John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I continue from where I left off before there was a change of program in the Senate. I was talking about the Building the Education Revolution and about the waste of money in this program. I mentioned that on election day—Saturday, 21 August—I called into the school at Kingstown, which has a $330,000 building of about 10 metres by eight metres. I was saying that $300,000 will build you a good, large, four-bedroom brick home, but the school got a 10 metre by eight metre building with a little kitchen inside. It is just crazy.

I was interested one night to see Senator Joyce on television when he went to the school at Manilla. Two demountable classrooms were brought in on a truck. There was nothing in them, but they cost $1.8 million. That could have built you six four-bedroom brick veneer homes. But no—the school at Manilla got two demountable classrooms for the same amount of money. This is just incredible, and this is what infuriates the people of Australia—the waste of not only taxpayers money but also borrowed money that has to be paid back with interest. It is borrowed money.

We can talk more about the waste. I think the issue of the pink batts has been aired enough in this place. It is just amazing. There was a $2.45 billion program to roll out pink batts for free to insulate houses around Australia, and the very tragic thing is that four young men lost their lives. That is the tragic part of that program, and what their families went through with their loss is something that we probably cannot imagine ourselves.

But now what is there? There is $1 billion to clean up the mess. There is not only a $2.45 billion program to put ceiling batts in houses but also $1 billion to clean up the mess. The Solar Homes Program blew out by $850 million. The laptops in schools program, which was under the direction of our now Prime Minister, Ms Gillard, blew out by $1.2 billion. Labor has wasted over $10 billion of taxpayers’ money and borrowed money in its first term, and they are now borrowing over $100 million a day, seven days a week.

What do we find now if we look at the debt and deficit? The forecasts are coming out now, and a media article today says:

The Federal Budget is at risk of returning to deficit in 2013/14 after the much touted surplus in 2012/13, because commodity forecasts are too optimistic, an independent forecaster says.

While Access Economics expects revenues will total some $6 billion more than official forecasts over this financial year and next, it believes high commodity prices are unsustainable.

That is a sound argument. Having spent most of my life on the land, I know that prices—whether they be wool prices, wheat prices, land prices or mutton prices—go up and go down according to supply and demand. We know that every time prices go up you should not expect them to stay there for ever—they will come down again. That is what Access Economics are saying. The article continues:

“Despite all the hoo-ha by politicians over the ‘return to surplus’, we see the five minutes of fiscal sunshine before re-emergence of a deficit,” Access Economics director Chris Richardson says.

Releasing his updated Budget Monitor today, Mr Richardson forecast a near $2 billion deficit in 2013/14, but stressed this wasn’t due to recent policy costs - neither the election campaign nor the “undignified scramble” for a parliamentary majority which followed it.

On that deficit that we talk about and going back over the years, the 2008-09 budget of $22 billion came out at $27 billion in the red, a turnaround of almost $50 billion. In the last financial year we borrowed $57 billion. In the current financial year, which we will be in until June 30 next year, another $41.8 billion was borrowed, and another $13 billion will be borrowed in the year after. What effect is it having? We have seen six rises in interest rates because the Reserve Bank is saying that there is too much money in the economy, and the talk is that November will bring interest rate rise No. 7.

So we have the government borrowing money and pouring it into the economy while people, the battlers, paying for their homes, running their small businesses or running their farms have to face high interest rates. That is nothing new under Labor. I can recall in the early nineties the 25.25 per cent interest rates I was paying under the then so-called world’s greatest Treasurer—25.25 per cent! In other words, you pay your principal back every four years. What was the effect of that? I do not think regional Australia has ever recovered from it.

We saw the crash in the wool market, the droughts et cetera. Regional Australia, as far as the people on the land are concerned, has never really recovered from those days of the Labor government and those outrageous interest rates. I am sure those who are 30 or 32 years old or younger could not imagine paying such high interest rates. We saw home loans at 17 and 18 per cent. People had their houses repossessed. A million people were unemployed—11 per cent unemployment! We are now seeing more money borrowed and being put into the economy, and it will put upward pressure on interest rates; there is nothing surer.

There was the Green Loans fiasco, where we trained thousands of people to assess homes. What do we have? About 1,000 people actually took up the loans. With the millions and millions of dollars spent on that program, they should have just rebuilt the facilities in those houses and given them a free solar-powered hot-water system, free PB systems on the roof and free this and that. They would have been better off spending it on those thousand homes than wasting all that money on those who did the inspections. The program was a failure.

On the National Broadband Network, one person says: ‘The important point, however, is that your standard ADSL service that is available right now for around 91 per cent of the population provides minimum download speeds of 1,500 kbps and 256 kbps upload—which will give you videoconferencing just fine. ADSL2+ gives much faster speeds—minimum speeds of between 256 kbps and a maximum of 8 Mbps—and is being progressively rolled out across Australia.’

One of the big arguments for the NBN is that it is about to provide videoconferencing for medical facilities. We are hearing from people that it is already there. This means that broadband services available right now without any fancy NBN will give you high-quality videoconferencing suitable for medical and health uses, including consultation and, in theory, procedures via the internet. Leading surgeon and medical media pioneer Professor Andrew Renaut has said that either the National Broadband Network or the $6 billion coalition alternative would be sufficient to overcome Australia’s bandwidth barrier, which he says is preventing technological advances in fields such as medicine and education.

The big fear for the National Broadband Network is the take-up rate. We have seen similar networks rolled out in places like South Korea and Japan for some 10 years, yet only 30 to 35 per cent of people have taken it up. Today the Armidale Express in northern New South Wales, where I live, says:

Mr Davies’ call comes in the face of a less than stellar take-up of fibre installation in the first release area in north-west Armidale.

It is free, and Mr Davies is calling on people to ‘please take up the NBN’. He is concerned that people are simply not taking it up. So why run it out to every household at such a huge cost? As I said, going on the take-up rate in places like Korea and Japan, if after 10 years we are only going to have 35 per cent of people taking it up, look at the cost and where that money is invested and what return there will be.

My greatest concern about this government is the influence the Greens are going to have on the Labor government. Let me take you back to New South Wales and a bloke called Kim Yeadon, the minister for the environment in the early days of the Carr government. He introduced a thing called SEPP 46—State Environment Protection Plan No. 46—where farmers were not allowed to cut down a tree or alter anything on their property. SEPP 46 went on to become the Native Vegetation Conservation Act. We have seen people like Peter Spencer up a pole for 50-odd days protesting about his property rights. I note that when asylum seekers get on a roof at Villawood they attract immediate attention, but when Peter Spencer spent 50 days up a pole he could not get any attention from the government in fighting for the property rights of people in Australia.

The Greens’ influence in New South Wales has been dramatic and all negative. We are going to see exactly the same thing here. We have seen the Prime Minister’s promise: ‘There won’t be any carbon tax while I lead the government.’ Now it is all on. We have this cosy little club of stern believers in climate change saying: ‘What are we going to do? We’re going to have a conference. We’re going to work it through. We’re going to gather some facts together and we’ll look at a carbon tax.’ It is so amazing—

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

BHP.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take the interjection from Senator Feeney. BHP want a carbon tax but not on anything that affects their exports. It will have no effect on their bottom-line profit—very clever by Mr Kloppers. Imagine if Australia, producing 1.4 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gases, abolished all its greenhouse gases. Imagine if Australia emitted zero gases. Of course that is impossible. When you breathe, you inhale 380 parts per million of carbon dioxide and you exhale 50,000 parts, so we cannot bring our emissions to zero. But if we bring our emissions to zero and produce 550 million tonnes of CO2 a year, or if we reduce our emissions by 500 million tonnes and just produce 50 million tonnes of CO2a year, what effect will that have on the world by 2020?

We know that India is going to go from three billion to five billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions a year by 2020—that is up by two billion tonnes. China is going to go from seven billion to 10 billion—up another three billion by 2020. Those two countries will produce another five billion tonnes of greenhouse gases a year by 2020. If Australia cuts it greenhouse gas emissions by 500 million tonnes a year, that is an extra five billion tonnes. But you are not going to change a thing. The amount of greenhouse gases is going to continue to rise. While India, China and the United States are producing 50 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gases and are not going to do a thing about it, you want to take us down a road of taxation and put electricity prices up for everyone—including aged-care facilities, local governments, our exporting industries, our abattoirs, the people who live at home and even Senator Sterle’s own household. And you think you are going to save the earth by doing this!

This is just outrageous. This is what we are going to face: we have a government that is in bed with and dominated by the Greens. The Greens will want their pound of flesh, they will dictate to the government what they want and the government will simply go along with them. There will be more of the same. What will the Greens policy of ‘Let’s raise the registration fee for B-doubles to $23,000 a year and take away their 16c rebate on fuel’ do for the price of everything that is transported around regional Australia? What will that do for the prices of food going into the towns and for the export of grain et cetera going out to the wharves? This is what the government will be facing. The Greens will have leverage on them with a 10-foot crowbar, leveraging the government until they get their demands. That is what we have in front of us in Australia—a Labor government, a minority government, dominated by the Greens.

This government will do the same thing to our nation that the disgraceful government in New South Wales has done to the state of New South Wales. The New South Wales government has driven people out of their state at a rate of 500 a week. That is why we lose seats. That is why the seat of Gwydir was taken from us and the seat of Flynn was formed in Queensland. That is why another seat is gone. We have just had the seat of Wright formed in Queensland. People are being driven out of New South Wales because of the Greens-Labor coalition in that state, and this is what Australia is going to face.

The government will see how many jobs will be cut, how many industries will suffer and how many industries have been moved overseas because of its carbon taxes. The cement industry will be the first one gone. This is the direction the government will take our country. Come next election, do not worry about minority governments, because the people of Australia will see that Independents like Tony Windsor and Robert Oakeshott from the conservative seats just turn their backs on their electorates. The public will not forget that next time, and we will see a big change. (Time expired)

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to reply to Her Excellency the Governor-General’s address to the 43rd Parliament. The opening of parliament is a special occasion and quite properly a very ceremonial occasion. This ceremony not only celebrates the fact that Australia has one of the most stable democracies in the world but also recognises our cultural heritage and the Westminster tradition that has led to that stability. Of course, there has been an important recent addition to this ceremony, the welcome to country, which recognises that we meet on the land of the first Australians.

The commencement of a new parliament brings with it many new faces in the House of Representatives and, come 1 July, there will be several new faces in this place as well. It also brings the departure of several members and senators—some by choice, others not. I would like to congratulate all new members and senators on their election and all those who have retained their seat. It is a great honour to be chosen by your constituents to represent them and it carries with it a great sense of responsibility. To those elected to the next Senate it may seem like a long wait until the term begins on 1 July next year, but I can assure them the time will pass quickly. I also congratulate the ministers and parliamentary secretaries on their appointments. I hope that everyone who comes into this parliament does so to advance the interests of the Australian people, and I believe that is the case.

Parliament involves a contest of ideas and in that contest there are inevitably casualties. Politics can be a tough and unforgiving business. To those who were not re-elected, I offer my commiserations. I would like to thank you for your contribution to this parliament. While your election results may make it difficult at the moment to feel that your service is valued, I can assure you that it has been of great value. You have dedicated yourself to public service and sought to advance the interests of your fellow Australians, and I commend you for this.

The federal election just past seems to have produced a series of disparate results across the country. Despite the swing against us in some areas, the Labor Party achieved an excellent result in my home state of Tasmania. I would like to congratulate my colleague Senator Polley on her re-election to the Senate for another six-year term and Senators-elect Anne Urquart and Lisa Singh on their success as well. As a result of the past two elections, Tasmania will soon have six Labor senators for the first time since 1985.

The member for Franklin, Julie Collins; the member for Lyons, Dick Adams; and the member for Braddon, Sid Sidebottom, were all re-elected on comfortable margins. I think this demonstrates that, while there may be national factors at play, there is a lot of value in having a hardworking member who represents their electorate well. Ms Collins has worked hard for the people of Franklin, and I congratulate her on her promotion to Parliamentary Secretary for Community Services. I have known Julie for a long time. She has worked hard for the people of Franklin since her endorsement prior to the 2007 election and I firmly believe she will continue to do so. With Senator Sherry’s continued tenure as a minister—the Minister for Small Business and the Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism—it is pleasing to see two fellow Tasmanians in the ministry. It is a proper reflection of the abundance of talent that exists within the Tasmanian federal Labor caucus.

Geoff Lyons’ result in Bass is also to be highly commended, given the seat’s history of volatility and marginal outcomes. Mr Lyons has already worked hard to establish his local credentials through his involvement in sporting administration, surf-lifesaving and various other grassroots community organisations. He also has a strong background in health and aged care, and I know he will be a worthy representative for the people of Bass. Although I did not make it across to Mr Lyons’ first speech, I know he has delivered it. So it is straight down to business for Mr Lyons in representing the people of Bass.

The result in Denison was obviously unexpected. As with the other four Senate seats in Tasmania, we actually recorded a swing in our favour against the Liberal Party under two-party preferred terms. I strongly believe that Jonathon Jackson—the Labor candidate—had and still has a lot to offer. While I would like to see him continue to pursue a political career, I wish him well in whatever he does. However, it is a rare and monumental achievement for an Independent to be elected in their own right at a general election, and I congratulate Andrew Wilkie on his election as the member for Denison. I guess it is somewhat a coincidence that he enters parliament at a time when Independents have a significance never before seen in Australia’s House of Representatives.

Nationwide, the federal election just past has produced an unusual result where neither Labor nor the coalition hold a majority of seats in the House of Representatives in their own right. A stable government depends on three things. Firstly, it needs the majority of its members to agree to pass supply bills so that the government is able to fund its programs. Secondly, it must have the confidence of the majority of members in the House of Representatives. It is these two matters on which Her Excellency the Governor-General seeks advice in deciding who will form government. It is these two matters on which we have agreement from a sufficient number of the Independent members and one Green member to allow us to form government. Whatever arguments the coalition may advance about their right to govern because of more votes or more seats, the simple fact is that government, under the Australian Constitution, requires the confidence of a majority in the House of Representatives. If neither side wins an election outright then there is a second contest, and that is the contest to convince the crossbenches that you will be able to form a stable and secure government.

This brings me to the third criterion for stable government, and that is goodwill. While the Gillard government have sufficient support on confidence and supply, we still need to negotiate each piece of legislation individually. To make this parliament work, every member needs to approach these negotiations in good faith. So I find it very disappointing that Tony Abbott and the opposition’s approach has been to try and take a wrecking ball to this parliament. Their attitude seems to be that they will do anything within their power to destabilise the parliament because they want to go rushing back to the polls as soon as possible.

Exhibit A is the way they tore up an agreement on the pairing of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker, an agreement they say is unconstitutional, despite the advice of the Solicitor-General to the contrary. If they seriously believe that the pairing arrangement is unconstitutional, why did they agree to it in the first place? Why did they not get their advice before they signed on the dotted line? Or was it a simple case of doing what suited them at the time and then changing their mind when the result did not go the way they expected? That is not quite Australian, I would suggest. There seems to be a born to rule mentality on that side of the chamber.

Exhibit B is the coalition’s refusal to join a parliamentary committee to discuss options to tackle climate change. That is not surprising, given their current leader’s pronouncement that climate change is crap. Once again, it is a great example of the opposition preferring to try and spoil parliament rather than work cooperatively for the good of the Australian people. The members for Lyne, New England, Melbourne and Denison all appear to have had their decisions vindicated. They decided that their vote would go towards providing stable government. They are looking for a government that is willing to engage in cooperative discussions about outcomes, that is willing to negotiate in good faith and that wants to see arrangements put in place to make the parliament work.

The Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, has selected a competent and talented team for the front bench. I know that they will be well supported by their fellow members of the Labor caucus. The Gillard government is committed to a strong, fair Australia and is prepared to do everything possible to ensure that this nation has a bright future. The people of Australia deserve nothing but the best and the Gillard government will deliver this, no matter what the opposition throw at us. Prime Minister Julia Gillard and her team are committed to making this minority government work and we expect the same level of commitment from all other members of parliament, regardless of their political affiliation or independence.

The Gillard government is committed to continuing the excellent financial management that saw Australia fare much better than other developed countries during the global financial crisis. Treasurer Wayne Swan has already shown that he can do the job, and with his skills and expertise Australia will continue to have a growing economy.

We are committed to creating jobs and providing Australians with a first-class education and the skills necessary to be effective members of society in whatever career they choose. Peter Garrett, Senators Chris Evans, Kim Carr and Mark Arbib, along with Kate Ellis and Senator Jacinta Collins, are a strong, effective team who will work hard to keep employment and education on track.

The Gillard government is also committed to looking after regional Australia, with Simon Crean leading the way in this area. Tony Burke holds the portfolio of population and sustainability and will ensure that Australia has strategies in place to set a population target and to provide infrastructure for a growing population.

Ministers Nicola Roxon and Jenny Macklin continue the great work they have started in their areas and are supported by the great team of Warren Snowdon, Mark Butler, Kate Ellis, Senator Mark Arbib, Catherine King, Julie Collins and Senator Jan McLucas. Together, they will continue to pursue health and hospital reforms and to deliver family and community services that meet the needs of the most vulnerable Australians. Health reforms are essential to ensure that Australians can access the best possible medical services. For the first time, the Australian government will provide the majority of funding for the public hospital system but local communities will retain control through the local hospital network.

More money is being invested in training medical professionals, including specialists, to reduce waiting times in emergency departments and for elective surgery, as well as making it easier to access a doctor after hours. The government is providing an additional 2½ thousand aged-care places to help deal with the ageing population. Australians suffering from mental illness will receive increased support through additional Headspace services, early intervention practices and more mental health nurses. The government is also giving a new focus to preventative health, including increasing the tobacco excise and a move towards plain packaging for cigarettes. There is also $50 million being invested in the National Binge Drinking Strategy. Welfare reform is another area that we will continue to work hard in. The people of Australia deserve financial support to help them through the tough times they may be going through. We need to do what we can to ensure that their hardships are only temporary.

Kevin Rudd will lead the way as Minister for Foreign Affairs, with Dr Craig Emerson as Minister for Trade. We all know that international relations are complex. That is why we need to have people with talent, skills and diplomacy looking after Australia’s interests on the international scene. Stephen Smith will take over from Senator John Faulkner as Minister for Defence, a very important role, with our troops deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Gillard government are committed to protecting Australia’s national security. We are committed to making the world a safer place than it is today.

Robert McClelland and Brendan O’Connor will continue the excellent job that they have done as Attorney-General and Minister for Home Affairs respectively. There are others I could mention, but there is a time limit to this speech. It is not possible to discuss all the areas the Gillard government is working in to progress Australia. But rest assured that the Gillard government is a team effort and all members of the team will be working hard. This is one area that separates us from those in the opposition. The people of Australia are not fooled—nor, I would imagine, impressed—by the childish antics of poor losers.

I can only imagine Mr Abbott as a child in the playground, taking his bat and ball and going home when he did not win the toss, or refusing to play ball when he could not get his own way to play on the ground of his choice, wanting to change the rules to suit his own ends and taking no notice of the independent umpire—really bad sportsmanship, Mr Abbott.

It is not only Mr Abbott’s approach to the parliament that makes him a wrecker; it is the policies he would pursue as Prime Minister if he had the opportunity. As soon as Mr Abbott appointed a spokesperson for broadband, Mr Turnbull, his first instructions to him were to ‘demolish’ the National Broadband Network. Maybe he should look at the votes in Tasmania, to see if the people there want the National Broadband Network. Maybe that issue had an impact on the bad result the opposition had in Tasmania. It is quite ironic that the person in the coalition given responsibility for pursuing the development of broadband has actually been instructed to stop the rollout of optic fibre broadband. Prior to the election, Mr Abbott clearly demonstrated that, when it comes to national infrastructure, public services, broadband, trade training centres and GP superclinics, he is defined not by what he proposes but by what he opposes.

Government should proceed on the basis of plans for the future, not plans to tear up infrastructure, axe services and try to take Australia back to the past. Despite Mr Abbott’s plans to destabilise the 43rd Parliament, the government are going to try and make it work, and we have evidence that it can work. The evidence is history. In 1999 and 2002, in Victoria and South Australia respectively, Labor formed successful minority governments with the support of Independents on the key questions of confidence and supply. They put in place working arrangements to negotiate the passage of legislation through their lower houses. Only this year, Tasmanian Labor successfully entered into a minority government arrangement with the Greens and have demonstrated that they can work together.

And what better evidence is there of the workability of such arrangements than the Australian Senate? Since I came into this chamber, we have had to negotiate with the Greens and the two Independents to pass legislation without the support of the opposition. We have already demonstrated through that process that we can work together with the crossbenches. We can discuss legislation with Senator Bob Brown and his colleagues, with Senator Xenophon and with Senator Fielding, and we know how to negotiate and get bills passed. And we in the Senate are used to being conscientious about turning up to every division, even at times when we are sitting at two o’clock in the morning. To my colleagues in the lower house: while some media commentators may tell you that the situation is some new paradigm in Australian politics, all I have to say is: ‘Welcome to our world!’

I know we can move forward with these arrangements in place to pursue a true nation-building agenda. We will pursue health and hospital reforms to take the pressure off waiting lists and give local communities a greater say in the administration of their hospitals through the establishment of local hospital networks.

We will build a national broadband network with fast optic fibre to 93 per cent of businesses and household premises. This network will revolutionise telecommunications and the way we do business and dramatically improve education, health and community care services. It will boost productivity and make Australia the most connected nation on the planet. The NBN has already been rolled out in Tasmania, with customers already signed up to internet service providers for speeds up to 100 times faster than anything they have experienced before.

We have already introduced a paid parental leave scheme, giving working parents the opportunity to spend more time bonding with their newborn children. This scheme will also assist businesses to retain skilled and valuable workers.

We will give Australians a greater share in the wealth extracted from our non-renewable resources through the minerals resource rent tax. These resources are owned by all Australians, and by providing a fairer share of the wealth we can boost Australians’ superannuation savings and offer tax cuts to small businesses.

I look forward to working in the 43rd Parliament with the re-elected Gillard Labor government and pursuing Labor’s strong, aggressive agenda. It will be an interesting and exciting time for all of us. With a dose of goodwill and a spirit of cooperation, I am confident that it will work.

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

I am pleased tonight to speak to the motion on the address-in-reply to the Governor-General’s speech and to raise a number of issues, particularly with respect to health and healthy lifestyles. In the speech presented in this chamber by Her Excellency the Governor-General, Quentin Bryce, she made it clear that the federal Labor government, in its wisdom:

… will invest in increasing participation in community sport and supporting our elite athletes, thus contributing to a more active and healthy society.

It is a laudable objective, of course, to invest in increasing funding for community sport. So I was scratching my head as to why this government would be saying such a thing when, on the other hand, they expect to chop the most successful and popular after-school program, the Active After-School Communities program, which was announced and started in 2004. Why would they say that they wanted to increase community sport and support for community sport when, in a matter of months, that program will conclude? The government did not make their position clear during the election campaign. Why not? Probably because they expect the program to terminate at the end of this year. In fact, the rumour mill is moving fast, and people are seriously concerned, because the government have not made their final position clear. All we can say is that we can expect that the program will conclude at the end of this year.

It is an incredibly successful program. It was launched by former Prime Minister John Howard in 2004 in Launceston, in fact—in my home town of Launceston, in my home state, at my healthy lifestyle forum to help combat childhood obesity. At that time, in the lead-up to the 2004 election, then Prime Minister John Howard announced the coalition’s anti-obesity strategy action plan, which included the Active After-School Communities program. The Minister for Sport at the time, Senator Rod Kemp, was also there to assist in the launch of that program. I am proud as Punch that the program was launched at my forum. I am proud as Punch that I was part of the thinking and the strategy behind getting that particular program announced and then, in due course, developed in conjunction with the Australian Sports Commission.

This is a very important program. This is a program which encourages children to be physically active, whether it be in a sport that they enjoy or some recreational activity. It is a fantastic program and it has been proved to be successful. There have been reviews, and the reviews all give it the big tick. There are some 150,000 school children across Australia in over 3,250 schools that have participated annually in the program. In Tasmania we have 90 schools and 5,000 students participating in the program this year.

At the moment the Active After-School Communities program employs some 180 staff nationwide, all of whom face a very uncertain future. In Tasmania there are five full-time employees and one part-time employee and they do a fantastic job. I would like to commend and congratulate specifically Blair Brownless, who is the state manager for the program based in Hobart. He is such an enthusiast. Of course, he is also an enthusiast for the Geelong football club—his brother is Billy Brownless. In my home town of Launceston there is Ralph Morris, who does such a fantastic job as a coordinator to make things happen. He does not need to do very much because the kids love it, the mums and dads love it, the families love it and the schools love it.

The shadow Assistant Treasurer, Sussan Ley, and I launched a petition on 18 June this year to save the program. My office has been inundated with responses and encouragement from families and children, who say, ‘We want the program to continue.’ Earlier today I was pleased to lodge in the Senate a petition with 320 signatures, not just from adults, mums and dads, but also from children who support the program. It is a great program.

Features of the program are that after-school sport and team-playing activities are provided, with funding for the regional coordinators—as I have said, there are five full-time and one part-time employee in Tasmania—and grants to help delivery costs, teacher-staff supervision, delivery fees, venue hire and equipment and transport costs, giving children an opportunity to participate in a variety of activities.

Is this is just directed to big cities? Is it just available to what some people would call city slickers? The answer is no. This program covers rural and regional areas as well. That is one of the fantastic things about the program: it gets to rural and regional Australia. Rural communities love it. In those communities we must remember that there are limited opportunities for children to participate in sport programs, and children are often left without the opportunities of their city counterparts due to the significant costs and the travel involved.

The benefits of the program are obviously the reduced risks of obesity and all the flow-on effects of that, the improved cardiovascular fitness and sleep outcomes, the increased confidence that it gives to the kids and the improved cooperation, social and leadership skills. These are not just problems for Tasmania; these are problems for this country. Frankly, we need to do better.

I want to refer to one of the letters in support of the program that I have received. It is from the Snug Primary School and it says:

On behalf of the Snug Primary School students I am writing a letter to you about stopping the Active After School Communities Program.

Ending the program will cause a big upset to our school. Many students participate in activities and enjoy them greatly. It is a big part of our school Health and PE program for many students ...

and it goes on and on. I also have a letter from the Cancer Council Tasmania. I know senators on both sides of this chamber have some involvement and interaction with the Cancer Council Tasmania. They do a great job. What do they say? Darren Carr, CEO, wrote to me on 12August and said that the council:

... would like to congratulate the Government for initiating the Active After Schools Community (AASC) program. What a success it has been.

He was referring, of course, to the Howard government in that regard. He went on:

I am writing to advise of Cancer Council Tasmania’s desire for the continued support of the AASC program.

The opportunities created by the program in nearly 90 Tasmanian schools have had immense health benefits for primary aged children.

This is fantastic. He went on to say:

As you may already be aware, one quarter ... of Australian children were deemed overweight or obese in 2008. A lack of physical activity is one of the main causes of childhood obesity.

Unfortunately Tasmania has the lowest percentage of children participating in organised sport, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. If the AASC program were to lose its support and funding from the Federal Government, the statistics are likely to worsen and in turn would have a negative impact on the health of our children.

Obesity needs to be tackled from childhood because if it is not, obesity may persist through to adulthood. There is also an increase in the likelihood of developing diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure and a variety of cancers.

Programs such as AASC have the potential to make a difference to these childhood obesity rates. Therefore we cannot let the Federal Government dismiss the funding and support of such a worthwhile program.

We call on all political parties to indicate their support for continuation of the  AASC program ...

I stand here tonight saying the community support it and the campaign should be supported. This program should be supported. I had the honour and privilege of being in the other place just a couple of hours ago to hear the first speech of the new federal member for Bass. I congratulate him on his first speech. I noted his special interest in community sport. He has had quite a background in that area and I note that and commend him for that. So I would say that this is probably the first major challenge that he will face, because during his speech he called for increased funding and increased support for community sport. The question is: will he support this campaign? The question for the new federal member for Bass is: will he lobby his Prime Minister? Will he lobby the relevant federal minister for education, the Minister for Sport and the minister for children? Will he join the campaign? Will he distribute petitions in his electorate of Bass. Likewise, to other senators and members in Tasmania and around the country: will you get behind this campaign to save this fantastic program which was started under the Howard government at the my healthy lifestyle forum. Will it happen? I do not know.

I also know that the Hon. Sharman Stone is a fantastic supporter of this program. She and I did a lot of work in Tasmania on her recent visit prior to the federal election in support of it. So I leave that open as a question for the federal member for Bass and say that this will no doubt be the first real challenge for him.

The petition I lodged in the Senate today says:

We the undersigned citizens agree that the federal government should continue funding the Active After-schools Communities program. The program was launched at the Healthy Lifestyles Forum in Launceston in June 2004 by former Prime Minister, John Howard. The popular and successful program has benefited 3,250 schools nationwide with over 150,000 children participating. In Tasmania alone, over 90 schools are involved with 5, 000 children participating ...

and it goes on. One of the features of the school sport and team-playing activities is that they provide funding for regional coordinators and so on. The program also gives children a safe place to go after school if no-one is home, and that is an added benefit. It is not just a health benefit but there are childcare benefits after school.

The federal government has committed funding for the program only until December 2010 pending a review. This is an issue for the staff. The staff are concerned about their future. Let me put the government on notice: staff are now looking for other opportunities. You will lose good people. Here we are at the end of September and you have got October and November. The school term will be concluded within a matter of months and by the end of the year you will find that those good staff will leave to find other opportunities. They have got no guarantee of their future. This is an issue front and centre for the government and I call on the government to heed the calls and the merits of this campaign.

I was at the Bridport Primary School in July, providing congratulations to the school up there for their wonderful work and presenting certificates to those involved. I noted at the time the sound health and social benefits and the community support for the program. Mike Furlong from the Bridport Bowls Club was very involved in supporting the Bridport Primary School. They have got bowls champions now coming out of the Bridport Primary School. It is fantastic. So the skills that are being developed flow through. So I call on the government to take that into account.

A couple of years ago, in 2007 before the election, the government said that obesity should be a national health priority. What are they doing about it? This is something that can be used to address that problem. At my Healthy Lifestyle Forum just two years ago Access Economics released a report which said that the obesity epidemic in Australia is estimated to cost around $58 billion a year. That is a huge figure. This is something for all of us to be aware of.

These and other details are set out in my book The Millennium Disease, which was launched by Tony Abbott just a few years ago. One quarter of all Australian children, or around 600,000 children, were overweight or obese, up four percentage points from 1995. The figures are getting worse; they are not getting better. The obesity rate for children increased from five per cent in 1995 to eight per cent in 2007-08. It shows a shift towards the higher and heavier end of the body mass index.

In terms of adults, 61 per cent of Australian adults are either overweight or obese based on the latest statistics. The facts and figures are getting worse, not better. We have an epidemic. We are one of the four fattest nations on earth, behind the US, the UK and Mexico. Australia comes fourth. All the trend lines are getting worse, not better. We need to do something about it. This is one area where we can make a difference. I call on the government to address these issues and to make that difference.

I now wish to move to another area of concern for me personally and, I think, for many others in this country. It is an area of considerable sensitivity, and that is the issue of euthanasia. I would just like to draw to the attention of senators and members and members of the public the report of June 2008 by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee into Senator Bob Brown’s bill at the time, the Rights of the Terminally Ill (Euthanasia Laws Repeal) Bill 2008. The committee made a number of observations. The end result was that the way the bill was drafted at the time made it a dog’s breakfast and it needed to be substantially amended. Even Senator Brown in his report agreed with the committee’s conclusions that it needed to be vastly amended.

Subsequently Senator Brown did bring in a further bill with respect to euthanasia to provide the ability for the ACT and the Northern Territory in particular to have a right to legislate in this area. I have particular concerns, and have had for a long period of time, with respect to providing and supporting euthanasia, which involves one person being sanctioned to kill another. That is the long and the short of it.

I am particularly concerned about the safeguards or the adequacy of those safeguards. Clearly, with respect to the Northern Territory—and you can have a look at our report—there were inadequate safeguards in the Northern Territory at the time prior to the Andrews’ bill being passed and promulgated from our parliament in 1997 when their bill became effective. While the Northern Territory bill was alive and active it was clearly deficient in my view.

Have a look at the report. It is on the record. People will no doubt have to dig deep to review their own conscience on this matter. But that report does outline some of the arguments for and against, such as: the issue of the importance of palliative care and quality palliative care; the problem of adequate safeguards; and the possibility that it would lead to a slippery slope. For example, acceptance of voluntary euthanasia would lead to involuntary euthanasia and, indeed, euthanasia for lesser diseases and conditions. There is the potential for the erosion of the doctor-patient relationship. It places pressure on people to end their lives even when they are not ready, for example, to reduce the burden on their family or the health system. This is a particular area of concern. Whether it be the vulnerable, the old, the frail, the disabled or the weak, the pressures will be there. Once you introduce a bill like this, if it is successful there will be financial pressures. There will be a healthcare costs and pressures. There will be expectations of family and they will assume new dimensions.

I want to alert the public to Paul Kelly’s commentary today in the Australian. It is excellent in my view. Under the heading ‘Brown’s euthanasia bill a perilous test for Gillard’ he makes some very thoughtful observations, including quoting from this Senate report. Obviously, the sanctity of human life is critical in any of these decisions. In the case of the Northern Territory legislation, the impact on Indigenous communities must be taken into account and the way they see these issues. This is clearly a great concern.

Senator Bob Brown and Ms Gillard, the Prime Minister, see this as a top priority for the government and the Greens and that is why this bill has been introduced. I simply raise these concerns. I draw the attention of others to that Senate committee report. Hopefully, it will better inform senators in this place who in due course will have to exercise their views and, I assume and hope, their conscience on this matter.

In the remaining minute I have I want to ask a question and make an observation. The observation is that the Prime Minister did not attend the church service prior to the opening of parliament. I respect and understand that because she is an avowed atheist, but of course that would be the first time in my memory that that has happened in the political history of this country. I stand to be corrected and am happy to check the facts and figures there—and if somebody could do that then that would be good—but certainly to my understanding that was the first time the Prime Minister did not attend the church service.

The question I have is: why didn’t the Governor-General, Her Excellency, attend that service? There has been no reason given. I hope she will make that clear to members of the public. The public in general have a right to know. In past years the Governor-General has attended.

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

It is with great delight that I rise to add my comments to this debate on the Governor-General’s opening speech. What a historic occasion it was to have our first female Governor-General opening the 43rd Parliament with Julia Gillard as Prime Minister. This Labor government sees as important for the future of this country having a strong economy, having a vision for the future and tackling the difficult issues that we are confronted with.

Before I go on to talk about some of those issues I want to take this opportunity to congratulate my Tasmanian colleagues on their re-election to the other place—Sid Sidebottom in Braddon, Julie Collins in Franklin and Dick Adams in Lyons—and I want to make some comments about the new federal member for Bass, Mr Geoff Lyons. He made his first speech to the parliament this afternoon. I congratulate him on his contribution. He has set a very high bar for not only what he will bring to the federal parliament but how he will be a strong, outstanding advocate for the electorate of Bass. I want to take this opportunity as the Labor senator who led the Senate ticket in the election to congratulate senators-elect Anne Urquhart and Lisa Singh. They are both outstanding women who will make a fantastic contribution in this place.

I want to turn now to the issues that we as a government will confront. These things were neglected over the 12 years of the previous Liberal government. They are things like investing in infrastructure in education, tackling homelessness and talking about aged care. I would also like to talk about an issue in Tasmania that was key to our success in the last federal election—the rollout of the National Broadband Network. This is the most important development for Australia in a very long time, as important as roads, rail and electricity. It is certainly the largest single investment in infrastructure made by an Australian government. The benefits are very real.

The opposition talk of the cost of doing this but there is never any mention of the huge cost to the Australian community and to our economy of not doing it, of not making this investment. This would be a missed opportunity for creative talent, for existing businesses and for new businesses to upload their video files without constraints and for health, for education and for all of us to operate in a more secure Internet system.

Debate interrupted.