivery, breakdowns and the like. A substantial amount of backup is required, and this is the case for existing coal-fired power stations, just as it is the case for the 15-odd per cent wind capacity currently being fed into the grid from South Australia in order to maintain supply as required.

Backup is mandatory and non-negotiatiable. It is a matter of factoring in the potential limitations of the source as a proportion of overall generating capacity—whether you source 10, 20 or 50 per cent of grid requirements—and having the most cost-effective backup power generation at your disposal. This would be rapidly deployed hydro or gas-fired generators, and these are the technologies best able to meet periods of peak demand—at least hydro has been.

Internationally, Denmark reached 18 per cent of total electricity generation through wind power in 2002—not necessarily easily, but they managed it—and intend increases in capacity, and Germany is planning for 25 per cent of electricity to be sourced from wind power by 2030. It has been advanced that as much as 40 per cent or more of an energy grid’s power can be generated from wind without the need for highly expensive long-term storage. The extent to which these scenarios may be cost-competitive is beyond the scope of my comments here today, but the potential of wind and other sources is highly substantial.

Advances in photovoltaic technology are being perfected in a mass production setting in Adelaide that will see its costs, as measured in the number of years of free electricity that will pay for its capital costs, decrease from the current 20 years to between five and seven years. That is a decrease of 70-odd per cent. The prospect of Australian households right around the country deploying solar and photovoltaic cells for hot water, thereby decreasing their reliance on conventional power generation and consequent pollution in the order of 30, 50 or 70 per cent or more over time; the six per cent hydro and almost 20 per cent wind capacity as seen in South Australia; the onset of biofuels; the advancement in geothermal which would even satisfy sceptics’ concerns; and other sources such as wave power being harnessed off the coast of Perth must elucidate as mythology the idea that renewables cannot supply highly substantial proportions of our power demands, subject to economics and the performance of the market under the national emissions trading scheme.

This is the most substantial area of activity that Australia will engage in over the years ahead and it is a substantial area that the elected Rudd Labor government will engage in. This is no doubt one of the most important areas facing us. This is the most dynamic area of emerging Australian industries, but it requires the goodwill and investment of business, government and the community to succeed. This is the most substantial drive for innovation that any of us can expect in a generation. It is an exciting time and it is a time for the aggressive, strong and inherently sound leadership that Australia is now pleased to support. Over time, 20 million Australians will know that a Rudd Labor government set greater, more structured and more permanent goals for itself and the nation. These are goals that, once achieved, will place Australia in a position where we can once again hold our heads up high in the gaze of the international community and our reflective conscience. It is this desire that led to the election of a Rudd Labor government and a chance for Australians to have their ambitions realised and their responsibilities met with increased innovation and a belief in progressive leadership and change.

We saw that change through the election of the Rudd Labor government. The voters on 24 November had a choice to make between the same old government and a new, progressive government with fresh ideas to ensure that we build the foundations for a modern Australia. The former government had lost their way. They were out of touch and they had no plans for the future, in contrast to the Labor government, which had all of those three things. I look forward to the next three years as a member of the Rudd Labor government. It is an exciting time. It will be a time when the nation progresses and the foundations of our nation are built on for many more years to come. (Time expired)

Danna Vale (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the member for Hughes, it is a privilege and an honour to be able to add my name to that of my colleagues and members of this House in responding to the address of His Excellency the Governor General at the opening of the 42nd Parliament of Australia. I thank the constituents of my electorate of Hughes for the privilege of representing them here in this place as their federal representative for a fifth term. We have just witnessed a significant change in Australian politics and, firstly, I would like to note the smooth transition of government that has just occurred. This is a tribute to Australia’s strong democratic traditions and the principles of the representative parliamentary system upon which those traditions are based.

The new government has made a large number of commitments to the electorate. Unsurprisingly, a lot of those are underpinned by the policies of the previous government. The 11-year period of economic prosperity under the Liberal leadership of John Howard and Peter Costello was defined by a number of great economic achievements: the commitment of a policy of budget surplus as a means of reducing public debt and public demand for money; the positive revolution in waterfront productivity; the restructuring of our tax system to provide incentives for those who work harder; and the development of incentives to give the most disadvantaged a path from welfare to the dignity and security of work—to name but a few.

The result of these achievements was to create perhaps the world’s most successfully developed economy of the past decade, one that was referred to as the ‘wonder from down under’ by United States economic commentators. Despite its vehement opposition at the time, the new Rudd Labor government has committed to retaining all of these initiatives. While there are a few questions as to whether it can actually maintain its commitments, it is clear that the ideas and policies of the coalition have triumphed.

The Governor-General in his speech referred to the current uncertainty in the global economy and the challenges the new government have on their hands. Fortunately for the new government, they have inherited an economy that is underpinned by strong economic fundamentals and one that will prove it can weather the current global uncertainty if it continues to be managed with discipline and diligence. As the opposition, we will be ever watchful.

Over our time in government, the coalition put the budget back into the black; eliminated government debt; started saving for the future; restored Australia’s AAA credit rating; and delivered more jobs, lower inflation, lower interest rates, lower taxes, higher wages, more productive workplaces, higher pensions, better living standards, more funding for important priorities like health, education, defence, transport and the environment, and more funds for state governments for them to provide those services expected by modern Australia.

The coalition has a proud record in relation to financial management. When we came to government in 1996, we inherited a $10 billion budget deficit, one which we converted into a surplus by our second term in office. We inherited $96 billion in government debt, which we completely eliminated by the last term of the coalition government through that solid economic management. We inherited levels of government spending equal to 25 per cent of GDP. They are now equal to 21.2 per cent. We also inherited a ballooning unfunded superannuation liability, which we addressed by creating the Future Fund.

A strong economy is not something that happens by chance. Managing Australia’s $1.1 trillion economy requires discipline, focus and experience. It requires an ability to put aside short-term politics and media spin, and take hard decisions in the national interest. The coalition took difficult but necessary decisions to establish the Future Fund. For the first time in Australian history, Australia has a specific fund to provide for the superannuation of our Navy, Army, and Air Force personnel and other Australian government employees as we go, rather than passing the bill on to the next generation. Removing this burden will help offset the effects of our increasingly ageing population, which looms as a great future challenge for both state and federal governments in Australia.

During the coalition years, we reformed the tax system to provide tax relief and reward hard work and initiative. This included the largest tax relief in Australia’s history in 2000, which was followed by further tax relief in the 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 budgets. Further encouragement was given to enterprise, initiative and savings through the lower company tax; halving individuals’ capital gains tax; removing benefit taxes on superannuation; replacing the complex wholesale sales tax; reducing petrol excise; and moving from a 150 per cent diminishing value rate on business assets to a 200 per cent rate. This was to encourage investment in plant and equipment and technology. The coalition invested in key infrastructure, including the AusLink national land transport program with an investment of $38 billion and the largest innovation packages in our history in Backing Australia’s Ability.

The social concerns of our Australian communities are also very important to me and to many of my constituents. We need to remember that the economy is really a means to an end. I say this because, without a strong economy, no government can do very much for those of its citizens who are in need of social welfare support or special assistance. When an economy is weak and in decline, it is those at the lowest levels of our society who suffer the most. They have no buffer against adversity and are the most vulnerable of our citizens. Good economic policy and good social policy go hand in hand, but good economic policy leads the way and dictates the kind and quality of social welfare we can provide for our most vulnerable Australians. A sound economy dictates the kind of society we can become. It allows us to be the best we can be and bring all Australians to share and enjoy in the ‘commonwealth’ of our nation in the real sense of that word.

Speaking of our most vulnerable Australians, the talk from the government in recent weeks in relation to carers and seniors was nothing but disgraceful and disrespectful. I was pleased that the opposition-led outcry from fair-minded Australians forced the Rudd government to rethink its plans to withdraw their special payments. I want to know if this behaviour will be the norm for the Rudd Labor government’s approach to fiscal policy. Hopefully, that carers and seniors were the first target of the Rudd razor gang is not symbolic of future savings measures to be aimed at those in our communities who are least able to withstand the pain. The new Prime Minister obviously did not mean a word of his first speech as leader of the Labor Party when he talked about compassion. He said:

Compassion is not a dirty word. Compassion is not a sign of weakness. … compassion in politics and in public policy is in fact a hallmark of great strength.

I could not agree more. There was a marked absence of this compassion in the measure against carers and senior citizens. Carers are the only welfare recipients who must work 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and there is often a good chance that they have lost the lifestyle that many Australians take for granted. They often lose the opportunities for work or a career. They often lose their marriage, the house, the job and the peace of mind afforded by financial stability. The Prime Minister was literally forced to show that compassion of which he waxed so lyrical in his first leadership speech. This episode was intensely watched by the whole Australian community. We in the opposition and the Australian community will continue to be ever watchful in the event of any future instances of a lack of compassion for this vulnerable group of Australians. To illustrate how difficult life for carers can be, I would like to share a letter one mother sent to me of the reality that is her daily life every day of the year. I spoke yesterday on the motion to recognise the need for greater Australian support for those in our community who give their lives to care for their disabled family members. Regrettably, I ran out of time before I could read this letter fully into the Hansard. This mother is a member of a new organisation in my electorate known as the Sutherland Shire Disability Accommodation Action Group, formed out of the desperation of parents trying to gain appropriate supported accommodation for their adult disabled children. She begins:

Whenever I read about another mother killing her disabled child, I wonder whether it will come to that for me, and would I be able to do it? People do become desperate and overwhelmed. My disabled daughter ‘S’ has become my world and I, hers. And therein lies the problem.

She was born in 1978—induced for the doctor’s convenience as he was going on holidays. She turned blue and stopped breathing. She had streptococcal pneumonia and was found to be 4-6 weeks premature. She spent a month in special care.

From about 6 months of age I knew there was something wrong. Then followed years of doctors and therapies until I finally had to admit you can’t mend a broken brain.

Eventually she attended a special school. Transport was provided but I needed to be there before and after school, so full-time work was out of the question. One problem with going to school out of the local area was that she had no friends to play with and so all her time was spent with me.

Eventually I found a job with a small company run by a couple with kids of their own. They were very flexible with hours, emergencies and phone calls. I brought ‘S’ to work with me in school holidays.

In 1996 my marriage, like so many others involving disabled children, had come to the point where I took ‘S’ and left. I had calculated all eventualities before taking such a big step—or so I thought ... I was working for the small company and ‘S’ was travelling by train to her day-program and managing alone with a few phone calls, until I got home.

Six weeks later the small company collapsed. I quickly found a job with a big company—no flexibility, longer hours and NO phone calls. ‘S’ went on a 4-night respite camp for a break. When she returned, something was terribly wrong. She didn’t sleep, muttered all night to someone, cried all day, got lost following ‘voices’ and didn’t remember to eat or drink. Eventually she was diagnosed with schizophrenia brought on by her absolute terror in being apart from me. Even with hospitalization and treatment the situation was horrendous. She was drugged, terrified, and either constantly crying or staring at a wall for hours. In the 30 minutes it took me to get to work each day there would be 10-12 phone message awaiting me with her just crying. She couldn’t travel alone or stay home alone. Finally, the company gave up; I was fired, and thus became her carer.

People sometimes think that carer equals no full time job, equals what a life. Well, imagine all you’d for a very young child—dressing them, washing them, cleaning them up after ‘accidents’ and then image doing it for a 28 year old woman, who won’t learn to do more than she does now. Imagine never being able to go anywhere alone—not even to see a friend for a chat or a cup of coffee without your ‘child’ with you. Imagine listening to her cry all night because you have a cough and she fears you might die and leave her. Imagine lying awake every night worrying about what WILL happen to her.

We do have respite, but only one day a month. And now, four years ago, I was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. My caring time is infinite. It will be the most difficult task to settle ‘S’ into a group-home or similar accommodation. It must be done while I am here and able to help her cope. I have been told that the only way to get accommodation is to abandon her at a police station. I can’t do that. She would retreat from reality forever. She is my problem and I will not leave her unresolved.

What do we want? Peace of mind, I think, for both of us. For me, not having to abandon her or to be at death’s door and still not know if she will have somewhere to live, and for her, relief from the terror of ‘if something happens to Mum where will I go?’ She knows she can’t manage alone. Vague promises are not enough.

This is a sobering letter and one that I could not put down and one that we here in this place have a duty to address. Now is the time for some significant, real measures to be put in place to assist the many thousands of carers across Australia in a similar position. Now is the time to really look seriously at how we accommodate, in supported accommodation in local areas, people who are adults with disabilities. The issue of supported care for adult children is one that really does reach into the hearts of many people across my electorate and across Australia. They must be located in their local areas, not at a place that is two hours drive away. They must be available to their parents and family members to be able to continue to support them and to include their disabled family member in family gatherings and in other social activities.

One way that we could practically assist carers and our senior citizens—indeed, every other person who is dependent on welfare—is to allow them to earn a little more money than is given to them under welfare. I put for consideration the suggestion that we could allow them to earn the $6,000 threshold that is available to all wage earners—to you and me—that we can earn before we have a tax liability. Such an amount would supplement the welfare payments and be of no cost to the government outlays. Let us consider this: all wage-earning Australians have a $6,000 tax-free threshold before incurring any tax liability; welfare recipients should be able to have the same consideration, as a matter of fairness and equity, as fellow Australians.

To secure this threshold, welfare recipients could be asked to undertake a lesson or two, perhaps in home budgeting, on an annual basis. It would also be available, of course, to Indigenous Australians. Amounts exceeding the $6,001 threshold would be deducted from the welfare payment, as is the present practice. But the benefits of this measure would include no cost to budget outlays and it would encourage people to benefit from the socialisation that comes with employment even if it is only part time. It could lead to more permanent work. It would give recipients, including some on the disability support pension, the opportunity to make a little extra income. It would lead to a better understanding of household finance and it would assist some recipients out of the welfare mentality. It would impose a work ethic and self-discipline and it would provide personal empowerment and increase self-esteem. It would provide recipients with the safety net of the full social welfare security base while enjoying a limited participation in the workforce.

I would like to hear some feedback on this idea, which I am sure would be welcomed by welfare recipients and it would assist them in a practical way to alleviate financial hardship and even rise above the poverty experienced by many Australian families. Even though we here are aware that there are challenging times upon us, Australia is still the lucky country for so many Australians. It is our duty in this place to ensure that that luck is shared with all and every fellow Australian that we can possibly reach.

The Governor-General said in his address that the government will implement a new policy agenda focused on social inclusion. The focus on social inclusion aims to improve the opportunities for all Australians to participate fully in Australian economic and social life. Well, the Rudd Labor government did not get off to a very good start by attacking carers and senior Australians. These are the very Australians that should be the focus of the government’s intention to implement social inclusion. It is our duty on the opposition benches to be ever watchful that exercises such as the carers and seniors debacle are not repeated and that we do not end up with government policies that actually deliver social exclusion. Australians deserve better than that and I accept my part in the responsibility to ensure our fellow Australians receive their fullest opportunities that being in this wonderful country can deliver. After all, it is their birthright.

Debate (on motion by Ms Grierson) adjourned.