Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The last time I spoke on the address-in-reply I was noting some of the changes that were made after the election. I was also talking about the South Australian result in the election. South Australia returned all House of Representative members with increased majorities, and a pleasing result it was indeed. Unfortunately, we have lost our third Senate spot, and that is Senator Dana Wortley. It is with great regret that we will lose Senator Wortley in due course.

We in the Labor government worked very closely with the Labor government in South Australia. It certainly is a tough time to be in government and the South Australian Labor government suffered some small losses in their last election. But that has not deterred the South Australian government working together with the federal government in a forward-looking agenda. That has resulted in a strong economy in South Australia in several areas—in particular, in mining, defence and education—and in continuing the focus on manufacturing in South Australia. South Australia has suffered by being seen as an old manufacturing economy. What the federal and state governments have done is work towards making sure that that manufacturing moves into the new century in a strong position by using new technology, new techniques and finding niches in the export market so that manufacturing can continue to thrive in South Australia, albeit in an ever-changing form. I pay tribute to the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Senator Kim Carr, who as the responsible minister has put in place programs that have enabled manufacturing in South Australia to be strengthened and move forward.

In looking at the way South Australia has that strong forward-looking focus, while maintaining a strong economy, I want to pay tribute to Mr Kevin Foley, who has recently stepped down from the Treasury portfolio. He worked hard to deliver outcomes within a responsible economic framework and he imposed close discipline on the South Australian government while making money available for projects that would make sure South Australia moved forward into the future—for example, the mining exploration programs, the preparation work for defence manufacturing and the expansion of the education sector in South Australia. I worked with Kevin Foley when I was in opposition in the state parliament and I know how committed he is to responsible economic management and the future of South Australia. I wish him well in his new portfolios and I am very pleased that he has retained that key defence portfolio. It is certainly a very strong, although vulnerable, position in South Australia and I hope that we in South Australia can continue to work closely with the federal government.

On a national basis, Labor also suffered reversals in the last election and is now in a minority government, which of course adds many challenges to this parliament. Like the South Australian government, the federal Labor government is still committed to a reform agenda and will need to work very closely with all sides of politics to deliver that result, but that in itself is not a bad situation. It can be used, if used properly, to make sure that the checks and reviews are in place and that we can move forward with a strong consensus government. The Labor government can look on its record in the past government with some satisfaction. The government prevented Australia going into a recession during the global financial crisis. The initial short-term step was to boost consumer confidence through the $900 cash bonus, and that kept the economy boosted in that initial shock phase of the global financial crisis. The next step was to invest in medium-term infrastructure, which included the provision of new buildings and equipment in the education sector in particular. Now we are seeing the third phase, more the long-term phase, of building infrastructure for future productivity.

The measures that the Labor government put in place enabled the creation of jobs and kept many working families employed. In fact, in a 12-month period, the Labor government created 349,700 jobs, contributing towards a total of over 567,000 jobs having been created since Labor came to office in November 2007. This was very important, because it enabled skills retention. Now that we are looking at some kind of world recovery and at a recovery in Australia, we are seeing a skills shortage around the world. Governments around the world are facing this problem. We need to build up skills but we also need to make sure that we retain the skills that we have in our workforce. It is clear from past experience in recessions that skills loss happens rapidly, that once people are behind—once they are not in jobs or in education—they lose skills rapidly and find it very difficult to make up that deficit. So, quite apart from the knock-on effect to families and wider education, skills retention was very important. The business community must take some credit for that also, because it was well recognised that business, rather than retrench people, introduced flexible employment arrangements. They might have had to take away or reduce overtime or put people on part-time work, but they did, in general, try hard to retain their employees.

The stimulus package was not solely about stimulating the economy; it was also about nation building—for example, with the Building the Education Revolution, community infrastructure, social housing, and roads and rail. Labor also invested in vital infrastructure, such as health centres, many of which are in our regional areas. I went to Wudinna in South Australia to open the health centre, for which the government provided $400,000 via the Rural Medical Infrastructure Fund, money which would otherwise have had to be raised by the local community. Work on the building was predominantly completed by local tradespeople, which was a testament to the skills and ability available within that community. I have now opened many Building the Education Revolution projects in schools across South Australia. It was very good to witness the joy of our communities, principals and parents when first accessing the buildings. But the real joy was in seeing the young students and knowing the significance of these buildings to their education advancement and student experience.

Now we are embarking on another major infrastructure program: the National Broadband Network. This signifies a major investment in productivity driven infrastructure, an investment of up to $43 billion delivered to 93 per cent of premises, with speeds of 100 megabits per second, if not beyond. This benefits business, the health sector and the education sector but it also provides regional Australia with the ability to be brought forward into the 21st century technologically. For small business, this is particularly crucial, especially when many of them are currently paying a high amount of money for a service that does not sufficiently allow for efficient use or for a greater capacity for growth.

People, either through ignorance or a wilful misunderstanding, talk about the NBN as being useful only for faster downloading of movies or playing of games. That is patently not the case, and businesses around Australia know that that is not true. People who talk about it in those terms have almost zero understanding of the dynamics of small business in particular, regional businesses in particular and the opportunity that fast national broadband makes for productivity increases around Australia, particularly in regional areas. It is sad to me that people who are against the details of the NBN take this kind of argument against this type of technology—that they argue against the technology rather than the details. I could tolerate an argument against the details or against the expenditure but not against the kind of technology, because that indicates a head in the sand attitude to the need for the Australian economy to be driven forward, to be made more productive and to create more jobs in this area, much less the benefits it will create in providing health and education services, which, again, we need for further productivity down the track. I do not want Australia to be lagging behind in broadband compared to many of those forward-looking economies in the world that will easily overtake us if we allow ourselves to be held back in this area. So I am very pleased that the Gillard Labor government will be continuing to press ahead with this very much needed productivity infrastructure.

What the Labor government also brought to the reform agenda prior to the election was a decrease in the company tax rate from 30 per cent to 29 per cent. This is a small step but one which will also drive competitiveness and investment in Australia, starting us on a path to make Australia a more attractive opportunity for foreign direct investment as well as increased investment within Australia, with greater innovation and entrepreneurial activity. It will again drive productivity, as companies who have more capital will in turn be able to grow the economic pie.

This reform was underpinned by the proposed minerals resource rent tax—a fairer system, I think, to allow Australians to gain the right value on the resources that Australians own and that companies are exploiting. I have had a long association with the mining industry. I have strongly supported the mining industry and the way that they have returned some of their profits back into R&D and back into the community, but there is no question that the terms of trade that they are experiencing are greatly on the increase, that they are more profitable and that they can pay more in taxation to assist our country to go ahead and to make productivity improvements, such as the NBN, such as reducing company tax and such as increasing our superannuation guarantee. It has been recognised widely—even by the opposition now, who opposed it in the beginning—that the superannuation guarantee levy has meant that Australia is in a good economic position despite the expected increase in the number of older people in our community over the next 20 or so years.

I want to return to the development of skills and training and the commitment of Labor governments to skills and training. It has been high on the agenda and it will continue to be high on the agenda for the Labor government. I would like to go back to my home state of South Australia and talk about the advantages for South Australians that this represents, because we do have increasing job possibilities in areas like manufacturing, defence, vehicle manufacturing and the mining industry. I would again like to commend the work of individuals in the South Australian Labor government—in this case, Premier Mike Rann and Minister Jack Snelling—who announced:

… a $125 million Sustainable Industries Education Centre to be built on the former Mitsubishi site at Tonsley Park by TAFE SA in collaboration with SA universities and industry.

The new centre will specialise in training more than 8000 people a year in new green technologies associated with the building and construction industry—including plumbers, bricklayers, designers and carpenters.

This was a great initiative by the South Australian government. The minister at the time, Jack Snelling, has now become Treasurer and so I look forward to seeing that initiative given continued priority.

I have very little time left but I would just mention that the Labor government continues to devote a lot of resources and efforts to finding a solution for the River Murray. I expect that South Australia will get much more rigorous and efficient irrigation infrastructure in the scheme and look forward to the resolution of that longstanding issue in Australia.

Finally, I want to talk further about the proposed carbon tax and what we are going to do about the climate change debate. I was very pleased to hear the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Greg Combet, talk this morning on television in very practical terms about reducing pollution and making our industries more carbon efficient. I just want to mention a quote by James Fallows in the Atlantic, December 2010, in an article entitled ‘Dirty coal, clean future’. He said:

Overall, coal-burning power plants provide nearly half (about 46 percent this year) of the electricity consumed in the United States. For the record: natural gas supplies another 23 percent, nuclear power about 20 percent, hydroelectric power about 7 percent, and everything else the remaining 4 or 5 percent. The small size of the “everything else” total is worth noting; even if it doubles or triples, the solutions we often hear the most about won’t come close to meeting total demand. In China, coal-fired plants supply an even larger share of much faster-growing total electric demand: at least 70 percent …

In short, coal is here to stay. Although we will put a lot of effort into alternative power sources, we need to face the fact that we need baseload power. We need coal and we may well need nuclear power in the future. I think that, more and more, we should concentrate on how that is going to work—looking at not only other forms of renewable power but how coal and nuclear power are going to continue.