Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party) 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.

Those opposite need a lesson in taking responsibility. If you are going to hold out to the Australian public that you support a world-class education system, then, when faced with evidence and facts that show a fundamental failing by the Labor government in Western Australia in the area of education, you need to take action. You need to end the ‘no-blame game’ and acknowledge that the Carpenter government has failed to deliver the education standards that Western Australian children deserve.

The Rudd Labor government is doing everything that it can to ensure that it does not blame the Carpenter Labor government for its failings in the education system. Instead of showing leadership, instead of showing initiative, instead of producing policies with substance, they are indulging in their favourite game: the Labor no-blame game.

In March 1997, a decision was made by all state, territory and Commonwealth education ministers. They agreed on a national goal. That goal was that every child leaving primary school should be numerate and able to read, write and spell at an appropriate level. We now have a report—which it would appear the minister has not read—which ranks Western Australian primary school children as worst in reading, writing and maths in all the states and territories.

This report shows that the Carpenter government has failed the children of Western Australia, and this is a disgrace. This failure by the Carpenter state Labor government to provide an adequate education system makes a mockery of federal Labor’s so-called education revolution. What makes it worse is that Mr Carpenter is a former education minister. The fact is that the report and the minister’s pathetic answer to my question today clearly indicate that this Labor government is playing the no-blame game in respect of the Carpenter Labor government in Western Australia.

The Rudd Labor government is immersed in a conspiracy of silence with the WA state Labor government. This is how that game is played out: first, the Rudd Labor government agrees not to criticise the state Labor governments for their failings and, in return, the state Labor governments agree not to criticise Mr Rudd’s government—to keep their mouths shut. The minister’s answer to my question today indicates that he has not read the report or, indeed, if he has read the report, has clearly not understood the findings. The report highlights the failings of the education system in Western Australia and yet the minister comes in here today playing the no-blame game and tries to make excuses for the disgraceful situation we have in Western Australia in relation to education. The minister’s answer is all about Labor rhetoric. It is designed to protect the states and to ensure that they are not held to account.

Worse than that, the minister’s answer to my question attempts to make excuses for them at the expense of schoolchildren in Western Australia. The Rudd no-blame game is destroying the future prospects of Western Australia’s greatest asset, its children. The Rudd Labor government will do anything for a cheap headline rather than tackle the substance of the education issue. In federal Labor’s recent press release on the education revolution in our schools, this is what the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister say:

Tough action is necessary to achieve real change.

I ask: what tough action is being taken by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Education to hold the Carpenter Labor government to account? Absolutely nothing, no comment—almost justification and praise is being given for the level of education standards in Western Australia. Labor’s so-called education revolution is nothing more than a stunt being perpetrated on the Australian people.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think that, with new senators coming to the chamber recently, we all make allowances—as I do for the former speaker in what was obviously a purely outright political stunt. We all know that the West Australian election is coming. But, if we really want to talk about education, let us go back and remind those in the chamber and those listening of the terrible record and the lack of investment in education by the Commonwealth government over the last 11½ years. May I also turn people’s minds to the fact that it is very hard sometimes on the government side to respond to questions on notice because there does not seem to be a strategy. You can see Senator Abetz’s footprints and handprints all over these questions because there is absolutely no strategy at all. In fact, he is such a good tactician that not only did he leave the chamber today before the end of question time but I remind people of how he left the chamber and sulked during Senator Feeney’s first speech, which I thought was quite ungracious.

Let us turn our attention to some facts. In this chamber we have had not only in question time but relentlessly from those on the opposite side lecturing about how suddenly they have got a heart and now have an understanding of working Australians. Can I just remind people here today that it is those people sitting opposite, those like Senator Cash, who get up and lecture us about education who have been the economic vandals now vandalising our budget—the budget that we won the election on, the commitments that we are upholding and those election commitments that we are now trying to deliver on—and, in fact, trying to blow a $6 billion hole in this budget. And they call themselves responsible! I think the Australian people demonstrated very clearly at the last election where they are prepared to put their trust for the future. They want a government that is going to look long term at their future and their children’s future, whether that is education or more particularly in health.

It is also about investing in infrastructure and building this nation, which is something that I would like to remind people was squandered by the Menzies government decades ago. In fact, it was the Hawke-Keating government that put the footings back in place that enabled the Howard-Costello government to have the success that they had with the economy. I also want to touch on the commitment that this government has made, and is making, to health. We all know—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Polley has a right to be heard in silence.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I guess it does hurt those opposite when they actually hear some facts that they very conveniently want to misrepresent or forget. It is a bit like, Senator Macdonald, your selective memory during the earlier debate on the Medicare surcharge levy when you were talking about hospitals and waiting lists throughout Queensland. I would just like to remind the chamber that since we—that is, the Rudd Labor government—came into government there has been, as I said, $1 billion invested in the health system and there is $600 million going to help alleviate the waiting lists. For example, there is $27 million to undertake 4,000 procedures in Queensland and $34 million paid to Victoria for nearly 6,000 procedures to be undertaken.

These are clear demonstrations, but we cannot come in, switch on a light and change everything after 12 long years of a government that not only neglected people in health but also failed to invest in skills training and education for the future. We actually have a plan, our National Health Reform Plan. We have developed the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission, which will be looking at improving the long-term benefits to rural Australians in health care.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Polley, I remind you that the motion before the chair is in relation to the answers to Senator Cash’s questions in relation to education. We do allow a lot of lenience in motions to take note of answers—

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Faulkner interjecting—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I apologise, Senator Polley. I was not in the chair at the time the motion was moved.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I do take your point on board, but my understanding is that it was about all questions.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. I did not hear that.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to remind people of, and to put on record and to dispel, some of the myths that are espoused by those opposite in relation to health and skills training in terms of the economy. It is one thing to come in and want to use question time for political motivation because there is an election in WA—and I am sure that those people in WA are the beneficiaries of education (Time expired)

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is amusing that Senator Polley makes the claim that she has come to the chamber wanting to dispel myths. Most of the answers that the government gave today to opposition questions were in fact mythical because they had absolutely no relevance to the questions—with the exception of that of Senator Faulkner, who obviously gave a very succinct and proper answer to a very important question that was raised in the chamber today.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like all my answers!

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Faulkner, if you want to live in that belief, we will let you run with that. Over this week and again today we have seen that the government has serially failed to address a question and particularly to answer a question. That is effectively what question time is about—answering questions without notice to the government. It is not a good look, I have to say. When I got home last night I sat up and watched question time, which shows how sad my life is! But I would suggest that some of the government senators might like to do that themselves, because it can be quite instructive. It might encourage them to have a chat to some of their ministers and suggest that they might like to actually have a crack at answering a question, because it shows a very poor front for the government when their ministers cannot, will not—or, in Senator Carr’s case, refuse to—answer a question. I thought that was quite exceptional yesterday.

In respect of my question today to Senator Ludwig about the 30 per cent Medicare rebate, the question really brings to light an underlying belief within members of the government that they do not support the 30 per cent Medicare rebate.

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

It’s a bit rude to refer to a first speech, Richard!

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take the interjection. We all come into this place knowing that what we say is important and that is part of the process. We also come in here, particularly for our first speeches, looking at a convention where we are given—

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

Senator Marshall interjecting—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Marshall!

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I am happy to take Senator Marshall’s interjection.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But I am not happy with his interjection, so I advise you to come back to the subject.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note and put on the record at this point in time that the majority of opposition senators in their presentations—and I have made comment to them about it afterwards—have observed the conventions of this chamber when making their first speeches. When any senator gets up to make their first speech, the Senate is reminded by the chair that the convention of the Senate is that they will be heard in silence. If senators would like to have a look at Odgers, they will see that it says, as I have indicated, that a senator making a first speech will be heard in silence and that is the convention of the chamber. I will read to senators:

Special conventions of debate apply to the first speech of a new senator. It is expected that the—

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps, Mr Deputy President, you might care to reflect on the issue of the question before the chair, which was a matter you raised a few moments ago. I have no idea what relevance this has to the motion that has been moved by Senator Cash. Neither does Senator Colbeck. Now, we are all very generous about these things and let these flights of fancy run, and I am feeling in a very generous mood today, but I draw your attention to the fact that this bears utterly no relation whatsoever to the question before the chair—that the Senate take note of questions asked of government ministers today.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will rule on the point of order. Senator Colbeck was responding to an interjection made by Senator Marshall.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was very disorderly!

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was very disorderly, but the interjection was made and, to the best of my knowledge, it has been the convention of this place that when an interjection is made the person on his feet may respond to it. As I understand it, Senator Marshall was referring to a first speech in his interjection and Senator Colbeck was responding apropos that comment about a first speech.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, out of respect for you, I am reluctantly accepting that ruling!

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Colbeck.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not want to take up much of the chamber’s time on this, but I have indicated that the chamber is reminded that new senators giving their first speeches should be heard without interjection and interruption. The corollary of this convention is that a first speech should not directly criticise other senators or otherwise provoke interjections or points of order. Unfortunately Senator Feeney was somewhat provocative in his speech and unfortunately—and I do say that—some senators reacted to that. I did take the opportunity to congratulate Senator Feeney on his speech afterwards, as the convention states, so I make that point.

To go back to my point about the 30 per cent rebate, we know that support for that rebate has not always been Labor Party policy. They do not believe it. And Senator Feeney’s comments in his first speech show that below the waterline, if you like, there are members who still do not believe it. (Time expired)

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This question time has demonstrated, I think, what poor public policy practitioners the opposition were while in government, and they clearly have not learnt. The opposition’s questions regarding health insurance demonstrate their poor approach to public policy. I would like to commend Senator Feeney for raising the importance of these issues in his first speech. And I reject the notion offered by the opposition that younger, healthier people should be coerced into subsidising health insurance for others. I say this for the following reasons. There is significant evidence to suggest that in many instances people hold cheap health insurance simply to avoid the levy. When you hold health insurance and intend to use it there is a significant need to insure yourself above the insurance rebates—in other words, there are significant gap payments to be made. Despite the fact they hold insurance, many people cannot afford a private hospital bed or a private practitioner. As a result, many people who hold private health insurance still have no option but to occupy a bed in a public hospital. Some will pay a smaller gap, as charged by the public hospital; others, however, make no claim and they use the public system.

Who is subsidising who? Not only do we have taxpayers who are healthy and do not need to use insurance, but we also have taxpayers who have paid their insurance and cannot afford to use it. So people who cannot afford to use it are subsidising the health insurance rebates from health funds for those who can. That is a shame. What is more, the taxpayer is paying twice—once in the form of the 30 per cent rebate for health insurance that is not used and a second time for the care of the patient in a public hospital. This clearly highlights the unjust, nonsensical nature of our current private health insurance penalties for those who cannot afford insurance. It also illustrates why Labor’s bill should be passed.

Another issue in question time today that was highlighted by the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Senator Kim Carr, was that industry was in danger of being left behind because of the opposition’s failure when it was in government to introduce an emissions trading scheme. Trade unions also know that we have to get on with the job of reducing emissions and get on with putting together a scheme that protects both the environment and our long-term economic interests. Failure to recognise that failure to act means that industry will be faced with uncertainty for their investments, and the opposition still fails to recognise this. It is important for an economy to adjust to climate change; otherwise we will be unable to attract investment. I think this is a point that the minister made very well in his answers to questions. The government is at a crucial stage of the development of this policy. It is getting on with the job. It is consulting. We will have a well-designed emissions trading system.

Lastly, I would like to highlight issues of relevance to the Western Australian education system. I think there was a blatant attempt to politicise a very important issue right before the state election.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And good on you; it is your right to do that. But I would like to highlight to the opposition that Western Australian students are younger than students across the rest of the country, and that is a reason for some of the discrepancies in the results. What is more, Western Australia makes a significant investment in early years education and has introduced an important Getting it Right literacy and numeracy strategy for students who are falling below benchmarks. We also have a policy in Western Australia where 50 per cent of class time is spent on reading and maths. Question time today has simply demonstrated what poor public policy practitioners the opposition were while in government and that they remain deluded while in opposition.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think Senator Pratt has highlighted the inadequacies of the government if she is referring to question time and the bad policy—it is certainly from her side. Today in question time Senator Conroy answered a question from me concerning Tasmania and the Tasmanian Labor Premier’s position on the reduction of the fuel excise: the coalition pledge of 5c a litre off the fuel excise, which would be a significant saving for the average family. Senator Conroy basically said that Premier Bartlett was economically irresponsible, an economic vandal. I cannot wait till the Hansard is sent down to Premier Bartlett so he can see what his federal Treasury spokesperson in the Senate says about his particular attitude towards fuel and towards the economy.

For those senators opposite, I point out that today’s Examiner newspaper—an excellent newspaper; the jewel in the crown of northern Tasmania—has an article on page 1 under the heading ‘Bartlett targets fuel excise’. It says:

THE State Government is gearing up for a fight with its Federal counterparts—

‘federal counterparts’ being Mr Rudd and Senator Conroy’s policy, and it goes on with the editorial. So it is not on just page 1 but also in the editorial, which says:

Premier David Bartlett, who is organising the summit—

organising a summit that should be supported by his federal leader—

after The Examiner called for one, has set the pace by indicating that he is prepared to defy his own federal party and back a cut in the federal fuel excise - a reform trumpeted since May by Federal Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson with his call for a 5c a litre cut.

Senator Conroy now goes against his Labor Premier—of all people, his Labor Premier. Senator Conroy has got a dilemma. I do not know how Senator Conroy is going to handle this. Premier Bartlett is obviously going to be dismayed, because Senator Conroy has called him ‘economically irresponsible’. How can we tell the families of Australia that reducing the fuel excise by 5c a litre—after GST, 5½c—is economically irresponsible? It is not economically irresponsible. That is a direct benefit back to the families of this country who rely on this.

I want to give you a mum-and-dad example of what happens in Australia today. Senators opposite need to get out a bit more; at least on this side of the chamber we get out and about in Australia and we actually hear what families are saying to us. Listen to this example of a typical family, Andrew and Kate. They have three kids and three cars—a sedan and a couple of hatchbacks. They have a son on P-plates and he is helping with the two sisters, helping to drive them to and from school and sporting commitments and other things. I will go straight to the crux of this—and I have not changed the names to protect the innocent. Their sedan travels 18,000 kilometres a year, at 13.2 litres for every 100 kilometres. Respectively, the two hatchbacks notch up 16,000 kilometres a year, at 7.8 litres per 100 kilometres, and 12,000 kilometres a year, at 7.2 litres per 100 kilometres. A 5.5c per litre reduction—that is, the excise plus GST—would save that family $246 a year. That is the minimum saving. If, as a party that is supposedly concerned about working families in this country making ends meet, you on that side want to say that is economically irresponsible, if you want to say that is not putting money back into the hands of the battling families of this country, that is very irresponsible.

I just want you to explain to the people of Australia why you will not support a reduction in the fuel excise. There is a $22 million surplus sitting there, and this surplus can be utilised in that way. That is money from this country’s public purse, from this country’s working families: give it back. Give it back. Don’t sit on it; don’t save it up for a huge war chest for the next election; give it back now. And, while you are at it, start thinking about pensioners and giving them a helping hand, because, I tell you what, you are slowly going down the gurgler. You are not looking after the families of this country or the pensioners, who are very important. Start looking after the heartland of this country. Mr Deputy President, through you: they have lost the plot and they have got to pick it up again.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to take note in particular of the answer given by the Minister for Climate Change and Water (Senator Wong) to a question without notice asked by me today, relating to the Murray-Darling Basin.

The Intergovernmental Agreement on Murray-Darling Basin Reform was a much trumpeted agreement just several months ago, in fact, when the government said: ‘We are the ones that can deliver reform in the Murray-Darling Basin. We have signed this historic agreement. We got the COAG agreement signed in March and now we’ve got the IGA.’ This was with a commitment that the reforms would be put in place by 1 November—a very ambitious agenda, I will say, but that is what they were supposed to be using their best endeavours to deliver. Now we find, from the minister’s answer to my question, that the government can deliver no report on progress in delivering the reforms that were supposed to be delivered. The states and territories undertook to put through their parliaments the referral of powers to the Commonwealth government so that they could then amend the Water Act 2007 so they could put in place an authority. And what is that authority supposed to do? That authority is supposed to be delivering the basin plan. You cannot do the basin plan till you have an authority, but you cannot have an authority until the states have actually signed over and delivered those powers to the Commonwealth.

The minister could not report on whether any state had put together draft legislation or, in fact, whether there was any draft legislation in any of their parliaments. How can we then expect to have a bill to amend the Water Act in this place for us to review, to properly consider, by 1 November? I hate to predict this but I do not think that we are going to see any amendments to the Water Act in this place by 1 November. I would be very surprised if any state government has any draft legislation prepared, let alone any legislation through their state parliament, by 1 November. Therefore, if we have no legislation in here for this place to consider, there will be no authority in place that has the powers referred to it to be able to develop the basin plan and be able to then start developing the sustainability cap. That leads me to the point that, even if we do have a sustainability cap, we will not be able to implement that till 2014 in New South Wales and 2019 in Victoria.

So what does that mean for the new reforms that the Murray-Darling Basin is supposed to now come under? There are no reforms in place. You would have thought that, as we are delivering new reforms for the Murray-Darling Basin, the least the states and territories could do to get a move on would be to get legislation through their parliaments. You would think that, wouldn’t you? You would think they could at least deliver that, but, no, they cannot. They still cannot deliver the said reform processes through their state colleagues, through their state parliaments, to actually have a plan in place. Then there is the cap: they cannot deliver the cap. And then we move on to the four per cent cap that is stopping trading out of districts. The minister confirmed to me after the session that there is one district that has already met the four per cent cap. That is since July, and we have nine months to go in this financial year. I understand there are other districts that are probably getting very close to that four per cent cap as well. So there will be many districts where we can no longer buy water, if there is water available, to deliver water to the Murray-Darling Basin.

So we are looking at very significant structural problems that have still not been addressed. There has still been no movement on them. We were critical of the coalition; no doubt about it. Then this government came in and said, ‘We have a new reform agreement,’ a much trumpeted new approach—no difference. We still do not have any legislation through the state parliaments in order to refer those powers to the Commonwealth. There is still no legislation there. It is still slow. There are still processes in place under the new so-called reforms that allow the states to hold up progress even once they have referred those powers. We have not got as far as them referring those powers but, even when they do, the states can still hold up progress on the Murray-Darling Basin.

The Greens’ question is: when are you going to get serious about this stuff? When are you going to lay down the law to the states? If they are not prepared to deliver through the agreement, when are you going to start requiring and pushing the states to start meeting their obligations? Do not just come in here and talk about it as if you have all the answers when you clearly have not, because those reforms are not happening. You will not deliver the reforms that are required by 1 November. So much for best endeavours under the IGA! It is not worth the paper that it is written on.

Question agreed to.