Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the spirit of the occasion, I first apologise to the Governor-General. I apologise to the Governor-General on behalf of the government for giving her such a poor speech to deliver on this occasion—one that is so shallow, one that is lacking in any real direction and one that shows that the government is without a substantial plan for the future.

I thought as I read this speech that it was particularly germane because the first matter that the Governor-General comments on is the outcome of the election. I must say it is quite fascinating for me to read an address-in-reply where the Governor-General comments on the outcome of an election. She goes on to say on behalf of the government:

Nowhere has the robust nature of our democracy been more evident than in the election held on 21 August 2010.

Through this result, the Australian people have placed upon their elected leaders the responsibility of forming a minority government, something not seen in our Commonwealth for seven decades.

In that I agree. She went on to make this very interesting observation:

It is a tribute to every senator and member gathered here today that this process unfolded with patience and civility and has yielded a parliament committed to greater transparency and accord.

I thought to myself, ‘Where is the evidence for this greater transparency and accord?’ I know that the speech covered a number of areas, which I will go to, but among the issues that I found particularly fascinating were the issues in relation to the National Broadband Network. I was particularly focusing today on some comments in the Sydney Morning Herald written by Ross Gittins, not a person who I normally see lauding the opposition but one who makes, when I read his remarks, often quite perspicacious comments. He made this observation today:

I am starting to get a really bad feeling about Labor’s plan for a national broadband network. The more it resists subjecting the plan to scrutiny, the more you suspect it has something to hide.

He goes on:

The obvious way to start that process would have been to accede to calls for the Productivity Commission to conduct a cost-benefit analysis. The determination of governments to keep their schemes away from the commission is always prima facie evidence they know the scheme’s dodgy.

I must say that I thought these were particularly perspicacious comments about what is said to be one of the major centre points of this government’s program for the next parliament.

When I also read about greater transparency and accord, I also want to take this opportunity—in relation to the way in which the government was made, on which the Governor-General has seen fit to comment—to record something of the observations made recently by the member for New England. What I was fascinated by was that the member for New England, in relation to a matter which in the overall scheme of things is important to some but for most people largely irrelevant—that is, the question of same-sex marriage—said, of course, that this was the most important issue, about which every member should consult with their constituents to form a view as to how they might respond. I might say that I have already spoken in another debate on that matter, and I mean no ill will to people who are in same-sex partnerships, but I think it is germane that in relation to the major question facing the people of Australia, the formation of a government after this recent election, the member for New England did not think it was necessary to consult with his electors about whom he should support in the formation of that government. I found that quite fascinating: on same-sex relations it should happen, but in relation to the formation of the government for the next three years in Australia it was not necessary. I must say that I have greater respect for the member for Denison, who, in relation to the judgment he formed that he, having consulted with his constituents and fairly obviously having formed a view about where their loyalty would be if he were not there as an Independent—that is, with the government—decided that he should support the government. I am surprised the member for New England did not go through the same process.

I want to take the opportunity of addressing the first major question that the government raised in this address-in-reply, and that is a stronger economy. The first point I want to make is how ungracious I think this government has shown itself to be. It goes on to make this observation through the words of the Governor-General:

Having emerged from the global financial crisis with some of the best economic outcomes of any advanced nation, the government will implement measures to ensure Australia’s economy remains flexible and strong.

I thought how ungracious it was not to acknowledge that the underlying strength of the Australian economy, which saw us through that crisis, was something that they inherited: a strong economy—not obtained, I might say, with ease but obtained because people were prepared to take tough decisions over a long period of time to produce surpluses.

When I look back over the way in which some other leaders of Australia have responded from time to time, they have been prepared to acknowledge the efforts of their predecessors if they have been significant in the outcomes that are being obtained. In relation to the global financial crisis, the record of the Howard government and the strength of the economy that was bequeathed to Labor should always have been acknowledged quickly and generously, and I think it diminishes those who fail to make that acknowledgement. But I was also impressed with these observations:

Foremost among those challenges—

that is, in relation to a stronger economy—

is the need to build a high-productivity, high-participation, high-skill economy that delivers sustainable growth for all Australians.

The speech goes on to identify a number of ways in which it is believed that that is possible.

As one who is strongly of the view that we should be transparent in relation to these matters, and fair and just in the way in which we deal with these issues, I am prepared to acknowledge that it is important to have expenditure by the Commonwealth in improved infrastructure. It needs to be improvement in infrastructure where it is actually needed rather than where it is politically opportune, and it is in that context that I wish to comment about the commitment to invest in transport infrastructure over the next six-year period and the decisions taken by this government in relation to the community that I represent.

I have to say, Madam Deputy Speaker—and you may not be familiar with it—that Sydney is a quite fascinating city. It is a city that is often seen to be divided, not just by a river but in the way in which people are dealt with, and certain assumptions are made that if you live in some parts of Sydney you are a little better off than others and you may have fewer needs. When you form your judgments on the basis of addressing expenditure where you assume there may be greater needs and you ignore others, you can sometimes have quite perverse effects. The most significant and perverse effect in Sydney is the extent to which significant transport links which are necessary between our major capitals have been disadvantaged because of very deliberate decisions to ignore some parts of our great city of Sydney.

I often tell people—and I am sure my colleague the member for Macarthur would know—that a new freeway has been built in the western suburbs of Sydney. It is called the M7, state-of-the-art infrastructure which ends on another freeway called the M2, which in fact goes to Sydney rather than anywhere north of Sydney. There is another highway called the Cumberland Highway, which stretches through the southern part of Sydney. I will tell you where it ends in a moment. There is another highway called Woodville Road and another highway called Silverwater Road—and, Madam Deputy Speaker, where do you think they all end? They all end on one road called Pennant Hills Road at West Pennant Hills, where, with a mass of traffic generated locally, with a lot of traffic lights and with a very considerable number of dangerous sites where quite significant accidents could occur, you have major interstate transport vehicles, B-doubles and the like, mixed with schoolchildren in vehicles on a three-lane road, said to be a highway, which services a local community and no other way, essentially, to bypass it if you want to go from Melbourne to Brisbane. It is the major choke point in effectively linking those three cities, and yet no expenditure occurs on that road, ostensibly, I think, because people think: ‘These are Liberal electorates. They don’t deserve to have expenditure of this sort given to them.’

It is said at times that the freight issues might be able to be dealt with by putting freight railway lines in. You certainly cannot do it on the existing line or you would have to raise the level of every overpass carrying traffic between Sydney and Brisbane, but no substantial expenditure or effort has been made to provide an effective freight network on that rail link. I think that this is the most significant decision that has impacted upon any community, in a most deleterious way. Unless the government is prepared to make a substantial effort to convince New South Wales that it should prioritise this road link, we will go on with the farce that Infrastructure Australia will not advise the spending of any money to address that issue, by a genuine western orbital, by a tunnel or by whatever other route is properly advised. It will not happen unless the preliminary work and planning has been undertaken.

When you go to the link and ask the question: ‘What work has been done to prepare the plans so it can be job ready?’ none has been undertaken. In one way or another Labor is responsible, whether it is federally or in the state of New South Wales. I think these decisions are deliberately neglected because they are of no priority to the government. I have to say that I hope a time will come when it can be detached from the political arguments and people will recognise that there is a very large community of people here who are entitled to proper services—a north-west rail link, an effective orbital road network that will separate out the interstate trucks from local communities. Until that happens the people of north-west Sydney are entitled, and justly, to complain and to complain loudly. There is nothing in this speech that would suggest that there is an approach to deal with this question.

I found one other issue that was of interest to me. Having been an Attorney-General and interested in economic reform that one could undertake, it always seemed to me that harmonisation of laws between the states of Australia and the territories of Australia is a very significant way of reducing costs to industry and making Australia a more productive society. Yet I find in this speech the only example where this government is working in relation to that important issue is the one area in which two Labor governments now cannot see eye to eye. The speech says this:

During this term, the government will also pursue its reform agenda to break down barriers for businesses operating across state and territory borders, in particular, a national regime for occupational health and safety regulation.

I think that regime is absolutely necessary, but I find it preposterous that New South Wales should be walking away from it and that a Labor government in Canberra cannot convince a Labor government in New South Wales to cooperate on a measure that they say is important. What disappoints me even more is that beyond that no other areas of reform have been effectively identified.

There is little in this speech that one can comment on in a generous way, because it is so shallow. There is a lot that I wanted to comment on, and time will prevent me, but I do need to talk about another area adjacent to my electorate where my electors have been particularly short changed. The government has a statement in this speech that it:

… will implement its landmark structural reforms to improve access to health and hospital services for all Australians and sustain the financial viability of the health system.

I have to say in northern Sydney we are only serviced well by our private hospital system. The major public hospitals, which have been community hospitals supported by the local community, have been savagely neglected. It is not the staff or the people who work there that are to blame. It is a government that has deliberately ignored the needs of north-western Sydney and particularly those of the Hornsby and District Hospital.

When people are taken into hospital premises and they find that males and females are using the same toilet facility because people have been mixed together when they have come out of surgery—and I had a local resident complain to me about a situation in which, while he was on a toilet, a woman came into the premises to have a shower—you have to ask yourself how that can happen. While he was in the hospital, the roof was leaking because no effective maintenance had been undertaken. When the hospital said it would try to do something about it, it erected a temporary roof over the top and maybe next week it would bring some tarpaulins in. It is an absolute disgrace that you can leave a community served in that way and not give it priority. Yet the arguments that are given are that these people are in some way privileged.

I think this government will be very severely judged in time because it has no substantial proposals. This speech is bereft, in my view, of any significant outline or plan of achievement for which the government can be effectively held accountable. It is full of cliches and there is very little on commitment, particularly to my constituents, who are entitled to be very concerned.

There are many other issues I would like to discuss, but before I finish my speech I will focus on one other issue I find quite fascinating which is likely to be of importance to my electorate in time and that is the rollout of the National Broadband Network. I was certainly unaware that, in order to implement the National Broadband Network, states might be asked to legislate to give the providers of that service the right to enter onto private property, often without consent, to ensure that connectivity can be achieved. The fact that Tasmania has legislated in this way needs to be clarified now by all the other Australian states. I noticed a headline in the Hobart Mercury ‘Gardens at Risk’. I think all Australians are entitled to know whether the National Broadband Network is going to lead to intrusive activity in their homes without their consent.

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In my contribution to the address-in-reply to the Governor-General’s speech, I am going to focus on my seat of Page and outline a number of what I call ‘Page priorities’—a list that I have put together over the three years that I have been a member and something I have worked up in close consultation with my five local government areas, with a range of representative bodies in my area and with individuals. So it is a real community list of Page priorities. I always say to people that we can always lobby for them and some we will get and some we might not get but good ideas never go away and they find their time. That is the approach I take to working with, working up, advocating and advancing these priorities. Obviously, health is a big one and I will start with health.

Stages 3 and 4 of the Lismore Base Hospital redevelopment—the next stage of the development—will cost $155 million. That amount is broken into $90 million for stage 3 and $65 million for stage 4. There is a community health centre on Treelands Drive, Yamba. That would be at a cost of $3.5 million. These are indicative costs. There has been some sort of project brief done as well. Grafton Base Hospital, also in my electorate, would be stage 3. We have stage 1 and stage 2, and I am happy to report that I have been able to get money for both of those hospitals. They are underway, but stage 3 at Grafton Base Hospital would be about a $50 million package. It would involve a new surgical services unit and new emergency department, among other things. There are other projects in the community—I know there is Ballina District Hospital. One of the longer-term projects there would be an upgrade of the emergency department and surgical services. That would be a $25 million project. Iluka is a small, lovely village in my seat. The expansion of the Iluka Community Health Centre would be a $2 million project. Casino Aboriginal Medical Service, which covers a range of services in a broader area, would get an upgrade. They are looking to relocate to a stand-alone, purpose built Aboriginal Medical Service centre. That is a $4.7 million project.

There are some other projects. I will start in the Ballina Shire area. There would be the completion of the Ballina River Street Beautification Project, the Main Street beautification in Alstonville and, as they call it, the Ballina Lady Jockeys Racing Museum at the Ballina Racecourse. That is something the Ballina Jockey Club are very passionate about and are doing some work on in the community at the moment. There is also a biochar project that Ballina Shire Council is working on in conjunction with others. We are in conversation about that at the moment. It is a very good project that I see as a leader in that area. It could have good implications for our regional economy.

Richmond Valley Council, one of the other five local government areas, are working up the Queen Elizabeth Park redevelopment master plan with at least nine local sporting groups and widespread community support to enhance and develop a large multiuse sporting fields area. Other projects in the Richmond Valley area include two projects coordinated with the Richmond Valley Council who, with other people in the community, are keen on and working to advance. One is a gas pipeline in the area and another is intermodal freight rail. There is also the Northern Rivers military museum. I have had a look at an old hall in Casino with an ex-serviceman: the Richmond Valley general manager. They are gathering widespread support across the Northern Rivers area to look at a Northern Rivers military museum. In various RSLs and clubs that we have across my seat of Page you will find museum pieces, and I am sure that they will be keen to hang on to them. The idea was that they could look at having a Northern Rivers military museum so that there could be one key museum that could house a lot of this very important historical memorabilia.

Coraki, which is also in the Richmond Valley Council area, has projects identified including the multipurpose court for tennis and hockey at Windsor Park, the extension of the skate park facilities and the Coraki riverside park foreshores improvement program. In Evans Head, still in Richmond Valley, projects include the Stan Payne Oval improvements, the footpath bikeway program that gives connectivity between certain streets and Ocean Drive et cetera, and heritage work at the Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome.

I move on to the third local government area: the Clarence Valley. One of the projects identified there is the Grafton Regional Art Gallery, which in conjunction with Clarence Valley Council, Arts Northern Rivers, the Gallery Foundation and Friends of the Gallery, has widespread community support for an upgrade, a collection room and a range of other things to enhance it. There are also the saleyards at South Grafton—an area for which I got money before for an upgrade—for a continuing upgrade; a performance stage and dressing rooms at the Saraton Theatre; and a new Men’s Shed at the former Grafton brewery site. The old brewery site is an old historical landmark in Grafton, a great site, and they are doing some really good work there.

There is also a plan to build a second crossing over the Clarence River, and that is something that has been strongly promoted and pushed at state level. It is a key project. I will also mention Iluka, which has formed a local community-run committee to raise funds for a pool. That was done in Evans Head in my electorate. They worked for 17 years to raise funds for a pool. They were fortunate in that they were able to get some additional funding under the regional community infrastructure program. In that 17 years they had a lot of cake stalls and lamington drives to raise the money, so it was good to see that get up. Iluka has drawn its inspiration from what happened at Evans Head.

Kyogle council, another local government area in my seat, have a key project—the Kyogle Gallery and Museum project and library extension—put forward as the Kyogle Shire Council’s No. 1 priority works project. It is one of those projects that the whole community is behind. It has a local committee, led by Tom Fitzgerald, one of those great local people who get involved in all sorts of things. He is someone who talks the talk and walks the walk, because he gets out and does things. I have had the opportunity to work with Tom over many years—long before I came into this place—to get some good things happening in health and other areas. This key project will help enhance and develop the cultural precinct in Kyogle and add to the regional economy as well. A new Kyogle Youth Centre is dear to the people in the community and to the Kyogle council, as is restoration of the Kyogle Memorial hall and working with the local RSL.

There is also a project in a very beautiful place called Lawrence, which is on the river in the Clarence Valley. It is a small project but one that will make a big impact in that small community. It is for the restoration of Lawrence Hall, also known as the Lawrence Literary Institute. Part of the restoration is for the removal and replacement of the asbestos roof. That will go a long way to helping Lawrence Hall.

I now turn to the Lismore local government area. A project the residents there have long advocated is the Margaret Olley Arts Centre. Margaret Olley, who has allowed her name to be put to the arts centre, has links with our area. The project has the support of the Lismore City Council, Arts Northern Rivers, Regional Development Australia and the Northern Rivers industry investment district. There is widespread community support for the project. It is a strategic project that they would like to get up. The centre would be a purpose-built facility on the corner of Keen and Magellan streets and would include permanent and temporary exhibition space, a lecture theatrette, a collection and storage area, a reception area, a cafe and a gallery shop—all the things we now have in modern art galleries, which are more than art galleries; they become part and parcel of the cultural precinct.

Another priority in the local government area is a lift in the Lismore Regional Museum, which is about accessibility. The residents of the area would also like a second bridge over the Wilson River. There are a lot of places where people want a second bridge, and the Wilson River has been identified as an area where a second bridge is needed. Refurbishment at the Lismore City Hall is another priority. There are also a number of road projects, particularly the Ballina Road alignment and the Pineapple Road link between Ballina Road and Bangalow Road.

Other priorities in local government areas include the Nymboida Wilderness Rescue team at Nymboida and Coutts Crossing in Clarence Valley. They provide a really important community function but do not have a storage area. Their equipment is stored in bits and pieces at various people’s places, and they move it around as they go out and do key work in the community. They do share an overcrowded shed with the State Emergency Service at Coutts Crossing, but they are keen to have their own storage area.

For the village of Rappville, public infrastructure would allow them to upgrade the community hall and provide a playground and shade structure. For Wardell, a priority is the second stage of the Wardell master plan. The master plan was worked out between Ballina Shire Council and the Wardell community and Wardell businesses. The second stage would reinvigorate the Wardell town centre. The council has already provided money for the first stage and for the restoration, including the wharf, street lighting and shared pathways, which is wonderful. Wardell also has a great timber boardwalk. It is a historical village, and historical and cultural artwork would be included in the project.

In Woodburn, which is on the Pacific Highway between Grafton and Ballina—a stretch of the highway that is often talked about—there is a lovely visitor information centre, which is run by volunteers. They do a great job, particularly Joan Roots and her team. I know they would like to see the centre done up, but in Woodburn they also want to develop their native botanical garden, which is on the riverbank east of the town, and upgrade Riverside Park. Woodburn is certainly a lovely place to stop. The projects would not only beautify the area but also help the local economy.

A few other projects have come up as Page priorities. The Yamba Surf Life Saving Club needs a new storage shed at Turners Beach. You may not know that Yamba was voted as the ‘best kept secret’ in Australia. I think some of the people who live there would like to keep it like that, and I do not blame them. It is one of those places that people like to visit—very beautiful. It is a great surf lifesaving club, and a storage shed for the club is one of the projects that has been identified as a priority. Another priority for Yamba is some additional work at the sporting complex, particularly the Lower Clarence rugby league club and Yaegl Elders, which has community support.

Then there is Woodenbong. Woodenbong is in my electorate. It comes within the Kyogle shire and borders on the Tenterfield shire. My seat of Page also borders on the seat of New England. Woodenbong has long had a dream and it is hard to get attention, particularly as it is one of the smaller towns and villages in the area—a very vibrant one—and people want it for roads. It is a key link—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

In the few minutes I have left in the address-in-reply debate I will mention a few other projects. There are quite a few employment ones, covering a whole range of areas from community colleges to Southern Cross University. There are also some social inclusion ones, particularly with the Northern Rivers Social Development Council, and there is also the regional integrated transport plan, which is a big one that the entire community is committed to. As well, the community is working with colleagues over the border in South-East Queensland out into the Southern Downs area Scenic Rim and way beyond my seat. But that is what we need for a proper regional integrated transport plan and it has some legs. There have also been some advances made towards Infrastructure Australia in another area.

Another key issue that comes up is about the Clarence River. There are a lot of people who are continually talking about getting their hands on the water in the Clarence River, about diverting it or damming it. This has come up again in the context of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and the debate about that. I have said in this place and I will keep saying to anybody who even thinks about it, dreams about it, talks about it, speculates about it or advances it: not a drop will go out of the Clarence River. It is just a nonsensical approach to dealing with a problem and it will create another problem. The Clarence Valley Council has put up a minute on it, and all of its members and the whole community are at one on that. While ever that debate goes on, I will keep restating: not a drop. We have bumper stickers for people’s cars that say ‘Not a drop’ and I will be giving out more of those.

In the few seconds I have left in this debate, I want to mention a meeting I had with Dr Harry Gibbs and Dr Matt Landos in my office the other day. One is a cardiologist and one is a vet. They have been doing a lot of good work in the community, looking at chemicals and at the body of science around the negative impacts of chemicals in our rivers affecting fishery production and also affecting human health. I had a very interesting conversation with them and they have given me information on some great research. They have set out a case for urgent reform of pesticide regulation in Australia, and I will have another opportunity to talk about that.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great privilege to have the opportunity again to represent the people of Goldstein in this place. I have had this honour now since 2004. I would like to thank the people of Goldstein for their continued trust and support, and again commit myself to seeking to represent every member of the Goldstein community. The local interaction with the people of my electorate remains for me the most enjoyable and rewarding aspect of my job. As I said, I have now had six years representing the Goldstein community, which is a very vibrant community in a beautiful part of Melbourne on the bay. We have 60,000 households and 50 schools, and I enjoy the contact with all of that, but the 980 community organisations I have identified is an area of work that I have found particularly enjoyable.

What has struck me since becoming a member of parliament is the number of people in each electorate who volunteer to assist with so much of what makes our communities as vibrant as they are. Amongst the 130,000 people in my electorate, I estimate that there are close to 30,000 who do some sort of voluntary work. They make the football clubs, the tennis clubs, the bowling clubs, the community and ethnic organisations and all those sorts of activities work. But the groups that deal with people with disabilities are the ones that I have found the most rewarding to deal with and the ones that I am most in awe of, in a sense. Places like Bayley House, Marriott House and the Berendale School, among others, are wonderful places with wonderful people.

In relation to the overall election result, to get so near to forming government but to find ourselves back in opposition is both disappointing and frustrating, particular considering that we won more seats than our principal opponent, the Labor Party, and 700,000 more primary votes than Labor. It is truly remarkable that the effectiveness of the coalition resulted for the first time since Federation in a first-time Prime Minister not lasting until an election and, for the second time only, a first-time government losing its majority. Much credit should go to our leader, Tony Abbott, who has been truly magnificent in holding this government to account and has continued in that vein very strongly since we have continued in opposition after the election. Tony had a wonderful campaign and has led a united and disciplined team, supported by strong policy work by our shadow ministers. We must continue the efforts of the last 12 months in order to remove what in my view is really a quite dangerous Labor-Green government.

In the three years of the Rudd-Gillard government, very little was done, and what was done involved major increases in the nanny state. I do think that this explains a lot of results. Once people were able to focus on the nature of the government over the past three years and the implications of that, we saw that unprecedented movement against a first-term government. Nothing has been done or said to suggest that we can expect anything different in this Labor term. In fact, the last three years and now the alliance formed with the Greens have shown me that philosophy matters. It shows me why we are here.

It often annoys me that people say that, since the fall of the Berlin Wall, there is no longer any difference between the two parties. From my observations at both the state and federal levels over the last 30 years, that is not correct. There are two legitimately held philosophical positions but they are fundamentally different. On our side we believe in the great value of the individual, and it is our belief that the collective wellbeing, happiness and prosperity of any community is maximised by government creating an environment where each person is free to make decisions about how they conduct their own lives as long as they do not harm others—in other words, a community where people have choices, the freedom to choose. That freedom of course carries with it an obligation to take personal responsibility for your own actions and decisions. By contrast, turning to Labor and its Green allies, instinctively both those parties think the best decisions are made by Canberra—that the government knows best and people who make the wrong decisions are victims and need to be protected from themselves. It is a legitimate philosophy, but it is fundamentally different from the philosophy held on this side of the House. And it is that different philosophy that is brought to bear on everyday policies that affect everyday people in the way in which they go about their lives.

In that respect, I feel concern about the danger that is being created for the future years of our community under this government. I feel that, in this context of a nanny state, in the last three years we have seen, arguably, the greatest growth of government in our lives, probably including the Whitlam years. Using the excuse, in many respects, of combating the global financial crisis and now of needing the cooperation of the Greens, the Rudd-Gillard-Brown governments have taken every opportunity to impose their will on our lives. We are the only country in the world that re-regulated the labour market during the global financial crisis. We are the only country in the world that I know of that is renationalising its telecommunications sector. We are the only country in the world that sought to bring in the most bureaucratic, most taxing—$114 billion in the next 10 years—and most invasive emissions trading scheme imaginable. We were looking to auction 70 per cent of permits from day one; in Europe, they auction four per cent, and in Europe it is just a pilot compared to what was proposed here. And we were going to lead the world! Of course, now the US have said they will not be bringing in such a scheme. How stupid would we have looked last year if we had, lemming like, followed the Prime Minister of the day into that most invasive, bureaucratic and difficult scheme.

In the last three years, we have seen the government seek to undermine and ultimately get rid of private health insurance. We have seen them seek to get rid of employee share ownership. We saw them seek to set up a government bank while systematically removing 25 years of building up competition—25 years of competition in the finance sector all gone because they botched the introduction and the use of the wholesale and the deposit guarantees. Now the government are trying to back-pedal and find some way to improve competition at the margin. When the Treasurer agreed to the merger of St George Bank, what a folly that was. He also agreed to the merger of other banks and agreed to the disassembling of trust funds that in some cases had been there for 50 years.

We have seen the attempt to control the internet with filtering. We have seen the mining tax, with an attempt to introduce nationalisation of 40 per cent of the mining industry. When you think about it, it beggars belief. But that was what was on the table—all rush, all without consultation, all for political motives, all through instinct, because they think government know best. Tax, spend and borrow is the instinct to solve a problem. Of course, paying back $90 billion in debt, with tax increases for many years to come, again reduces choices. It is a bad government; it is a dangerous government.

Notwithstanding the disappointment of losing the election, we as an opposition need to very assiduously keep this government to account so that we can in fact be successful at the next election and try our best to reverse much of the damage done, the incursion and the introduction of the nanny state, writ large, over the last three years.

On the local front, in my electorate we saw a similarly disciplined and effective campaign to the one run nationally, which produced a swing of almost half a per cent against us, compared to the disappointing statewide swing of almost one per cent against us. In general, the result in Victoria was disappointing and we need to take stock. But the future is bright. We have introduced very significant changes in the way in which candidates are preselected in Victoria. This time it threw up a most outstanding field of candidates. Many of them were successful, as many others have been in the last election or two. In Victoria and around the country we really do have reason to be very confident over the next 15 or 20 years about the skill that is now available at a young level. Some people need more time in the paddock, but they will be the future leaders of our party and the country. I think those who support our side of politics have every reason to be enormously confident in the capacity of the coalition to strongly lead this country for a long time to come. We have a good mix, as I say, of experience and youth. Again, we have to use this three years in opposition to keep the government to account and to give the talent that is coming through every opportunity to gain the experience so that we can have a very powerful influence over the politics of Australia in the years ahead.

As always in my electorate we have a very highly experienced and committed team of party members. I have almost 700 members of the Liberal Party in my electorate. I have had wonderful leadership, in Jeannette Rawlinson, of each campaign for the three elections that I have contested. She is a person of great experience and a good friend. She has served the party with great skill and certainly supported me. The leadership was even more important this time round, as I had other significant responsibilities at our campaign headquarters. I needed to have the organisation very well finetuned so that I could spend what time I had most effectively in my own electorate and not have to worry about any of the logistical matters. I have never had to do so in the three campaigns that I have contested. Our campaign saw over 500 Liberal volunteers, helping with prepoll and mobile booths, providing office assistance, doing street walks et cetera. I would like to sincerely thank those 500-plus volunteers and take this opportunity to mention very briefly a number of them, most of whom have helped me not only in the last 12 months and during this campaign but also over the six years that I have had the great privilege of representing all of those people who live in the electorate of Goldstein. 

Jeannette Rawlinson, who I mentioned, was my campaign manager. Kaye Farrow, who has been our FEC chair now for three years, did another outstanding job as deputy campaign manager but also took so many other responsibilities. Ralph Wollmer, Ramon Frederico, Colin Gourley, Terry Farrow, Brett Hogan, Leonie Abbott, Fazal Cader, Andrew Hudgson, Andrew Tame, Lee Trevena, Mike Rawlinson, Hanife Bushby, Tim Wildash, Tammy van Wisse, Kim Dunstan—all of those people and many more provided great assistance. I wish I had time to go through some of the things that they turned their hand to. It had been in some cases many months in getting properly organised. It really did run as a very smoothly oiled machine.

My staff have been exceptional. Many other members are similarly blessed but in my case Vanessa Kimpton, my PA, is a wonderful person and highly skilled and a great office manager and PA for me. Nick Troja and Cameron Hill are fellows of great skill and commitment and a pleasure to work with. Within my electorate office Skye Buttenshaw and Samantha Russell have been so well-regarded by all of those who have the need to contact my office. I am very blessed with the campaign staff and the office staff I have got. Young Scott McCloud has served me very well as a part-time member of our team while he completed his university studies. Finally on that front, I mention my wife and three children. Maureen is long-suffering not only with this responsibility but many before it, having flown over 2,500 return domestic flights in the last 30 years in different jobs. I think it probably is the best way of explaining the load that my wonderful wife has carried, with our three kids, Tom, Joe and Philippa. This time I have the great pleasure of my son Joe, who was in the campaign headquarters looking after social media, which he has had a strong background in. So I not only had the pleasure of his company but also was brought up to speed on my social media skills at the same time. That was an added bonus for this campaign.

I would like to finish on a couple of other points. Firstly, I would like to take the opportunity to announce the winner of my annual Christmas card design competition. Lachlan Williams from Larmenier, an outstanding school in Hampton in my electorate, is this year’s winner with a bright and happy drawing of Jesus in the manger complete with Christmas star and approving animals. Each year I have a competition with different organisations dealing with disadvantaged or disabled people, young people usually but not always. Lachlan Williams’ piece of art will feature on the front cover of thousands of Christmas cards, with an inside picture of him, my wife, Maureen, and me. It is a truly outstanding school located in Bluff Road in Hampton in my electorate. It is run by the Catholic primary schools and families within the Archdiocese of Melbourne, dealing with students displaying social and emotional and behavioural difficulties which may contribute to learning difficulties. They take these young people in, they go one or two days a week or perhaps full-time, and then they integrate them back into the schools whence they have come. The dedication, the patience and the faith in every human being that is displayed by the principal, Patrice Duggan, and her staff are things I am totally in awe of. They are wonderful people, highly skilled, who do an outstanding job. I have seen so many young people come from all parts of Melbourne and go to that school, and it might take 18 months or two years but it has had an enormous effect on their quality of life and future. We all owe them a great debt of gratitude for what they do in a selfless way for our community, but in this case it covers all of Melbourne.

Finally, in the short time I have left, I would like to acknowledge and thank so many people on both sides of the House. I have had a depressive condition in the mornings which I had never confronted—and I have had it all my life. I had never admitted to it. It used to lift at eight o’clock but in the last few years went on to nine o’clock, 10 o’clock or 12 o’clock. I was finally forced, for certain reasons, to confront it. I thought it might mean that my political career had come to an end, but that was not the case. I have had thousands of emails from people which have been an enormous source of encouragement. There is still a strong stigma, which probably explains why mental health is still the poor relation amongst health services. But, as I said, I would like to thank everyone on both sides of the House for the way in which they have given me encouragement.

Fortunately, in my case, after six months of experimentation and lots of uncomfortable side effects, I have found something that helps, and for the last five months I have had mornings that I have never had in my life. I have never been better. I am looking to demonstrate to millions of others that you can have this sort of condition. It is just like another illness. Not in all cases but in many, many cases you can deal with it effectively, get on with life, stay in the same profession and hopefully even do better in the same profession. So thank you to everybody on that front. It has been an interesting phase of my life. I am now looking to move to the next.

Steve Gibbons (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First of all, I would like to congratulate the member for Goldstein on looking so well. I look forward to working against him, and sometimes with him, over the next three years. I would also like to take the opportunity to thank all of the people who worked on Labor’s election campaign in Bendigo, in particular our campaign director, Bill Murray; our dedicated and hardworking staff; the many hundreds of volunteers; and, of course, my ever supportive wife, who has been a constant source of strength to me for the past 33 years. Through their efforts we were able to record a modest swing in Labor’s favour—one that was against the trend across the country.

Elections are an important part of life in our democracy and they provide both politicians and voters alike with an opportunity to evaluate the past term of the government and the alternatives that are on offer for the term ahead. This was the first occasion during my time as the member for Bendigo that I was campaigning for the re-election of a Labor government, and I certainly took time to reflect on what had been achieved over the previous three years for the people of central Victoria. That local record needs to be seen in the context of a global financial crisis that threatened to bring down the world banking system, with dire consequences for millions of people. When the action taken to avoid a crisis proves to be effective, it is all too easy to forget how real the threat was at the time.

I am reminded of how, now and again, we hear commentators claiming that the Y2K bug was a huge beat-up or some worldwide conspiracy to spend hundreds of millions of dollars unnecessarily on upgrading computer systems. But those involved assure me that that was not the case. Without appropriate remedial action, many computer systems would have stopped working, building control systems would have failed, businesses and government would have been severely disrupted and many lives would have been put at risk. But, through some good planning, effective management and a lot of hard work by a lot of people—and a modicum of good luck—serious disruption was avoided.

Here in Australia we appear to be witnessing a similar loss of memory about the global financial crisis. It is all too easy to think that there was no crisis in the world financial markets in 2008 and that the threat to the world’s economy is now over. There is a great temptation to think that talk of the world’s worst global recession since the 1930s is just scaremongering by politicians or more sensationalism by the popular media. But you only have to read the international pages of the newspapers to realise that much of the world is still in deep economic trouble. Europe is in the midst of a sovereign debt crisis, with the problems spreading beyond those that surfaced in Greece earlier this year. Contagion remains a real risk across euro countries as weaker economies drag down stronger ones. Indeed, European Union President Herman Van Rompuy called it a ‘survival crisis’.

The bailout of Ireland’s banks may cost Irish taxpayers as much as €75 billion. The Irish government is reportedly in talks with European International Monetary Fund officials about emergency funding to avoid defaulting on repayments. Portugal and Spain are also in trouble, with significant budget deficits. Like their Irish counterparts, Portugal’s banks are being kept afloat by cheap credit from the European Central Bank and the Spanish banks are plagued by the highest level of distressed loans since 1996. Growth in the United States is expected to slacken, consumer spending is expected to remain weak and jobs growth is likely to remain slow. The Japanese economic outlook is also weak.

So there can be no doubt that the economic crisis outside Australia is very real and very much still a threat. Equally, there can be no doubt that it was the early and decisive action taken by the federal Labor government in 2008 that mitigated the worst effects of the crisis here. As the OECD said in its economic survey on Australia that was released just recently:

The fiscal stimulus was implemented rapidly and targeted to credit constrained households and public investment. It proved highly effective, with a sizable impact on output and confidence …

Of course, this is just the latest in a long line of endorsements of the actions taken by the Labor government.

During an economic downturn, the private sector reins in its spending, cuts costs, lays off workers and waits for the economy to pick up again. When people are thrown out of work, not only is there a lot of personal stress involved but those people do not have as much money to spend and so the economy slows down even more, going into a vicious downward spiral. It was the unwillingness of governments to take effective action that contributed to the severity of the Great Depression in the 1930s.

We now know that, by increasing investment in spending to fill the gap left by the private sector, governments can stimulate domestic economic activity, keeping firms in business and people in employment. This is exactly what the federal Labor government did and the results are clear to see: Australia has the lowest debt and deficit of all major advanced economies, we have the lowest unemployment rate of all major advanced economies and Australia was the only major advanced economy to avoid recession.

The impact on my electorate of Bendigo has been dramatic. Schools, from both the public and private sectors, have received much needed investment in classrooms, trade training centres and other facilities. There has been investment in local community assets and infrastructure that will be of benefit for many years to come. Local businesses have been kept busy with new work that has enabled them to retain staff and, in many cases, create new jobs. In the city of Greater Bendigo alone, independent economic modelling commissioned by the city council showed Bendigo’s economy has grown by 27 per cent in the three years since the election of the federal Labor government. Following more than a decade of drought, it is very pleasing to see the city doing so well as a result of the hard work and enterprise of local business, supported by the economic policies of the Labor government.

Labor’s economic stimulus has contributed much of the $390 million of federal government investment to the Bendigo electorate since 2007. The effects of this spending can be clearly seen in the local construction sector whose output grew more than 46 per cent between November 2007 and May 2010 to $1.2 billion. There were 600 more jobs in the sector than three years ago—an increase of more than one-third.

Some other key findings in the report are that output from property and business services grew by 23.3 per cent to $886 million and mining output grew by 54.3 per cent to $616 million. And, of course, keeping businesses working and employing staff means that more money is spent in local shops than would otherwise be the case. This has helped Bendigo’s retail sector to remain the biggest local employer with an 8.6 per cent increase in jobs—an impressive result given the economic conditions.

This is the story of the Labor government’s stimulus spending in just one electorate, and I am very sure that this has been repeated across the country. As a member representing a regional constituency, I am particularly pleased that regional Australia has not been forgotten by the government and will benefit from these significant investments in the future.

But, instead of celebrating the success of a stimulus package that the OECD says is ‘among the most effective in the OECD’, the parties opposite—and their public relations spokesmen and women in the Murdoch press —have run a scare campaign about the very few projects such as some in the Building the Education Revolution program that have experienced problems.

The objectives of the BER program are twofold: first, to provide economic stimulus through the rapid construction and refurbishment of school infrastructure; and, second, to build better learning environments for our children. In order for these measures to have the desired stimulus effect on the economy, they needed to be implemented expeditiously. This has been recognised by both the Australian National Audit Office and the OECD in separate reports. In an audit report of May this year, the ANAO concluded:

There are some positive early indicators that the program is making progress toward achieving its intended outcomes.

It recognised:

… many of the issues arising were a function of the compressed timetable for the establishment of the program, given the prevailing economic downturn.

Mr Brad Orgill, the chairman of the BER Implementation Taskforce, told a Senate hearing earlier this month that the program was effective as a stimulatory measure. He said:

There is no evidence to say that value for money has not been achieved.

So two independent reports have found the BER to be effective and to provide value for money, despite the accusations from the opposition that the government had been inefficient in managing the program.

Let us now turn back the clock to another ANAO audit report. This one is from November 2007 and concerns the former Howard government’s notorious Regional Partnerships program. Between 2003 and 2007, the former coalition government allocated more than $409 million through this program. The ANAO found that the Regional Partnerships Program:

… had fallen short of an acceptable standard of public administration, particularly in respect to the assessment of grant applications and the management of Funding Agreements.

Furthermore, it concluded that during the first three years of funding:

… departures from the published guidance were a feature of the Programme.

This:

… resulted in funding being approved for projects that have either not proceeded as planned or which did not result in—

any community benefits. The Regional Partnerships program was not conceived in haste or in response to a global financial crisis. It was not necessary for these grants to be made expeditiously to stimulate the economy. There was simply no excuse for this gross mismanagement of taxpayers’ funds by the Liberal and National parties. Yet they now have the audacity to accuse the present Labor government of mismanaging parts of its economic stimulus program—a program that, I remind the House, was just recently praised by the OECD as containing many timely, targeted and temporary measures to boost consumption and investment and help to avoid a recession. The hypocrisy from those opposite is once again astounding.

As we learn from the recent Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, Labor’s sound economic management is continuing to deliver strong economic growth. Strong job creation and falling unemployment are expected to continue. As the remarkable economic performance of our major trading partners in Asia continues, our economy is expected to grow at an above-average rate over the next two years, with real GDP forecast to increase by 3¼ per cent in 2010-11 and 3¾ per cent in 2011-12. The unemployment rate is forecast to fall to 4.75 per cent by the June quarter of 2011 and 4.5 per cent by the June quarter of 2012, returning to levels that we last saw before the global financial crisis. Inflation is forecast to be 2.75 per cent in the year to June 2011 and three per cent through the year to June 2012. One of the highlights of the latest MYEFO is a forecast of an additional 380,000 jobs over the next 18 months or so. On top of the 650,000 jobs that have been created since Labor came to government, this means there will be about one million more Australians in work than when we were first elected in 2007. That is an extraordinary achievement when you consider what is going on in other major economies.

As the OECD commented recently, the Labor government’s economic stimulus package was ‘wisely accompanied by a well-designed fiscal exit strategy’. Under this strategy, the federal budget is expected to return to surplus in 2012-13. At this time, the major advanced economies are forecast to still be in deficit by an average of six per cent of gross domestic product. Of course, the members opposite continue their scaremongering about the level of Australia’s public debt, even though this is expected to peak at just 6.4 per cent of GDP in 2011-12. This will leave Australia in a substantially stronger fiscal position than any of the major advanced economies. According to the MYEFO, net debt in the major advanced economies is expected to reach an average of 90 per cent of GDP by 2015, some 14 times higher than the expected peak in Australia’s net debt. And, of course, the money borrowed by the federal government has been spent on renewing vital infrastructure and other stimulus measures.

The government was faced with a choice when the global financial crisis hit. It could borrow nothing and let hundreds of businesses go to the wall and thousands of people lose their jobs or it could borrow moderately and responsibly and support Australian businesses and workers by investing in long-term infrastructure. This Labor government chose to borrow and invest, and without this decisive action thousands of Australian jobs would have been lost. The opposition continues to make out that Australia has a runaway debt problem, but how much you can borrow responsibly depends on how much you earn and your ability to pay the interest and repay the loan, just like when you take out a mortgage to buy your own home. Australia has borrowed a very small amount compared to its annual income, currently about six per cent. That is equivalent to somebody earning, say, $50,000 a year going to the bank and taking out a loan of $3,000. No-one could suggest that they could not easily afford to pay the interest and repay the loan. Australia is in a similar situation. The federal government is borrowing affordable amounts of money to invest in long-term infrastructure and can easily afford to pay the interest from its current income. In comparison, some major economies such as the United States and the United Kingdom are borrowing 60 to 70 per cent of their annual incomes, and Japan is borrowing even more.

If there were any concern about Australia’s level of debt, our credit rating would have been downgraded like that of Greece. That has not happened, and Australia is still rated as a AAA credit risk. That is one reason why the Nobel-prize-winning economist Professor Joseph Stiglitz described the government’s economic stimulus package as ‘one of the best-designed of all the advanced industrial countries’.

As far as the opposition’s credibility on economic matters is concerned, we only have to take a look at their record. First, they voted against Labor’s stimulus package and would have sent our economy into a downward spiral of lower incomes, lost jobs and reduced services. Second, the Leader of the Opposition and his economic team have been forecasting doom and gloom for almost two years. In February 2009, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Abbott, said: ‘I think what we’re going to get is a massive debt and deep recession.’ The following month, former shadow finance minister Senator Joyce said:

… we’re heading towards a recession …

And in April 2009 the member for Goldstein, the previous speaker, an aspiring deputy leader and shadow Treasurer, predicted:

The recession will be deeper and longer because of the [Government’s] misguided spending …

Of course, we all know that Australia was in fact the only advanced economy to avoid a recession. With a track record of forecasts like that, it is clear that no-one should take seriously anything the opposition say about economic matters.

But, as the Labor government is one of the few governments to have successfully navigated through the biggest economic crisis since the 1930s, Australians can justifiably have confidence in Labor’s economic management and ability. In the last few days, our plans for fiscal consolidation have received a big tick from the OECD. It recognised that our economy has been one of the most resilient among OECD members, that our future prospects remain very favourable and that our growth potential is among the strongest in the OECD. The OECD said Labor’s response to the global crisis proved highly effective in supporting confidence and activity in our economy, which helped keep Australia out of recession. In the same week that the government released the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, it endorsed Labor’s disciplined fiscal strategy, saying:

The prudent fiscal consolidation strategy reinforces Australia’s commitment to sound public finances, the maintenance of which is one of the major lessons from the international economic crisis.

It is clear that the Labor government’s economic management since coming to office has been among the best in the world. The policies it has pursued, including taking early and decisive action in the early days of the global financial crisis, have been endorsed by the OECD, the International Monetary Fund and many of the world’s leading economists.

As I have outlined, these policies have had a marked impact in my electorate. Economic activity has been increased, local businesses have been kept working, local jobs have been supported and there has been major investment in the region’s economic and community infrastructure. I now look forward to serving the people of central Victoria during the second term of the Labor government and building on what has been a commendable record of achievement during difficult economic circumstances.

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I listened with interest to the member for Bendigo’s speech, and I have only two questions for him. The first one is: if the current government did such a wonderful job preventing the Australian economy going into recession by introducing a stimulus, why are they still running the stimulus two years after the recession?

Steve Gibbons (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Easing the country out if it!

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I see. The money that is being spent about the place does not look to me like easing. The second question I have for the member for Bendigo is: if they did such a fantastic job, why did they stab the Prime Minister in the back in the middle of the night after the now Prime Minister admitted that the Labor Party had lost its way?

Mr Deputy Speaker, I actually rise to speak of far more positive things. Can I first say that I am deeply humbled by the people of Groom to be re-elected as their member for what will now be my fifth term. I am particularly humbled by the fact that the margin by which I was elected virtually doubled. That was in no small part due to the efforts of my campaign committee. I wish to put them on the record and thank them, particularly Dave Nichols, who as my campaign manager did a fantastic job; Dylls Kelly and the rest of the Liberal-National Party in the electorate of Groom; and, particularly, the Young Liberal-National Party, which really showed the power and future potential of the Liberal-National Party in Queensland.

While speaking of the LNP I should also mention Bruce McIvor and Michael O’Dwyer for the leadership that they provided and, of course, James McGrath, the campaign director, who did such a fantastic job in Queensland and saw Queensland deliver 21 seats to this federal parliament, which is now the largest coalition division in Australia. Of course, none of that would have been possible without the efforts of Brian Loughnane, the federal director, who ran an exemplary campaign and, were it not for some things which we will not dwell on in relation to decisions by Independents, would have delivered Tony Abbott to government. There is no doubt about one fact, and that is that, for the first time for almost half a century, a first-term government, a Labor government, has been robbed of its majority in the House of Representatives.

It is almost three months since the federal election. Some may feel that it is not that long. Others, for their own reasons, may feel that it has been an eternity, and part of that is that all we are seeing from this government is more of the same—more talk, more rhetoric, the same non-delivery, no reform agenda. It is obviously a government that, to use the Prime Minister’s words, has ‘lost its way’, and this has flowed through to the confidence of the people, particularly those in my electorate of Groom, where the level of apathy from the Rudd-Gillard government is seen as simple fact: for this current government, regional Australia does not exist.

The coalition took a very positive plan for regional Australia to the last election and we looked forward to delivering on that plan had we been elected. In my electorate particularly, the Labor Party failed to make one election promise—not one piece of infrastructure, not one suggested way of improving the lot of regional Australians, many of whom they hope to tax to the absolute limit with their new mining tax. Not one positive piece of news was delivered in the five weeks of the campaign. There is nothing there that would give the people of Groom and the people of regional Australia any hope that this government under the current Prime Minister will deliver them anything.

At the top of the list of things that need to be delivered is the Toowoomba Range crossing. It is a key part of South-East Queensland’s transport infrastructure, a road that currently channels trucks into the main street of Toowoomba at the rate of about 5,000 a day. These are not delivery vans. They are B-doubles carrying all sorts of cargo in both directions, which is crucially important for the economic development of Queensland. When they travel through the main street of Toowoomba, they intermingle with the everyday traffic of a bustling, growing city and, as such, pose a real problem.

We need to see the range crossing built. The Howard government committed $700 million to begin construction of that road. Unfortunately we lost the election and that promise was not able to be delivered. However, the Abbott led coalition renewed that promise and, had we been elected in the election in August, that road would already be on the drawing board being prepared for construction.

The Toowoomba Range crossing highlights the appalling record in regional Australia and it makes a mockery of Labor’s claims about nation building. Building school halls is well and good, and I note that in my electorate particularly the ones built by private schools and church schools have been good projects, but it is important to contrast them with those managed by the Queensland state Labor government. They are appalling examples of waste and mismanagement, inappropriate buildings being built that the schools did not need and did not want, buildings that are not air-conditioned, where there appear to be unreasonable margins being afforded to the contractors involved.

Those sorts of buildings are not infrastructure that is going to earn this country the dollars it needs to pay off the massive debt which the member for Bendigo may have only lightly touched on, a massive debt that is growing daily. In fact, in September the deficit run by this government was almost $14 billion. Not only do the government have to borrow, under normal circumstances, $100 million a day, but in the month of September they had to borrow $400 million a day to feed their spending habit. We need infrastructure that is going to grow this country, that is going to deliver to the people of Australia not only the goods and services that they need but also the economic growth and economic wealth that they need.

It is not just the Toowoomba Range crossing; it is the whole road network west of Brisbane. The member for Blair let the cat out of the bag when he admitted that no money had been spent on the Warrego Highway west of Ipswich since this government had been elected. That is the case. It has been estimated by the Queensland government that $200 million needs to be spent on the section between Helidon and the base of the Toowoomba Range at Withcott alone. I am sure that if the member for Maranoa were here he could take you, Mr Deputy Speaker, through the needs of the Warrego Highway in his electorate, which is significantly more vast than mine.

It is not only infrastructure that we need. The coalition promised to deliver to Toowoomba a PET scanner to improve cancer care in that city. Toowoomba benefited from a Howard government program where I delivered $8.6 million to St Andrew’s Hospital in Toowoomba. I was there just on Friday of last week, both for personal reasons—to have my annual check-up with my radiologist, as you do—and to have a quick look at the expansion of that facility which is now taking place. That facility will not be complete without the ability to provide a PET scan to cancer sufferers. The provision of that scanner is important in terms of saving people, when they are at a difficult point in their lives, the difficult and arduous journey to Brisbane for that sort of treatment. Just because you live in a regional area does not mean that you should go without in any way, and the provision of basic health services is something that I will be continuing to work on through the next three years of this government. I hope at some point that this current Prime Minister realises that there is a whole world outside the capital cities and that she devotes some of her time to ensuring that the infrastructure and health and service needs of those areas are met.

I have in my electorate two very significant defence bases. No-one is prouder than I am of the defence forces. They have done a fantastic job for Australia and continue to do so. I have men and women from my electorate who are currently serving in conflicts, in Afghanistan in particular. It is unfair to them not to receive an assurance from this government that Borneo Barracks will remain open. I fear that at some point the government will close that facility.

I dread to think that that may then be used at some point to house what is a completely uncontrollable expansion in the number of illegal immigrants coming to Australia because of the inaction of this government. We have seen that occur in other parts of Australia. Disused military facilities have been used to house the uncontrolled immigration that we now have in Australia. I hope that is not the case and I call on the Gillard government to make it clear to the people of Groom and to the service men and women of Cabarlah that their base’s future is certain. Certainly under an Abbott government, the future of that base is absolutely assured.

Groom, apart from probably being the best electorate in Australia, is of course at the very top of the Murray-Darling system. What happens in the Murray-Darling is as much of interest to us as it is to the people of Adelaide. The coalition is committed to restoring a healthy river system while retaining the robust rural communities and the productive agricultural sector that have been the backbone of regional Australia, in fact the whole of Australia, not only through my lifetime but through the life of modern settlement in this great nation. The coalition will stand up for regional Australia. We will ensure that any changes to allocations are done with full consideration of the socioeconomic impacts of taking water out of communities that rely on that water, not only for their current livelihoods but for their future livelihoods. You cannot take a thousand gigalitres out of a system and not affect the economic income of the region. Already we are seeing cotton gins and rice mills lie idle. The potential of this government to destroy the heart and soul of rural communities along the Murray-Darling is real. I want to assure them that, just as I will in my own electorate, I will stand up for them right across the length and breadth of the Murray-Darling.

Can I also say that education is an important area, and the changes that we have seen to the youth allowance under the Rudd and Gillard governments are robbing people of the confidence that this government cares at all about those who live outside capital cities. It is important that all people have the ability to receive a good education, which is a pathway to young people having a solid, sound future, but also a pathway to Australia’s future economic growth. The current restrictions in place, particularly in terms of work requirements, are unfair to rural people. Again, the coalition will be doing everything we can in this area whilst in opposition and will certainly be fixing the problem when we get back into government.

I am going to use the remaining portion of my speech to talk about my portfolio interests. In my time I have been a minister for resources and energy, and I currently hold that shadow ministry. Although I see many perplexing things in my life, I have never seen anything so perplexing as the approach of this government towards energy and resources. It is simply amazing that the member for Bendigo and no doubt others, including the member for Corangamite, think that their government single-handedly saved Australia from the recession that the rest of the world had. The reality is that a major part of that economic recovery was down to the mining industry. The resources industry has a long and proud history, since the gold rush days, of supporting this nation’s economy. Now is no different. As we look at what is going to hold our economy and see it grow, we cannot pick up a paper anywhere and not see estimates of the investment that will go into Australia. I think the figure I saw last week was approaching $150 billion. It may have even been $160 billion. Why then would any government move to make that industry uncompetitive?

I have been to most countries in the world in my time as a minister, and I am amazed that this government does not realise that one of the strengths of Australia is its sovereign risk and the fact that any change in that sovereign risk profile by any government will cause investors to reconsider their investment decisions. Everything is a balance, a fine balance, and what we saw with the initial approach with the superprofits tax, the RSPT—again, another political name that sort of gives away the fact that this is more about politics than about good economic management—was that Australia’s economic and sovereign risk profile was damaged permanently by a government that did not realise that if you take away one of the cornerstones of investment in Australia then companies will simply take their copper mine to South America, their coal mine to Indonesia or their gas prospects to Africa or South-East Asia.

The damage that this government has done has been appalling, but just as appalling has been the Prime Minister’s attempt to renege from the deal that she did after she became Prime Minister, where she gave a categorical assurance to the mining industry, particularly to Marius Kloppers and David Peever, in which she said that all state royalties, both current and future, would be credited against the MRRT. The attempt by the Prime Minister to renege on that deal is appalling, and I have to say that I am not surprised that Sam Walsh from Rio Tinto was moved to say that classic quote:

If you can’t trust government, who can you trust?

I say to the Gillard government that they need to prove that they are up to it. They need to prove that their word actually means something and they need to stand by that commitment. The coalition will remove the MRRT, if we are returned to government, because it is a bad tax. The minerals belong to the people of each state and it is up to that state to decide what those minerals are worth. What we have is a government blindly focused on spending and then taxing so they can spend again.

Of course, this is not the only tax on the horizon. The far more damaging tax for all of us is, of course, the carbon tax, a tax which the Prime Minister refused to deny last week in parliament. It will increase electricity prices single-handedly by 25 per cent—that is, by 25 per cent over and above any increases that occur between now and whenever she introduces the tax. I believe that electricity prices are going to rise substantially, in part because of the mismanagement of the electricity sector by Labor state governments. Whatever happens will happen, but on top of whatever happens we are going to see households, mums and dads, who are struggling to pay electricity bills now, not being able to pay electricity prices in the future because this Gillard government is taking a deliberate decision to increase, ahead of the rest of the world, the price of electricity by 25 per cent.

Families are going to get it in the neck. They are already getting it in the neck from Labor governments, with higher water prices, higher gas prices, higher electricity prices, higher registration prices and higher licence fees. Everywhere you go where there is a Labor government, the costs of living are going up. There has to be some sanity brought into this argument. If the rest of the world is stepping back from an aggressive approach to dealing with the price of carbon, Australia should do the same. It will not just be the families who get hurt; it will be the industries and the jobs that rely on those industries. It will be things like the LNG industry, which is an industry that can actually lower emissions, that are going to pay the price for this government’s poor management and complete fixation on spending and then taxing.

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me say at the outset that in a speech which is principally—at least, for my part—about giving thankyous to many people who have helped me in the last three years and, in particular in the last election, it is a great privilege to be able to make this speech in the presence of the member for Corangamite, who holds the other seat within Geelong. He and I work very closely together in representing the interests of Geelong within this place. I think we operate as a good team, and we have certainly become very good friends. I know that he has worked incredibly hard here in this building over the last three years in representing the interests of the constituents of Corangamite, and that of course was very deservedly rewarded by his re-election to this place.

The 2010 election was a gruelling election, for many reasons. I suspect the member for Corangamite will feel that more than I do. One way in which the election was particularly gruelling was by virtue of the weather, it being a winter election. So I would like to start by thanking everybody in every party who participated in this election—those who handed out pamphlets on that cold day, those who got up early to go to train stations in the morning and those who letter-boxed into the evening—because, no matter which party they did so on behalf of, they deserve the thanks of the Australian people. Engaging in the act of democracy is a hard thing to do. It is particularly hard to do it in the middle of August.

I would like to thank the officials of the Australian Electoral Commission for what they did during the election. I would particularly like to thank the parents and friends of the Clifton Springs Primary School who, on the afternoon of election day, were conducting a sausage sizzle from a caravan which had one of those flaps which came up to provide some form of shelter. As a storm came through, their generosity of spirit meant that in a very bipartisan way ‘hander-outers’ from every colour and persuasion of the political spectrum were huddled under that veranda and that prevented us all from being soaked, so I thank them.

The election ventilated a number of local issues in Geelong—the future of Avalon Airport and the extension of the dual carriageway on the Princes Highway towards Colac—and there was debate around some local priority projects such as the library and Skilled Stadium. There are two observations that I would like to make about the local election debate. The first, as I have mentioned, is that there are two electorates in Geelong. There is the electorate of Corio, which has been held by the Labor Party since 1967, and the electorate of Corangamite, which, I think I am right in saying, at this election returned the closest result of any electorate in the country. Naturally, in that context, the local media focused very much on the electorate of Corangamite, as it should and as we expect it to do. But it is important to note that, since 2007, much work has been done by this government in the electorate of Corio. Indeed $163 million has been spent in the Corio electorate on things such as education, health, industry, development, transport infrastructure—I could go on. It is important that, whilst media attention is going to be on the more marginal electorate, the work that has been done in the other electorate should not be forgotten. It is all too easy for the local media to come out with a line that nothing happens in the north because it is not a marginal seat. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth.

The second observation that I would like to make is the differing attitudes that were taken by the two main contestants in this election—the coalition and the Labor Party—when it came to local promises around particular local priorities. I am referring to the development of Skilled Stadium and the development of the Geelong Library, in particular. The Labor Party certainly made no commitment to the future funding of either of those projects. On the face of it, the opposition appeared to make a commitment in relation to both of them. Of course, that commitment formed part of a raft of commitments that were made across the country, which were unfunded. We now know there was an $11 billion black hole in the costings across the country. Funding for the local projects was spread out over a very long period of time, a fair part of those funds not being accounted for within the forward estimates. I think it is fair to say in hindsight that had the opposition formed government after the election there would have been a very real doubt as to whether or not those commitments would ultimately have been delivered.

From our point of view, as the Prime Minister said, we did go into this election saying that every dollar committed through an election commitment in the lead-up to the election would be met by an equivalent dollar in savings. That was the right thing to do. The fact that we did not make a commitment in that context to these two projects does not mean that they were not worthy; nor does it mean that they never, ever will come to fruition. But it does pay to remember that projects of this kind have no right to public expenditure on them; that, in the aftermath of the global financial crisis, after the necessary spending in the form of the stimulus, it is important to get the budget back into the black, and so we do live in a time of restraint; and that locally we were living the commitment that was made by the Prime Minister nationally. The proponents of these projects will continue to argue for them, as of course they should, as it is important for them to do because they are worthy projects. While there can be no guarantee that they will be funded until a decision is ultimately made about them, what can be guaranteed is that no funding will ever come forth without the very good advocacy which is being mounted on their behalf.

In relation to the national issues that were ventilated during the election—along with, I think, a desire to see at last a national health system across our country and to make sure that Work Choices never returns to Australian workplaces—in my view the economy formed the key issue. That the Labor government were able to save 200,000 jobs through the way in which the economy was managed during the global financial crisis is an incredible achievement. It averts a negative legacy which would have lasted for generations in our community. There were two particular local announcements—one by Ford at the end of 2008 to reverse a previous decision to close its engine plant and the other by Viridian glass to merge with MHG glass and overturn a decision to close its automotive glass plant—which were both very important in terms of keeping morale going during what was expected to be a very difficult year indeed in 2009.

The Building the Education Revolution was a very important initiative during the last term of government which of course continues today and, I think, did play out during the election. In the electorate of Corio, $114 million has been spent. I have opened the wonderful, state-of-the-art Katsumata Centre at Kardinia International College which on one day can be set up, as I saw it, as a scene from the French Revolution—I was there on the night of the school production of Les Miserablesand the next day can be converted into a basketball court. I have opened the multipurpose assembly area at the North Shore Primary School which has revolutionised the way in which activities are conducted at that school but has also helped engage that school with the community, as more community groups are able to use it. At St Francis Xavier’s School, a primary school, we now see modern classrooms which provide cutting-edge pedagogy for that school, as it should, in that part of Geelong. In addition, Diversitat, which is a community organisation that runs vocational education and training, now has a state-of-the-art media training centre in the heart of Geelong. This is a magnificent legacy for the youth of Geelong which will be experienced by young people in our city for decades to come, and it is the result of the Building the Education Revolution program. I do not think that that was lost on the voters of Geelong, not for a minute, when they came to express their opinion on 21 August.

The result in Corio was a swing to the Labor Party of 5.3 per cent, which now sees the margin in Corio at 14.2 per cent, which I think I am right in saying is the largest margin that has ever been returned in Corio. That is far from being my result; it is the result of so many people whom I would like to thank on this occasion: Roger Lowrey, my campaign director, of course; and the many people in my office, who do a wonderful job of representing and supporting me in the work that I have done to date as the member for Corio and previously as the Parliamentary Secretary for Innovation and Industry—Geraldine Eren, Grant Dew, Chris Balaam, Hayley Harrison, Ella George, Pauline Braniff, Saverina Chirumbolo and Karyn Murray, who is based here in Canberra, as well as Russell Menzies and Mark Donohue, who both worked in my office in the last three years.

The state MPs who are going through their own trial of fire at the moment have also given me great support over the last three years: John Eren, Michael Crutchfield and Lisa Neville, along with Ian Trezise and Gayle Tierney. There are many who worked on the campaign in Corio, and I would like to mention Cameron Granger, David Saunderson, Lou Brazier, Rod MacDonald, Chris Kelly, Vlad Selakovic, Leonie Sheedy, Tony Beck, Nandi Young, Peter Symons and Peter McMullen. I am blessed to have a number of friends from my days at school who retain a friendship with me and who have known me now for most of my life. We are in a sense the witnesses to each other’s lives, and that is a wonderful thing indeed. It was great to me that Ninian Lewis, Peter Little and William Reeves could be with me and help on election day, and I know that Darren Fox was there in spirit.

My sisters, Vic Marles, Jen Green and Liz Marles, were all there helping out on election day, along with my parents, Fay and Don Marles. Also, from my own family, my son, Sam, who is now 14, handed out at his first election with his cousin, Alex. My eldest daughter, Bella, who showed an unhealthy interest in campaigning at street stalls at the very tender age of six, my son, Harvey, and daughter, Georgia, are all incredibly tolerant of what I do and provide me with enormous love. I am a very lucky man indeed having them as my children. Of course, the person I would like to thank the most and to whom I am in the greatest debt is my wife, Rachel Schutze, who allows me to do what I do and provides me with enormous support in doing it, and much love along the way. I thank you, Rachel, for being with me every step along the way.

There are a number in the civic leadership of Geelong I would also like to mention in this speech, certainly not in the context of supporting my campaign because they of course stood aside from politics and act very much in a bipartisan way. I have worked closely with them, as the civic leadership of Geelong, over the last three years and I think they have made my life a lot easier. From the City of Greater Geelong: Mayor John Mitchell and the previous mayor, Bruce Harwood; CEO Steve Griffin and, before him, Kay Rundle. From the Committee for Geelong: the CEO, Peter Dorling; the chair, Michael Betts and, prior to Michael, Jim Cousins. From G21: the chair, Ed Coppe; CEO Elaine Carbines and, before her, Andrew Scott. From the Geelong Football Club, an important institution in Geelong: the President, Frank Costa, who finishes at the end of this year, and Brian Cook. From Deakin University: Vice-Chancellor Jane den Hollander and, prior to Jane, Sally Walker.

When I look at that group of people I know that Geelong is in very good hands indeed. They do make my life easier because from them emanates a power of ideas. For the most part they are very coordinated in the way they articulate the priorities for the Geelong region and they do make a real difference. They have provided me with great friendship over the last three years and I thank them for it. Many of them are here today as part of a two-day lobbying trip to Canberra—‘Geelong meets Canberra’. It is the fifth visit of its kind in a program that began via the Committee for Geelong five years ago. They are meeting with ministers, parliamentary secretaries and, indeed, shadow ministers and members of the opposition, raising the issues that face Geelong and the challenges that are presented to Geelong, as well as making an indelible mark on this place about Geelong in the context of our nation. It is right that Geelong should be seen on the national stage as one of Australia’s leading and largest regional cities. There are lots of issues, such as the Princes Highway West and the building of the Premiership Stand at Skilled Stadium, which began in conversations on trips of this kind in the past and which, in the case of the Premiership Stand, are now a reality. It is a program which has, very importantly, helped to place Geelong on the national map. I thank them for doing that.

In addition to those I have mentioned amongst the civic leadership, most of whom are here this week, I would also like to welcome to this building today Jason Trethowan, Kevin Roach, Mark Sanders, Kean Selway, Gabrielle Nagle, Mark Davis, Councillor Libby Coker, Michael King, Justin Giddings, Chris Dare, Bridget Connor, Amy Gibson, Jack Green, Bernadette Uzelac, Councillor Andy Richards, Councillor John Doull, Councillor Taanya Widdicombe, Pats Hannelore and Alli Murphy, along with Andrew Tillett and Danny Breen from the local media.

Tonight we have the third annual FedCats dinner, which is a centrepiece of this trip and is there to allow those in this building and in this parliament who support the Geelong Football Club to give expression to our innermost feelings. We will have in attendance tonight the new coach of the Geelong Football Club, Chris Scott, dual premiership player, Max Rooke, Bob Gartland, a member of the board, and his wife, Phillipa.

On a serious note, it is hard to overstate the significance of the Geelong Football Club to the city of Geelong. It is easily the most culturally unifying phenomenon that we have in Geelong. As we have gone through the glory days over the past few years, we have clearly seen the extent to which everyone in the City of Greater Geelong participates in the wonder which is the Geelong Football Club. We are proud and we are passionate, but aside from that emotional connection there is a strong economic side to the football club, as it brings many people to Geelong. It is also clearly, at a national level, the most recognisable Geelong brand that exists. It projects our city onto the national stage in a way that we could not hope to do without it.

Finally, I mention an issue which has gained some significant coverage in the Geelong media over the past few weeks: a debate about the revitalisation of Geelong’s central business district. The debate was sparked by a decision by the Kentucky Fried Chicken chain to close its store in the centre of Geelong, leaving the building it inhabited vacant. That building now joins many other shopfronts in Geelong’s CBD which are vacant. This has raised concerns amongst the people of Geelong, and these are concerns that I share. I commend the Geelong Advertiser for commencing a campaign around this issue of how we can revitalise our CBD.

I have spoken about this on a number of occasions in this place. I have said that the key to being able to revitalise Geelong’s CBD is to restore the enormous heritage value which exists within the Geelong CBD. There is an incredible history within the Geelong CBD. It is perhaps the best collection of heritage buildings which sits adjacent to greater Port Phillip Bay, and there is something very special about that. We also need to see a greater use of our CBD. That is in some ways to state the obvious, but I am talking about not only the shopfronts but also the area above that—levels 1 and 2, which are largely vacant in the Geelong CBD. If we could get more life into them—if we could restore the heritage value of the CBD—we would go a long way towards revitalising the heart of Geelong.

However, encouraging the use and upgrade of a private dwelling is very much the private decision of whoever owns that particular property—a decision which, of course, can be influenced by policies and initiatives of all three tiers of government, but which is at its heart a private decision. Providing encouragement and coordinating all of that become difficult issues. It is for that reason that on Monday, 6 December, I will be holding a summit on the revitalisation of Geelong’s CBD to get together all the people who can make a difference on this issue, to hear what problems exist in relation to the CBD—the problems experienced by the shop and property owners—and to get a sense of what has worked by talking to those who have restored their buildings to their former glory. There are a couple of examples of that, and those buildings look great. It would be good to hear from those owners why they restored their buildings, how much it cost and what benefit they got from undertaking that exercise. Most importantly, we need to get everyone around the table to see what solutions can be found to revitalise our CBD. It is the traditional heart of Geelong. The vital signs are still there; they need to be reinvigorated.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The end of August 2010 saw a phenomenon that has not been seen for some 71 years—a hung parliament at the federal level. Whilst it is easy to dismiss a hung parliament for a range of reasons and issues, the truth is always compelling and always hard to dodge. The problem is that we have a government, in the form of Labor in the second term, now emasculated, through the deal with the Greens, and, through the hung parliament, relying on Independents. This is simply because the government lost its way and continues to lose its way. It executed one of the nation’s most popular prime ministers because of a series of numbers and polls. We know that the current Prime Minister exhibits worse numbers than Prime Minister Rudd had, for which he paid the price of being axed.

The government lacks a compelling narrative. The government has completely lost its way. During the election the Prime Minister said that she would fix three incessant problems. Firstly, she said she would address the issue of climate change. She vowed, she promised, she stated categorically that there would be no carbon price but that a community gathering, a random choice of one person from each federal electorate, would gather together to solve the greatest moral challenge of our time. I thought we already had one person from every electorate in the nation and I thought they were elected to make decisions. The Prime Minister said she would fix climate change by having no carbon price and by gathering a random selection of individuals. She said that she would fix the issue of irregular maritime arrivals by having a regional processing centre in East Timor. And, of course, she said would fix the mining tax by having a discussion, an agreement, with three out of the 3,000 mining companies.

We now know, a number of months down the track, that the community gathering of individuals is a farcical idea. It was at the time and it is now. The carbon price that the Prime Minister vowed would never come in of course is now coming in. Labor may well be in government, but the unholy alliance with the Greens means that the Greens are in power. A carbon price is now centre stage. A committee now exists where, for the first time in the parliament’s history, to be a member you cannot walk in with an open mind; you must subscribe to an anthropogenic view of climate change and you must agree that a carbon price is the only way. It is an appalling way by which to construct a committee of this parliament.

The mining tax has completely come apart, as the Prime Minister would appear to have gone back on her word again with respect to royalties. The regional processing centre simply goes from farce to farce. The Prime Minister is unable to explain in any detail how it would work. What is the boundary of the region from which people would go into this processing centre? Is the region made up of countries, for example? If people who are seeking refugee status enter Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines, East Timor or Indonesia does that mean that they qualify to go to the regional processing centre? If people enter Borneo does it mean that anybody who steps foot across the border into Sabah or Sarawak, into Malaysia, can get transported to the processing centre? The Prime Minister is unable to explain how the boundaries would work. She is unable to explain the funding arrangements. She is unable to explain why she spoke to the President of East Timor rather than the Prime Minister. The East Timorese parliament will have nothing of it. It is an unmitigated and absolute disaster.

Now we have a government that is struggling, in alliance with the Greens, needing Independents to continue to get legislation through and lacking any degree of spine to take reforms. The Prime Minister, at that great ‘Light on the Hill’ lecture, proudly said that she would continue to have a reform agenda, as if she had a sweeping majority in the House. The only reform that the Prime Minister could possibly comment on, when pushed, was a website. May I remind the Prime Minister that a website is not a reform; it is simply a website.

The government it is now struggling across a range of issues—the carbon price that it said it would not have, the mining tax negotiated with three out of 3,000 miners that has now been reneged on, a Murray-Darling scheme that is a disaster to the point where rallies of up to 5,000 people are joining together to denounce what they see as a sell-out by this government. The number of irregular maritime arrivals—people coming on boats—this year has eclipsed 6,000. It is the highest number of people coming by boat, literally, of any government. Over 128 boats have come.

Since Labor watered down the asylum seeking policy in August 2008 it has been a magnet of immense proportions that has been pulling people and drawing people to Australia. The government would have us believe that almighty push factors are continuing to draw those seeking asylum to Australia. Yet every single organisation—the United Nations, the Red Cross and the IOM—state categorically that the push factors have not changed. Only one thing has changed: a Labor government is in power and Australia’s border policies have been watered down.

The government now has no reform agenda moving forward. It has no answers to the issue of skilling Australians. It has watered down the skilled migration program, and of course beefed up the family reunion program, as Labor did last time it was in office in the Hawke-Keating years. It has watered down the 485 visa program to the point where a whole range of students in their tens and tens of thousands have not yet realised that once they finish their courses they are not eligible to claim a 485 visa to stay in the country. I say to Labor: when those students realise what was done on 1 February this year, how many of them do you think will suddenly claim asylum considering the 45-day rule has been withdrawn? We are already seeing riot after riot, and even now there are asylum seekers on Christmas Island who have sewn their lips together because of what this government has done.

The government needs to focus on tax reform including the GST and the range of ineffective taxes that exist across the Commonwealth. It needs to look at the issues of income-tax cuts and address the raft of family tax benefits that have caused a massive money-go-round. It needs to redress the issue of immigration and focus on skilled immigration rather than family reunion immigration, and of course it needs to toughen our borders.

The government needs to address the issue of defence and national security. The Prime Minister issued his national security statement in December 2008 and promised that there would be regular updates of those national security statements. I do not know what the former Prime Minister’s definition of ‘regular’ is, but we have not heard hide nor tail of national security since that statement was delivered. Furthermore, even the wording in the statement is not being followed. It is not hard to see the northern borders and Operation Resolute to quickly realise that our national security statement is being paid lip service.

The government is involved in a strategic reform program to seek $20 billion of savings to the Defence Force over 10 years, ostensibly $2 billion a year, although of course it ramps up. A lot of this has been achieved by $8 billion of projects being pushed in the out years to the point where the government has stated that they will continue for the next 10 years at least to have a real increase per annum of three per cent for the defence budget. But because the massive projects have been pushed out, because contingency funds have been pulled out, in reality for the government to continue to realise that three per cent growth in real terms each year, they will need to go to six per cent real growth because of the funds they have stripped out.

The government trumpeted an Australian Army Future Force including a Reserve Future Force, but now appears to be walking away from that. The 2009 white paper had a range of issues in there, everything from massive capability improvement through to 2030 to simple things such as a range of capability to be transferred from the Reserves across to the Regular Army. We are yet to see hide or tail of those capabilities that will be transferred to the Regulars, and of course there is only a page and a half on funding for this massive capability up to 2030. The government needs to get a reform agenda and a focus to where it is going. At present the Gillard government is simply serving up the scraps from former prime minister Mr Rudd’s table. It does not serve the nation well. It does not serve our future well. That is the legacy of a campaign that came so perilously close.

In Queensland nine seats changed from Labor to the coalition, thanks in many ways to the Queensland Liberal-National Party and the merging of the two parties. In Fadden, thanks to the help from a large number of volunteers and a great campaign committee, we achieved a swing of 3.8 per cent and increased, more importantly, the primary vote by 10 per cent. We saw these swings right across Queensland as people realised that what they had hoped for and what they had voted for in Kevin Rudd in 2007, what they thought was simply ‘John Howard lite’ turned out not to be at all. There was that great Liberal ad just before the ‘night of the long knives’ which talked about a lemon and showed the former Prime Minister’s face on the lemon. It talked about how terrible it is when what you hoped for and dreamed of turns out to be a lemon. I think Queenslanders realised that to be only too true. Queensland is a canny state. It can see through charlatans at a hundred feet. Queensland did exceptionally well. I welcome the new members from Queensland into the parliament.

I wish to put on the record my thanks to the great campaign committee and the people that worked so tirelessly to record a tremendous result in the electorate of Fadden. To campaign director Steve Houlihan and the great campaign committee of Robert Knight and Kerry Knight, Phil Hunniford and the many others, I say a huge thank you. Thanks to my own staff: Felicity, Margaret, Glen, Christian and Mary, who worked tirelessly to ensure we got a great result. Thanks to those who spent days and days on street stalls ensuring the public had access to all the information they needed. Thanks also to Daniel and his wife Lisa, David Callard and many others. Thanks to those who manned over 300 booths to ensure people had a choice—noting of course that half the booths were not even manned by Labor, which was a bit of an anti-climax really. To those who worked so hard, I say a great thank you. I give thanks for the great support of Simone Holzapfel and Darren Sly, Kenton and Rachel Campbell, Bruce Mitchell, John Chardon, Philip Charlton, Susie Wright and many others. Their support was completely and utterly invaluable. I give thanks to the former Prime Minister, the Honourable John Howard AC, who came up and ran an incredibly successful dinner and delivered a speech of 40 minutes—off-the-cuff with no notes—that encapsulated the situation beautifully and foretold what would happen as the campaign rolled out.

I say thank you also to the Fadden community, where so many things were promised should a Liberal-National government be elected. They were simple things that the community could understand: fences for the Labrador cricket club; a new roof for the Riding for the Disabled club, where horses are used to help critically disabled children come to grasp a whole new meaning of life; and the great Green Army projects we are rolling out across community gardens. I made a public deal with the mayor of the Gold Coast that if we were elected then I would put in four community gardens and he would stump up with four men’s sheds. In front of a 100 blokes from Mensheds Australia, we shook hands and agreed on it. Next time, Mayor, that deal will come through. There is also a great CCTV program for Neighbourhood Watch.

We had a tremendous raft of policy there that the community could believe in. There were simple tangible things the community needed to get on with. In many ways that is what the community needs. Whilst roads, bridges, ports and great infrastructure are important, at the end of the day community groups want to get on doing what they have always done. They want government to get out of the way and realise that Canberra does not know best.

Canberra does not know what my schools need in infrastructure; my schools do. That is why we made it very clear that if a coalition government was to win then we would honour the BER funding but we would give it to the schools. We would give it to the school principals and the P&Cs because they have a better idea of what they need than Canberra based bureaucrats. I stand by that. It was a great decision. It is highlighted by the fact that the private schools in my electorate have done so exceptionally well because they got the funding whereas the state schools in my electorate have suffered because the funding has been hijacked by, what the polling shows to be, the most dreadful, awful state government in history—the Bligh government—which squeezed 20 to 25 per cent off the top for ‘management fees’ and then decided what the school could use after that. If that is what government will deliver then I want none of it.

I want the government to be small. I want the public service reduced, if that is what it is going to deliver. What the community wants is a say. What the community wants is to have ownership over its own affairs. What the community wants is government to get out of the way so that the community can get on with doing what it does best—which is delivering great things within the community.

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

Order! It being 6.30 pm, in accordance with standing order 192 the debate is interrupted. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.