Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked today.

In particular, I would like to take note of the response by Senator Minchin to my question about the negligent way in which he has been performing his duties.

In the Financial Review today is a list of programs that the government has announced since the budget, which is totalling the better part of $8 billion. We have seen that the government is now outspending Labor by a figure of almost three to one. What we have seen, of course, much to the government’s chagrin as shown by the Crosby Textor reports that have been presented by some helpful soul from the government to the Murdoch press, is that this desperate spending binge has not made any serious impact on the government’s popularity, simply because the Australian people are awake to the clever politics that this Prime Minister thought that he had perfected over his long period of time in office.

However, what we have seen is the extraordinary running-down of the standards of professional conduct within the government itself. In May, this minister told us that he saw his role as being the custodian of taxpayers’ money, whose job it was to make sure that the money was spent wisely. But when it came to the spending of $10 billion, costings were presented to the public which basically reflected a ‘back of the envelope’ approach that had been taken. We saw a similar case in regard to the Northern Territory intervention program, where the program had grown from some tens of millions of dollars to $587 million a year. And, again, no serious action was taken by the Department of Finance and Administration to cost those initiatives.

Now we are seeing a proposal for a takeover of the Mersey hospital in Tasmania of some hundreds of millions of dollars a year. It has been stated here on a number of occasions this afternoon, even from the government’s own backbencher, Senator Parry, who has said that this would be a disaster. He has reflected the attitude, as I understand it, of many in the local community. If Senator Parry doubts that what I am saying is the case, he has the opportunity, and I would urge Senator Parry, to make a personal explanation. If he says that this is not what his attitude is, if that is not what he is saying, then he can make a personal explanation and correct the record. It has been put in this chamber that that is what you are saying, Senator Parry. So this is your chance. Correct the record. If you have not been saying that this is a disaster—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy President. Should the speaker be talking directly to other senators, or should he be referring his comments through you?

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You should be referring your comments to the chair, Senator Carr.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy President. At least I am talking to Senator Parry, which is more than this government is doing. If Senator Parry had had his way, he would have explained to the government that their actions were a disaster. What the Burnie City Council is drawing to their attention is that the proposition being advanced is essentially based on polling. It is based on the Textor formula of trying to buy your way back into office. It is not based on any serious analysis of the needs of the region or of the capacity to actually provide services to the people.

This is what the Burnie City Council said:

You can’t possibly try to fractionate the services in a small region like this, it really will spell ultimately the end of Burnie Hospital and probably the end of Mersey.

That is the situation, and Senator Parry acknowledges what I say to be the case. He acknowledges that that is the view that is being expressed by the Liberal Party in the region, but that is not the view, of course, that this government seeks from its own backbench. We have a situation now where this government is being driven by poll desperation. It is a government that will say anything, do anything and spend anything in a desperate bid to cling to office. We have a government that essentially ignores not only its backbench; it ignores its frontbench! It ignores the Minister for Finance and Administration. It basically provides him with the occupation of doormat. In fact, I ask the question of Senator Minchin: how do you pick up your pay every month? How do you pick up your pay when you are treated with such contempt by this Prime Minister? Why is it that you are not doing the job that you said you would do in the Senate?

Kay Patterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. Senator Carr has already been reminded that he should address his comments through the chair, and he is addressing them straight to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I ask you to bring him to order.

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Carr, your comments should be directed through the chair.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Once again, I thank you for your observation, Mr Deputy President. At least I speak to the senator, unlike the rest of the government. He is being ignored, he is being treated with contempt and he is essentially performing the function of the doormat of this government. It is a tragedy to see a person who had such high standards in the past, who explored such very noble sentiments about the role that he was to perform, being treated in such a contemptuous manner. It is very sad that it is the opposition that has to come to his defence. (Time expired)

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you hang around politics long enough you really do see everything—the great centralising party of Gough Whitlam has become federalist. The Australian Labor Party has become the great champion of states’ rights. Labor is now arguing that the Commonwealth is treading on the sacred rights of the states and territories, as though Commonwealth-state relations are somehow fixed. The truth is that federalism is constantly evolving.

I will let those senators opposite in on a little secret: the Commonwealth actually have no great desire to directly fund state hospitals; we do not have a great desire to put money into schools to pay for carpets, classrooms and air conditioners; we do not have a great desire to intervene in health, education, law and order and housing in the Northern Territory. It is not actually the Commonwealth that is putting the states out of business; it is the states themselves that are putting the state governments out of business. If the states were not abrogating their core responsibilities, if they were not failing to execute their core functions, the Commonwealth would not have to intervene in areas such as the Mersey hospital. We would be quite delighted if state Labor governments looked after their core responsibilities.

But, if a vacuum is created in core services, that vacuum will be filled, and the public quite rightly will ask government to fill that vacuum. We have seen it in the area of schools, where the states do not ensure literacy and numeracy standards. We have seen it in the area of school facilities, where they will not ensure adequate facilities. We have seen it with state governments not ensuring adequate urban water supplies. We have seen it with states not ensuring adequate public hospitals and decent public transport.

Quite clearly, federalism is not working as it should. We as a government did try to breathe new life into federalism. We introduced the GST because the states said that they wanted a secure and growing revenue source. So we give every single dollar to the states and territories. In 2007-08 we will be giving them $41.9 billion. Silly us—the Commonwealth government—we actually thought that this money would give the state and territory governments the freedom and the ability to fund their core services, which is what they were asking for. But the state governments are not doing that and that is why we have had to step into the Northern Territory, the Mersey hospital in Tasmania, and schools: it is because those basic and core services were not being provided.

Labor’s ‘killer’ point today in the debate about the Mersey hospital was costings. They allege that the government had not undertaken costings. As Senator Minchin has said, it is not unusual for prime ministers to announce policy intention and for that to then go through the regular processes of government, including costing by relevant agencies. There is nothing unusual at all about that.

I come back to the point that we will give, in 2007-08, $41.9 billion of GST revenue to the states and territories. Despite that sort of money being in the hands of the states and territories they still cannot provide basic services. Despite the fact that in the five years to 2010-11 the state governments will be borrowing $70 billion—going into debt to the tune of $70 billion—they still cannot afford those basic services. In contrast, we have paid off Labor’s debt, we are running a surplus, we are providing our core federal government services and we are also providing core state government services. What the state governments do, I do not know.

Coming back to the issue of costings, I take a little bit of heart from the fact that Labor are raising the issue of costings. In the 1998, 2001 and 2004 elections we, along with the departments of Treasury and Finance, waited in vain for Labor to submit their policies for costings. In 1998, Labor submitted only 36 per cent of their commitments for costings and, of those 36 per cent, 100 per cent were submitted too late to be costed by the Finance and Treasury process. In 2001 it was no better. In 2004 it was the same again, with something of the order of 20 significant policies not submitted by Labor for costings. Labor have no interest in transparency, they have no interest in accountability and they do not put their policies in for costing in the election period. We will; we do. (Time expired)

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We can feel an election in the air at the moment, because, six weeks out from the calling of an election, we can start to see the Howard government say and do anything. They have form on this, and they have been building up to a crescendo for quite some time. It is very clear now that the Howard government have one strategy and one strategy only. Fortunately, we do not have to look too far to understand what it is, because most of it was laid out on the front pages of the nation’s newspapers just yesterday. When we look at the tactical, strategic and political spin constructed by Crosby Textor, no less, we see that the Howard government’s pollster has been engaged to do the government’s work. More than anything else, what this tells us is that not only are the Howard government completely void of any true leadership and vision for this country but they need Crosby Textor, like a crutch, to tell them what to do in an election year.

The stakes are always high in an election year. There is no doubt about that. We are always trying to come up with the best polices. But, I have to say, even I was amazed at the bluntness and the completely led-by-the-nose approach of the Howard government in following that Crosby Textor line. Evidence of this is very clear for all of us to see. At the same time this material was leaked, we saw the strategy being played out on the ground. The best example this week is that of blaming the states. There it was from Crosby Textor: ‘Blame the states; good strategy. It will give us some cover.’ And there we had it: the Prime Minister, standing proud and tall, saying, ‘The states are to blame for everything, including interest rates.’ He cannot back away from the fact that there have been eight consecutive interest rate rises in Australia and we are on the verge of a possible ninth. So what does Mr Howard do? He blames the states for this. This is evidence not only that he has lost touch with what working families are going through but also that he is incapable of thinking for himself on how to manage the issues in an election year—and he relies on the crutch of Crosby Textor to tell him to do the latest trick and spin, which is to blame the states.

This amounts to nothing more than a deceitful attitude to the population of this country, because it undermines any claim by the Prime Minister of having leadership and a voice for the future. He is trying to build a campaign around this whole experience thing, but the evidence we now have before us shows that he is incapable of doing that. His attempts to blame the states for interest rate rises come nowhere near passing the believability test for Australia’s families. Everybody knows that interest rates have always been the responsibility of the federal government. I note with interest as well—just to remind people of the rapidly sliding credibility of the Prime Minister, who people now know cannot think for himself and does not have a leadership bone in his body—that he never mentions that when he was Treasurer in the 1980s interest rates hit an all-time high of 22 per cent. So, make no mistake, state governments of all political persuasions have always borrowed for infrastructure—for things like roads, schools, electricity, water and hospitals. And we all know that that lifts the productivity capacity of the economy and puts downward pressure on interest rates. So there is nothing the Prime Minister can say at all to spin this around and suggest that interest rate pressure is coming from the states. He has been discredited by economic commentators. He has been discredited politically. And, thanks to the Crosby Textor argument, he has been discredited—finally—because Australians now know that there is no substance to the Prime Minister.

Concluding on the Mersey hospital circumstance, under the Howard government the Commonwealth’s share of public hospital funding fell from 50 per cent to 45 per cent between 2000 and 2005. In the last health funding agreement with the states, the Commonwealth ripped $1 billion out of public hospital funding, and the government has no strategy to prevent illness and promote health, resulting in 500,000 preventable hospital admissions each year. The shortage of GPs puts immense pressure on public hospitals because of people presenting to emergency. All of these things the Howard government is responsible for, yet the Howard government has done nothing. (Time expired)

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great pleasure to speak on this particular motion and to ask the question right up front: why was the question asked by a Labor senator from Queensland to our leader in the Senate, Senator Nick Minchin, rather than by a Tasmanian Labor senator? I think I know the answer. The answer is that Labor want to fudge their position. It is very sad and disappointing that federal Labor want to do that. The candidate for the Labor Party in the seat of Braddon is having two bob each way. In fact, it is a really big fudge of his position, and he has been caught out. He has been caught out by Senator Richard Colbeck today. In a statement, he has made it clear that the Labor candidate for Braddon is refusing to commit to a position on the Mersey hospital. It is a downgrading of that hospital by the state Labor government, and the federal Labor candidate will not to commit to that hospital. He will not take a position. We have seen that that hospital will be and is being downgraded by state Labor.

However, in today’s media we note the state Labor member for Braddon, Brenton Best. What does he say about the federal policy? What does he say about the Prime Minister’s announcement of 1 August? He says, ‘Bring it on.’ In today’s Advocate, he said: ‘The Prime Minister, John Howard, should start to roll out his Mersey hospital rescue now.’ He went on to say: ‘I do not think it is a huge challenge. If the money is there, he’—meaning the Prime Minister—’should do it now instead of mucking around until July next year.’ That is one of the candidates who have the guts to stand up and express their position. But, again, Sid Sidebottom, who is the federal Braddon candidate for Labor, simply does not have the guts to nail his colours to the mast—unlike our Liberal member for Braddon, Mark Baker.

Fascinatingly, a former state Labor candidate, now mayor of the Latrobe City Council, Mike Gaffney, has an opinion piece in the Advocate today. In it he says:

Congratulations to Mark Baker and his staff for their efforts which have surely put the eyes of Australian on the Mersey Community Hospital in our municipality.

The mayor supports the decision to retain services at the Mersey hospital. He opposes the views of Lara Giddings and the state Labor government. So there is a mishmash of opinions between state Labor and federal Labor in Tasmania. Yes, the Prime Minister’s commitment is categorical and clear. In fact, the Minister for Health and Ageing, Tony Abbott, whom I spoke to last night, is in Tasmania today outlining his views and his plans for the Mersey Community Hospital, supporting Mark Baker and seeking information and advice from the state government. In fact, the minister had a meeting earlier today with the Minister for Health and Human Services, Lara Giddings. I can advise the Senate that the feedback that I have is that the state Labor government, and Ms Giddings in particular, has been unhelpful. In terms of her approach to providing information, the meeting has been very limp and dilatory. Despite a genuine effort and an offer from the Australian government to put $45 million or thereabouts on the table, the response has been dilatory at best and most definitely unhelpful. In my view, it is really a matter of priorities as to how they wish to get the money.

Let us look at the big picture. They have $700 million to run public hospitals in Tasmania. That was increased by $220 million, so it is now $920 million over a five-year period. That is a 17 per cent increase in real terms over that period. In addition to that, you have a $117 million GST windfall. The money is there; it is a matter of priorities. What are they doing with that money? I want the state Labor government to lay out the plans for the extra $45 million. What are they going to do with that money? I know that Ben Quinn, the federal Liberal candidate for the Lyons electorate, wants that money spent, as do I, at Rosebery and Ouse in those hospitals that need it so much. Those communities are screaming out for it and the federal Labor member down there has done very little to support those communities. Ben Quinn, on the other hand, has done a great deal and I commend him and congratulate him. (Time expired)

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The answers given by the various members of the government today reflect the core issue that we are struggling with on a daily basis in this place. There are so many issues that demand and require a cooperative relationship between state and federal governments. The need to work together to effectively fund and come up with a transparent response to the issue has been transcended today into the same old model responses.

The government’s response is, firstly, do not listen to the question; just give the answer written on the little piece of paper in front of you. We have heard today what that piece of paper says. I do not pay much attention to media leaks—they happen all the time. Certainly, over the last few days there has been considerable media attention to a plan supposedly that has been put out within the Liberal government containing concerns about how they are moving towards this election. We all know it is going to happen soon and there have been quite significant leaks in the media about what the government’s model will be as we lead into the next election. Their model is very clear: attack the states at every opportunity, blame the states for all problems and talk about state finances, state leadership and state policies but do not talk about the federal government’s responsibilities in this process. We saw this today all the way through question time: there was detailed analysis of various state budgets. But the government’s responses only went across the top, with a cursory look at selected areas, various state budgets and the amount of lending and processes that have gone on.

We can talk about that all day, but that is not our job. Our job is to look at how, as part of the federal parliament, we can most effectively deal with the issues for which we are responsible. That does not mean allocating blame, not listening to what the core issues are and just dumping the messages that make the most effective media grab. Also we have returned to exactly the same old process of trotting out links of union thuggery. Again, Minister Abetz waved around three pieces of paper that impugned various people and talked about processes within the Labor Party including our very transparent and known links with the union movement. There is no argument about the fact that there are links between the Australian Labor Party and the union movement. But is it a really effective response to a question that does not mention those issues to wave paper around and cause fear, division and antagonism? Once again, the response was to go for the individual, go for the person and attack their credibility. That is not an effective answer to any question, not a process for moving forward and not an explanation of a policy development but rather a quick, easy attack to which we are all supposed to sit on this side of the chamber and say: ‘That’s got us. We can’t respond to that. We may as well go home.’

We have this ongoing process such that, when questions are asked, it is immediately an opportunity for someone to attack. People have asked quite clear questions about detail of policy, detail of funding and in particular what is happening in what should be a cooperative arrangement between state and federal governments. They were clear questions of meeting the demands of health care and education and, in particular, we were talking about what is happening in the Northern Territory at the moment with the major expenditure that is going on there. When people asked questions about detail, funding and expenditure across the period of time, the response was not to answer the question or respond to the requirements of those questions but rather to come up with a glib response which automatically blames the Territory government and does not look at our collective responsibility.

Much has been said about the environment in which we are operating now as we move towards an election. So many things will be coloured by people’s attention; they will try to grab the media and try to grab whatever small moment of attention they can claim. Through that process, we must be clear that, when there is a request for information, there is no attempt to hide. There should be a simple understanding that, when questions are asked, there is a need for an answer. There may not be agreement in the response but at least we should be able to get detailed costings and a detailed understanding rather than just being caught up in some ongoing debate about which side is stronger, bigger or greater than the other. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.