Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) 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.

It is very hard to believe that Prime Minister Rudd promised the Australian people that his ministry would be appointed solely on the basis of merit. The performance we witnessed today shows that, clearly, many other factors were at play other than just merit. In particular, I want to focus on Senator Carr’s performance today which was both pitiful and arrogant but, more importantly, obfuscating. His Prime Minister’s own Standards of Ministerial Ethics say in part, at paragraph 4.4:

Ministers are required to provide an honest and comprehensive account of their exercise of public office ... in response to any ... enquiry by a member of the Parliament ...

The first question asked of Minister Carr saw him breach this much-vaunted new standard. It was a simple question: would he rule out the appointment of former Labor Premier Bracks—and he was unwilling to do so. He will make the announcement tomorrow. He knows who is going to comprise the commission of inquiry—whether it is going to be the Productivity Commission or his mate Steve Bracks. He was unwilling to rule it out. All that he was willing to rule out was that Steve Bracks would be paid $2,000 a day. But then, when asked how much he would be paid, Minister Carr arrogantly refused to answer the question. He is unable to deny that his department suggested a Productivity Commission inquiry instead of the Bracks gravy train. So, confronted with that difficulty, he resorted to the old Labor tactic of raising the decibels to avoid the answer. He resorted to the blame game as well, which Prime Minister Rudd said would not be part of this government’s approach. He resorted to the blame game and he foolishly resorted to his old opposition tactic of trying to blame the difficulties in the automotive industry on the previous government.

Can I remind him that, when he was confronted with the Mitsubishi closure, he very sensibly said: ‘I am not going to pretend that you can wave a magic wand and have this problem go away.’ I agree with him and that is why I make no criticism of him. But yet, when confronted with some hard issues, he reverted to his silly opposition tactic. Of course, what he did that for was to try to obfuscate the fact that undoubtedly Mr Bracks has been lined up for this inquiry.

I hope that as a result of today’s exposure Mr Bracks will no longer be appointed and that the Productivity Commission will deal with the issue, because those that are involved in the automotive industry deserve nothing less. They need a highly professional Productivity Commission inquiry, not something led by a defunct Labor premier, union hacks and a few other mates from the automotive industry.

By Mr Rudd’s own standards we have seen the appointment, in a jobs-for-the-boys situation, of Mr Bracks; we have seen indecent fees; and we have seen the rejection of departmental advice—all in the first decision of this minister, and all enunciated in answer to the very first question that this minister was asked. The Prime Minister would have us believe that Senator Carr was appointed on the basis of merit. If you look through the ministerial list you will see that there is a doctor of economics, Dr Craig Emerson, as Senator Carr’s junior minister. Are we really saying that the hapless Senator Carr is more skilled and competent than Dr Craig Emerson? I think we know the explanation for what occurred: Senator Carr is the spear carrier for the Left in Western Australia. By that virtue alone he had to be appointed to cabinet and people like Dr Craig Emerson had to be avoided.

Coming back to the issue here, we have had on this very first day a refusal to deny a jobs-for-the-boys appointment with an indecent fee and a refusal to acknowledge that departmental advice was rejected. All those factors suggest that something is at play. I hope the government changes its mind.

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian people made their judgement about merit on 24 November. The reduced number of representatives that sit on the opposition side of the House of Representatives and the reduced representation that will sit on the other side of the Senate after July demonstrates that, on the issues of merit and performance, the coalition failed. They failed dismally. The Australian people looked to Kevin Rudd and the Labor team to fix up the mistakes and take this country forward. They voted for us overwhelmingly.

Today we had Senator Abetz get up and ask a question about jobs for the boys. Why would any coalition senator ever want to go to that issue? It would take me a lot longer than the five minutes or so that I have to go through the list of all the appointments made by the then coalition government while they were in office—all the mates that they put on inquiries. I will just mention one—Mr Estens and the communications inquiry—but I could go on and on.

But what about the really important issues that you would think they would want to raise in the first taking note of answers debate? One is the issue of climate change. As Minister Penny Wong said, the Labor government’s first action was to ratify the Kyoto protocol. Our standing in the international community went up enormously in Bali at the climate change conference because finally Australia joined the rest of the world to tackle the issue of climate change by signing Kyoto and then going on to establish the Garnaut inquiry.

On the issue of the economy, we were lectured so often by the former Treasurer, the former Prime Minister, and other representatives in this chamber and in the other one about them being the great economic managers. It was the coalition government that delivered us 16 interest rate rises during their entire time in office—seven of them in the last term. We now have to deal with runaway inflation as a result of the unrestrained spending by that government during the last couple of elections when they were endeavouring to buy their way back into office.

Finally the Australian people said: ‘Enough is enough. We aren’t going to cop any more of these bribes in election campaigns or these ad hoc decisions made on funding commitments.’ Despite that temptation—that carrot—they said: ‘Enough is enough. We’ve had enough of this coalition government. We are going to give a Labor government—so brilliantly led by Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard—with a meritorious team of ministers, the opportunity to right the wrongs.’

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And backbenchers!

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, and backbenchers, as Senator Marshall has said. With the amount of talent and merit that is on the backbench and keen to get onto the front bench, we should enlarge the ministry; but unfortunately we cannot. I digress. The real issues are interest rates, inflation and doing something about the skills crisis in this country. The skills crisis affects so much of our manufacturing industry, including the vehicle industry.

There has been a pathetic attack today by Senator Abetz on Senator Carr, who has undertaken to look properly at the motor vehicle industry in this country. We have just had an announcement by Mitsubishi about closure. That is a problem that has been lumped on our desk at the very outset of our getting into government, after those opposite had been in office for 11 years. Minister Carr has taken the issue on board, and we are going to deal with it. So senators opposite should not come in here and lecture us. They have been sitting around for two months since the last election trying to figure out what issues they can attack us on. Well, they have none.

The cost of living is another important issue, and then there is the housing crisis and education. We have made announcements on what we are going to do to give the young kids in this country greater education opportunities. I could go on and on. My time has expired today but I look forward to further opportunities to get up here and remind those opposite of what a pathetic bunch they really are.

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

I remind honourable senators that during the debate on the motion to take note of answers I expect to hear the speaker in reasonable silence. I can understand that, with human nature being what it is, from time to time there will be some interjections, but normally people are entitled to silence.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to raise some points in relation to an answer given by Senator Evans in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs—specifically about the rollback of the permit system in Indigenous communities, which the Labor Party has already announced as policy. This is a very important day for Indigenous Australians. The debate and the discussion that have taken place and the motions that were presented to this chamber and to the other place have demonstrated that. The attendance of hundreds if not thousands of people outside and in Parliament House relayed the significance of this day for many Indigenous Australians. Yet Senator Evans has suggested that the rollback of the permit system will somehow preserve and protect Indigenous Australians from those that seek to prey upon their vulnerabilities. I take issue with this because it is simply absurd logic. To suggest that the instigation of a permit system will prevent from entering people—who are already prepared to break the law in so many other ways is just absurd. These people are paedophiles; these people are sly groggers; they are porn peddlers; they are the undesirable filth of Australian communities. They do not care two hoots for the law. They will go in there and they will pursue their nefarious aims irrespective of whether a permit system is in place. This is a very serious issue.

What we do not need in this country is a return to a separation, where one part of our land is only for Indigenous people and lawbreakers and the rest of Australia is prevented from being there. What we need is an open system, where people within these communities can be held to account, where the people that seek to prey on their vulnerabilities will be held to account. We need a system where police can go in and where health workers can go in and check on the welfare of people. We need a system where journalists can go in and continue to hold those within these communities to account. The importance of this is not simply in my mind. This is shared, as Senator Scullion pointed out, by the first Indigenous president of the Australian Labor Party. Whilst I normally do not quote Labor organisational figures, I think that Mr Warren Mundine, a former national president, sums it up pretty well. He told the Weekend Australian that the move to reinstate the permit system could ‘kill any chance the communities had of economic development’. He said it could kill any chance that Aboriginal communities had of economic development. He went on:

The permit system didn’t stop crime. In fact ... crime has flourished under the permit system so it’s a fallacy to say that it helps law-and-order problems.

I will acknowledge that Senator Evans has a deep and meaningful interest in the plight of Indigenous people in this country, but who is better qualified to talk about it and to make an objective assessment of it? Is it an Indigenous leader who led Senator Evans’s party or Senator Evans himself? I would suggest it is the former. This is a very serious issue because the very future of Indigenous people in our country is at stake.

Minister Macklin has simply decided to roll back the clock on Indigenous affairs, pursuing some determination that has existed within the Labor Party for the last 20 years and not acknowledging for a moment that we need a new approach. Today is a very symbolic day. It is a day about moving on. It is a day about moving forward. It is not a day on which we should be forced to talk about rolling back a system that is starting to provide meaningful benefits for Indigenous people in this country. It is appalling that on such a day Minister Evans, representing Minister Macklin, is prepared to undo a lot of the symbolic gestures that have gone forward. I would encourage the Labor Party to revisit this policy because it is an appalling one that is playing politics with people’s lives. It is simply an ideological quest being pursued by the Labor Party.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Isn’t it marvellous? I thank Senator Abetz for moving the motion to take note of answers in the way that he did, because it allows me to deal with the range of questions asked by the opposition in question time today. The elephant in the room—the question of the economy; the issue that the coalition claimed was their issue—was absent from their questions list today. Indeed, they were offended by the truths that were put by Senator Evans in answer to a question which was put to him today. We actually expected that the opposition would try and defend their record from when they were in government. But they were not game to do that today. They avoided the question of the economy because they knew that everything that Senator Evans said in answer to his question today was correct. Inflation is our most pressing domestic challenge. It is an inescapable fact that, under the coalition, our rate of underlying inflation grew and grew to the point where for the first time in an election campaign we saw the Reserve Bank increase interest rates, such was the pressure on the economy from growing inflation—inflation which was, in effect, caused by the inaction of the coalition when in government in relation to capacity constraints on the economy. There were 20 occasions on which the Reserve Bank warned their government that those pressures were leading to problems in the economy.

We saw the December CPI data released in January, showing underlying inflation at 3.6 per cent—well over the danger threshold so far as the Reserve Bank was concerned. That is the highest underlying inflation in 16 years. Right through the coalition’s time in government and for a substantial part of the time of the previous government, that rate of underlying inflation had not been reached. But the pressures in the economy under the stewardship of the coalition had grown to a point where it is now clear that we have seen not only an increase in interest rates and pressures from outside our economy increasing interest rates but also the probability of an additional interest rate rise predicted at 70 per cent. They are the challenges that the Labor government now faces in taking the reins of this economy. The fact that the coalition were not prepared to ask one question on the economy today—their first opportunity in this chamber—indicates that they realise they made a shambles of the economic management of this country. Under their stewardship they ignored the warnings from the Reserve Bank—20 warnings about capacity constraints—and we are now paying the price. Unfortunately, home owners and those with credit cards and other debts are likely to pay the price for some time to come. It will take some time for this government to manage the economy and to get it back under control after this opposition, when in government, allowed it to escape their control to the point where the Reserve Bank, as I said, for the first time in history increased interest rates during an election campaign—such was the nature of the pressure that the Reserve Bank felt was coming on this economy.

Let there be no doubt that Labor, in government, has a steely determination to win the war on inflation. We will take responsibility for fixing the problem, a problem that Labor did not create. That is why Prime Minister Rudd has outlined the decisive action we will take by implementing his plan to fight the inflation legacy that we have inherited. We have noted that the opposition now deny that the highest underlying inflation in 16 years is a problem. Frankly, if they cannot see it is a problem, it is no surprise that they allowed the problem to get out of control when in government. As I said, the fact is that home owners, credit card holders and anyone with a debt in this country, except those who were fortunately enough or wily enough to lock in interest rates in the past, will now pay a price in the immediate future and perhaps for some time to come on the mortgages and the credit card debts that they have. They will have the coalition government, the Howard government, to thank for the pressures that they are facing. (Time expired)

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to support the motion that the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked today. I do so particularly wishing to focus on Senator Evans’s answer in relation to Indigenous communities, but before I get to that I would like to dwell for a moment on Senator O’Brien’s remarks about the economy.

No amount of hyperbole from Senator O’Brien, Mr Rudd, Mr Swan, Senator Ludwig or anybody else in this chamber or elsewhere can change the reality of the great economy that the Labor Party has inherited, with 35-year lows in unemployment, strong growth in GDP and strong and stable inflation within the Reserve Bank’s target range. No amount of hype can change the reality of a strong economy inherited by those opposite, who are indeed a very lucky and fortunate government to have inherited that economy. What people like Senator O’Brien and Mr Swan need to be very mindful of is that their commentary now can change and influence the economy we get for the future. Mr Swan, in particular, needs to stop urging the Reserve Bank to increase rates. He needs to stop this inflationary crisis of his own making, and he needs to be very careful, mindful and judicious in the comments he makes as the Treasurer of this country.

As I said, in particular I wish to address Senator Evans’s response to the issue of our Indigenous communities. Both yesterday and today have been very symbolic, and I welcome and embrace the changes made in the opening of the parliament yesterday and also the very sincere apology given by both houses of the parliament today. I hope that these symbolic acts will ensure that we take a very positive step forward as a nation towards reconciliation, healing and forgiveness between Indigenous peoples who feel they have been wronged over the years and the rest of the Australian community.

But that symbolism must be matched by the practical. We have seen the Rudd government already place high importance on symbolism across a range of areas, starting with the signing of Kyoto and now in the Indigenous affairs portfolio. While I embrace that symbolism, I expect to see real action that backs it up, action in Indigenous communities that addresses the fact that we have real and great disadvantage—which the previous government recognised and acted on very sincerely. This disadvantage sees low educational standards, low life expectancy, poor health standards, low social capital and poor housing. These are the challenges that need to be met and confronted head on.

Instead, we have a government that appears as though it is going to take us backwards in Indigenous policy. The previous government took some great steps last year in trying to tackle endemic disadvantage in our Indigenous communities, particularly in Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory. We now see a government that is committed to rolling that back by reintroducing a permit system, which was discredited and which was a reason behind the harm caused in many of these communities. We now see a government that is going to reintroduce CDEP, a program that provided sit-down money and that did not encourage the economic development of the communities.

We heard before from my colleague and friend Senator Bernardi about some of the comments of the Labor Party’s former federal president, Warren Mundine, in regard to this—the fact that the permit system did not stop crime and that it is a fallacy to say it helped law and order. Indeed, it is a fallacy. Senator Evans claims that reintroducing permits can help protect these communities. That was not the case for decade after decade when these permits existed. Senator Evans needs to reconsider the logic of his arguments there because, as the Australian reported on 18 January this year:

History shows pedophiles, sly groggers, porn peddlers and other undesirables either ignore permits or collude with the gatekeeper.

The permit system did not work. Labor claims that permits will help the development of communities. That also is shown to be a fallacy. Galarrwuy Yunupingu, former Australian of the Year and land rights campaigner, when speaking last year in relation to the Howard government reforms, said that he believed this new model would empower traditional owners to control the development of towns and living areas. (Time expired)

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to take note of the answer provided by the Minister representing the Minister for Education. Firstly, we are pleased that the Labor government is moving on preschool, but I was disappointed in the minister’s ability to answer the question concerning the many other issues that plague Indigenous education.

Even if you just focus on preschool, there are some huge problems to be addressed here. It is not enough to say that all four-year-olds need to be in preschool in remote areas. What we know is that there are measures that need to be put in place to see that they thrive in these circumstances—one of which is that bilingual education be made available to them. That certainly needs Indigenous education workers who are locally based, because the evidence shows that they will attract attendance and they will be much more successful in the transformation from childhood through preschool into school.

There are huge problems both within preschool education and beyond. The 2004 inquiry of the Senate Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Education had an enormous number of very serious and worrying findings and made 34 recommendations for action. I think none of those recommendations was taken up by the last government, and I would hope that this new government would make an announcement as soon as possible that it will do so.

Some of the health problems associated with Indigenous education—and we have had many inquiries on this subject—include diseases like otitis media, which, if untreated, can cause deafness and even complete deafness. This is a major problem for children attending school. If they cannot hear anything, then they are not likely to turn up day after day. We also know that there are very, very high levels of trachoma. A study recently conducted showed that in north-west Australia up to 50 per cent, or more, of children have active trachoma, which can lead to blindness.

As with so many other issues for Indigenous people, it is not wise and it is not possible to solve problems by simply taking them one at a time. In the case of education, it is to do with the availability of teachers who are properly skilled in Indigenous education in these remote areas. It is to do with the necessity of providing a learning environment which is both culturally suitable and which includes the use of the language spoken by that child. We need to fix some of those health problems which, frankly, can only be fixed if we fix the housing problems. The extent of problems in Indigenous communities is such that cherry-picking bits and pieces and coming up with bright ideas, as Labor has done—and again I welcome it—is not enough. What we want to see from Labor is a much more comprehensive approach and one which will solve some of the educational problems across the board.

Let me just mention a couple of the other problems we discovered. In the Northern Territory there are Aboriginal communities where there are substantial sized primary schools but no availability whatsoever of secondary schools. Why the Commonwealth has allowed the Northern Territory to get away with this for so long, I cannot imagine. There are schools that are poorly equipped—frankly, you would not put your dog in some of the ones that I have been into—and yet we have seen no substantial increase in funding for infrastructure. The Northern Territory is still, as I understand it, funding schools on the basis of average attendance. In other words, at the beginning of the semester or when the weather is right—when it is not the wet season—there may be too many students to fit even in the classroom, because they are funded for the average. There will be huge class sizes. As a result, students drift off, they become uninterested in education—if they ever were interested in the first place—and they disappear. That has to be fixed.

With regard to housing, as I said, it is not uncommon in Indigenous communities for 20 people to be in one house. This means there are very few books for children. There is no time for quiet study or advancement of their education. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.