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

I rise to continue my remarks on the address-in-reply and, in doing so, I also put on the record my congratulations to Ms Julie Collins, the re-elected member for Franklin, on her elevation to parliamentary secretary. I would also like to take the opportunity to congratulate Senator Sherry on his ministerial appointment.

I want to speak today about the importance of the National Broadband Network and what it means to my home state of Tasmania. When the rollout was commenced in Tasmania as the pilot for this innovation, it was well received by the Tasmanian community. That was quite clear both during the election campaign and in the lead-up to it. It was one of the outstanding things that happened in Tasmania, particularly for the town of Scottsdale in the north-east of Tasmania, which has suffered from downturns in manufacturing and in the vegetable industry and has had to regroup. Scottsdale is a very strong community and so to be one of the pilots for this innovation was very well received within the community. People within the business community, people in health and people in tourism can all see the benefits that this will bring not only to the Tasmanian community but also to the Australian economy.

We have seen that those opposite have failed to have the vision for what can be achieved with this enormous investment in infrastructure. It will mean that those who live in rural and regional areas around the country will be brought into the same situation as those who live in our large cities who have access to much faster broadband. One of the challenges that rural and regional Australia face is being able to attract specialists. The NBN would open up a whole new world in terms of being able to provide first-class health care for all Australians.

Without this enabling technology, our standard of living in terms of education, health, economy and our way of life would not be the same. There is a simple choice to be made. I am not saying that the mining industry is not important, but an economy needs to be broad, rounded, advanced and creative. Does Australia wish to maintain and improve its standard of living, its healthcare system, its education system and its economy—which are comparable with many other countries in the world—or do we want to become another poor, impoverished third-world country relying on the export of non-renewable resources? That is the outcome that Australia will face if we do not implement this program. This is not alarmist; this is the reality. Why is the coalition unable to see this? Why are they being so timid? With their attitude, the overland telegraph would not have been completed in 1872. In fact, it would probably not even have been started. The attitude that what we have already is good enough was not part of Australia’s pioneering spirit and it should not be part of today’s vision.

The list of benefits of the NBN is limited only by a closed mind. This is the single largest investment in infrastructure made by an Australian government. It will be a key nation-building project, it will have a huge economic effect both directly with its construction and in the long term. It will literally transform our health and education systems, it will improve energy efficiency and it will connect our big cities and regional centres. The NBN has enormous support from within the community and from within our health, education and business sectors.

I would also like to talk about the issues of upload and download capacity and the potential it creates, security of information and the benefits that will accrue with Telstra’s involvement. Before I speak on these issues, I would like to make a few general observations. Andrew Conner, from Digital Tasmania has said that scrapping of the NBN at this stage would be a backward move. He said:

They’re calling it risky and reckless—

That is, the opposition—

… fibre technology has been used for 30 years in telecommunications and now it’s ready for the home … And as for reckless, the Telco sector and competition has just failed over the last 20 years in Australia and that is why the government needs to be put out this new infrastructure, that’s to get all customers up to the same level of service, not the patchwork of services we’ve got at the moment across the country.

I would also like to quote Darren Alexander, who is President of TASICT. He said:

… a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for Tasmania to be at the forefront of the new digital economy in Australia. This in itself has a myriad of opportunities for business and especially SMEs, which is over 96 per cent of Tasmania.

The vice-chairman of the UN broadband commission for digital development complimented Australia on its vision and ambition, saying that broadband infrastructure is critical for economic growth and competitiveness and that it would ensure efficient delivery of education, health and trade and business services. Isn’t this something that all Australians should be able to expect? I say yes; and the NBN is a vehicle for us to go forward.

Talking about upload and download speeds, there are three questions that need to be asked and answered: who would want to upload videos; why would they want to upload videos; and who would benefit? In the media they are talking about downloading big files—for example, in schools for lectures, or in hospitals for remote diagnosis of patients’ conditions. The other side of the coin is the ability to upload big files—in particular, video files. Did you know that 12 hours of video is uploaded to YouTube every minute, mostly in North America?

Google Maps is a concept developed not in New York or in Silicon Valley but in Australia. Mr Rasmussen, who cofounded Google Maps, said:

The Web means that it doesn’t matter where you are. … you can live here in Australia and build products for the world …

According to Tony Barnett, the director of rural health at the University of Tasmania, e-health services could revolutionise healthcare provision in Tasmania’s rural areas. He said:

The federal government has done a terrific job and Tasmania has been fortunate to be in the front running in terms of trials.

A pharmacist in Scottsdale—as I said, one of the pilot towns, one of the three initial centres in Tasmania that have come online with the NBN—said on the ABC:

This will make our business so much more efficient—enhance our professional development abilities, improve our education services to our customers—but with these upload and download speeds it is difficult to imagine the huge changes that will occur in five or 10 years time.

That is someone in the field who recognises the importance of upload and download speeds.

Google rates websites so that the websites that are viewed for the longest time and most frequently are at the top of the ratings. Online videos on a website positively influence both those considerations. We know that the average internet user watches 263 hours of videos per year over the internet, the equivalent of about six working weeks. Given that more than half the tourist operators in Tasmania are not online, imagine the benefits to this important Tasmanian industry. Regular uploading and downloading of video material is just not possible for many businesses in Tasmania. If videos were added to a website and users stayed on to watch the video, the website would move up in the Google search results, becoming more accessible and improving business opportunities.

The food and wine industries could be transformed. Videos showing Tasmanian food and wine being used to prepare meals could be readily available around the world. Regular updating would create new and repeat business. Competition for these products is worldwide, not only in our backyard. Farmers, who operate another important industry for Tasmania, would benefit by being able to electronically track livestock and/or monitor their crops.

Made in Tasmania is a book written exclusively to promote handmade products in Tasmania, products that can be shipped internationally. Entrepreneurs create jobs. A seed business may have videos about germinating seeds and other gardening tips. The prospects for internet based businesses are endless. A shoemaker could show how she makes her shoes. People looking for handmade goods are often patrons of the arts and want to know more about the artists and see them at work, even if they cannot be there. This is creating new and repeat business.

I have barely touched on the education and health benefits. Hospital networks are introducing their own systems to facilitate distant consultation, examination and diagnosis. Living in a remote or rural location does not need to equate to having poor access to essential services. These services should be available to all Australians. For instance, interactive health promotion programs can be available to everyone. We have been told just this week in a review commissioned by Catholic Health Australia:

We’ve provided evidence in this report that completing school better predicts if you are likely to die of cardiovascular disease, than cholesterol levels, blood pressure, and smoking combined.

The study found that those in the lowest socioeconomic group die three years earlier than the rest of the nation. The ways that the NBN can assist to resolve these issues are numerous.

One of my staff members has done a lot of voluntary work in South America. One of the surprises of his travel was how available and quick the internet was there, certainly as good as in Launceston, where I am based. We are talking about poor countries where between 20 per cent and 80 per cent of the population live below the UN poverty line—that is, on less than US$2 a day. Despite that, these countries have been recognising the enabling potential of this technology. And we are sitting here debating whether we need it or not.

The NBN will be used for entertainment. So what? The fact that every individual use may not have the same beneficial outcomes is not a reason to deny all the other benefits. If we talk about security, wireless systems are inherently less secure than wired systems. This does not mean that your household wi-fi will necessarily be broken into. I am talking about wi-fi used by the public at airports, restaurants and hotels, the wi-fi systems currently in use for regional Tasmania and proposed by the opposition in lieu of the NBN. Public wi-fi systems are inherently less secure than wired systems. Why would the opposition advocate a system with inherent insecurity?

The agreement between the NBN Co. and Telstra further enhances the viability of the project. There are huge benefits. The use of the Telstra infrastructure will eliminate the possibility of duplication of infrastructure, with significantly less disruptive trenching and laying of conduits. The progressive migration of customers from Telstra copper and pay TV cable networks to the new wholesale-only fibre network to be built and operated by the NBN Co. will be an orderly transition for Telstra customers. There will be significant benefits to taxpayers: savings and faster construction and take-up rates.

In the long-term, full structural separation will be achieved when Telstra migrates its customers to the wholesale-only NBN and decommissions its copper network. In the future, Telstra and other retail services will have access to a single, wholesale-only network offering access on open and equivalent terms as enshrined in the legislation and overseen by the ACCC. The NBN will create and maintain thousands of jobs as well as creating opportunities for local contractors. As the ACTU Secretary, Jeff Lawrence, said:

This deal … is a major step forward. It means everyone working in our communications industry and particularly Telstra employees can have greater confidence and job security.

These benefits are real. The cost of not bringing the NBN to Australia will be missed opportunities for creative talent, existing businesses and new businesses to upload their video files without constraints; improvements in health and education; and all of us to operate in a more secure internet system. Moreover, since this is a methodical process, planning cooperation with existing telecommunications providers will save money where possible and put a force of skilled workers on the job.

Maybe those opposite should open their minds and listen for a while so that they can understand more about the endless list of benefits of the NBN. They might then concur that the benefits for decades to come will outweigh the costs and keep our economy vibrant and growing in ways that we currently see and in ways that we cannot even imagine. Maybe in this one instance those opposite should join with the government and support us in a constructive way to bring in the NBN so that the Australian community and the internet can be brought into the 21st century.

I could go on about the other problems that, as I said at the outset of this speech, this government is tackling, including homelessness. Then there are the improvements in aged care and the huge investment in infrastructure. I very proudly indeed mention the Building the Education Revolution and the very positive effects that that had on not only the schools but the communities in my home state. It did not matter whether you went to a private school, a Catholic school or a public school. I can assure those within the chamber and those reading Hansard in the future that in Tasmania—and I speak from some experience, as I visited a large number of schools both during the building of the projects and at their openings—we got extremely good value for the money that was injected. And that money was decades and decades overdue.

I commend the Gillard Labor government and its ambitious programs for the next three years. I am very proud to have been returned to the Senate to work with my colleagues. I would also like to put on the public record my thanks to all candidates from all political parties and to Independents who put their hands up to run in our great democracy. I also put on the record my personal thanks to those in Tasmania who supported me and my family. I look forward to working in this chamber both with those on the crossbenches and with the opposition to bring about a much stronger and more vibrant Australian community.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to rise today to make my contribution to the address-in-reply to Her Excellency the Governor-General’s speech given at the opening of the 43rd Parliament. The opening of the 43rd Parliament signals a new era in Australian politics. On 21 August 2010, the Australian people delivered a hung parliament, a result we have not seen in 70 years. Indeed, the opening of the 43rd Parliament, whilst being historic because of the makeup of the new parliament, was also historic for a number of other reasons. For the first time in Australia’s history, the opening of the parliament was conducted by the first female Governor-General in our country’s history. And, as Her Excellency Quentin Bryce made mention of on Tuesday, it was also a historic opening of parliament because Australia’s first female Governor-General opened the parliament led by Australia’s first female Prime Minister. It was particularly pleasing to note that on this occasion we not only had a female Governor-General and a female Prime Minister but a female Clerk of the Senate—a fine sight indeed.

As we entered this new era of minority government we also had a number of other historic events occurring at the opening of the 43rd Parliament. We have the first Indigenous member of the other place, with Mr Ken Wyatt elected to the seat of Hasluck. We also have the first person of Muslim faith elected to parliament, with Mr Ed Husic being sworn in as the member for Chifley. We also have Mr Wyatt Roy, who—in being elected as the member for Longman—is the youngest person ever elected to the Australian parliament. Every time these historic firsts occur, we see our parliament become more inclusive, more representative and more reflective of our society.

In August, when the Australian people delivered a hung parliament, it presented us with an opportunity for this new parliament, the 43rd Parliament, to be built upon an effort of renewed cooperation. The Australian people have made their wishes clear; they have exercised their democratic right. It is now our job to make this parliament work. It is now the responsibility of every member in this place and the other place to ensure we deliver stable and effective government for the people of Australia.

As the Governor-General outlined, the government will quickly implement new measures to enhance the dignity and effectiveness of this legislature, including a more effective question time, a stronger committee system and greater scope for private members’ bills. The government will also deliver the creation of the Parliamentary Budget Office and the new Parliamentary Integrity Commissioner, as well as other better government improvements, including open and accountable government improvements, further steps on improving the democratic operation of the parliament, electoral funding improvements and truth in political advertising improvements. It will also deliver many other changes to the way business is conducted in the other place. It is hoped that these parliamentary reforms will help to increase the robust nature of our parliament, not just during this term but also as we move into the future—although it is disappointing that those opposite have already walked away from one aspect of the reform agreement by refusing to pair the Speaker.

I am pleased that Ms Gillard was able to reach an agreement to receive support from the Independents so that she would be able to continue in her capacity as the Prime Minister of Australia and so that the Australian Labor Party would continue to govern the country.

Shortly after coming to office, we faced the greatest economic downtown in 70 years. The Labor government acted quickly by implementing a range of short-, medium- and long-term stimulus measures to cushion the Australian economy from the worst effects of the global recession. At a time when the economies of many G20 countries were suffering from the global financial crisis, the Australian economy, under the support of our stimulus measures, was performing remarkably well in comparison. Our stimulus measures provided short-term investment to immediately support our economy. We also made significant investment in infrastructure as part of our stimulus package to deliver a longer term effect on the Australian economy as well as to provide a boost to vital infrastructure and to increase productivity.

The success of these measures can be seen through the relatively low impact the global financial crisis had on our economy. Our unemployment remained at relatively low levels and our economy was one of the very few advanced economies not to fall into recession. We have managed to keep unemployment below six per cent, and recently we saw some more encouraging news with the unemployment rate dipping to 5.1 per cent. These figures showed that over 53,000 full-time jobs were created in August. In fact, as the Treasurer highlighted, of the 349,000 jobs created in the last 12 months, over three quarters have been full-time positions. The Treasurer recently also made mention of the fact that we have created over 560,000 jobs since coming to office in November 2007. As we move forward into our second term the government has maintained our fiscally responsible spending caps in upcoming budgets and also made significant savings measures to ensure that we return the budget to surplus in 2012-13, three years ahead of schedule.

The government will also look to increase productivity and deliver growth to the Australian economy through a number of other significant economic reforms. During this term we also plan to advance our mineral resource rent tax into legislation by undertaking close consultations with the industry and members of the parliament. We will also hold a tax summit by the middle of next year to re-examine the Henry tax review and wider tax reform.

In this term of government we will begin to implement our commitment to increase the rate of superannuation guarantee from nine per cent to 12 per cent. This will give workers access to greater levels of savings when they choose to retire, providing them with greater financial security whilst also reducing the pressure placed on the government’s age pension.

To help drive Australia’s economy in the future the government has begun to deliver Australia’s largest ever infrastructure project—the $43 billion National Broadband Network, which will connect over 90 per cent of Australian homes and businesses to broadband speeds of up to one gigabyte per second. As we have already announced, the remaining premises will be connected via state-of-the-art wireless and satellite technologies. For too long Australia has lagged behind the world in terms of broadband penetration and speeds. We cannot continue to operate like this. That is why we are building the National Broadband Network. The NBN will offer opportunities for Australian businesses to capitalise on the digital revolution to help drive productivity and increase growth. The NBN will also become vitally important in the progression of e-health and the delivery of new-age digital education.

Already in my home state of Tasmania we have begun rolling out the NBN. The most recent announcement of the NBN rollout was stage 3. This is a $100 million investment in Tasmania which will connect 90,000 premises in Hobart, Launceston, Devonport and Burnie. This is on top of the already announced stage 1 and 2 rollouts in Tasmania, where the residents of Smithton, Scottsdale, Midway Point, Sorell, Deloraine, George Town, St Helens, Triabunna, Kingston Beach and South Hobart will be the first in the state to benefit from increased broadband speeds of the fibre-to-premises rollout. Indeed, services have already been delivered in a number of these towns, and the Prime Minister and the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy visited Tasmania to switch on the first customer to the NBN.

The NBN is receiving strong support from a range of organisations, including the Tourism Industry Council Tasmania, the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association, the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Tasmanian Small Business Council, who see the benefits of the National Broadband Network in Tasmania. I look forward to the continued rollout of the NBN, not only in Tasmania but also around the rest of the country, as it will support 25,000 jobs over its eight-year construction life.

Our nation-building agenda does not stop with the NBN. We have set about implementing the largest school modernisation program in our country’s history—the Building the Education Revolution program—which will provide our children with the best environment in which to learn, and will support local jobs and local communities. The BER program has delivered the refurbishment of school classrooms and school grounds as well as the construction of new school halls, libraries, science laboratories and classrooms. In fact, the BER program is a $15 billion program delivering 24,000 projects in 9,500 schools around Australia.

We have initiated the process of establishing a national curriculum to ensure that all students are learning from the same course and achieving the best learning outcomes possible. For the first time, some 80,000 students who move interstate each year will not have to learn a new curriculum. A draft curriculum has been developed by experts and has been trialled around the country by 150 schools in the hope of implementing the new nationwide curriculum next year.

As we look to the future, with a Prime Minister who is so passionately committed to education, the Labor government still has a number of significant education reforms to implement as part of this term of government. We will look to empower local school principals and communities to make decisions on how to deliver the best quality and effectiveness at their schools. We will recognise and reward schools who improve their attendance and student performance and we will also identify and reward the very best classroom teachers through a national system of performance. The Labor government will continue to construct trade training centres, which are extremely effective and well received in local communities.

The government is also implementing a range of social policy initiatives to help parents with cost of living expenses. We have delivered three lots of income tax cuts targeted at low- and middle-income earners. The childcare rebate has been increased by the Labor government from 30 per cent to 50 per cent. Also, the government’s Paid Parental Leave scheme—a reform measure close to my heart—will commence on the 1 January 2011. This is a historic scheme which indeed has been a long time coming. This scheme is a big win for women and men on low incomes because for the first time eligible women will receive 18 weeks of paid parental leave at the federal minimum wage. Around 30,000 working families on incomes of less than $50,000 are expected to benefit from our Paid Parental Leave scheme.

During the election campaign, we had some more pleasing news in relation to this policy, with the Prime Minister announcing that from 1 July 2012, eligible fathers will receive a fortnight’s paternity leave at the federal minimum wage. This will give many dads who would normally not get the opportunity for paid leave, the chance to spend quality time with their new born child. We have waited too long for this scheme and I am pleased that a Labor government has implemented this important reform.

Also announced as part of our election commitments, the government will extend the education tax refund to cover the cost of school uniforms. And, finally, we will increase family support payments by up to $4,000 a year for teenagers who are in enrolled in school or vocational training.

The Australian government has taken a leading role in the campaign to reduce violence against women. We established a National Council to Reduce Violence Against Women and their Children. The council’s task was to provide advice on the development of an evidence based national plan. In April 2009 the council formally presented the government with five documents and in response the government has delivered a number of funding initiatives to support the prevention of violence against women. The government also actively marked the annual White Ribbon Day—the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women each November.

As part of the government’s 10-year national disability strategy we have asked the Productivity Commission to examine a range of options and consider whether a no-fault social insurance approach to disability is appropriate for Australia. The Productivity Commission inquiry is an important opportunity for us to examine how we support people with a disability and their families and carers.

Also, this term will see the government roll out its historic health and hospital reform package. The package agreed upon with the states, except WA, earlier this year will deliver some of the most significant changes to the Australian health system since the introduction of Medicare.

As part of our health reforms we will end the blame game between the states and the Commonwealth by establishing a single unified National Health and Hospitals Network. This will deliver better health services and better hospitals for all Australians. Whilst the Commonwealth government will take a majority funding responsibility for public hospitals, hospitals will be run locally and will have to meet national standards whilst also publishing accurate local performance reports.

The historic new reforms will deliver more doctors and nurses, expand the GP superclinic rollout, deliver more subacute hospital beds, cap emergency department waiting times and provide GP after-hours hotlines so people can receive health advice on weekends or late at night. We will increase elective surgery places to ensure that more elective surgery procedures are delivered on time. We will deliver an increase in aged-care places.

As agreed upon at COAG, we will implement Australia’s largest ever preventative health strategy and implement an e-health record system to make it easier for doctors to track a patient’s medical history so they can provide the very best possible medical care. We will also be instigating a mental health package to tackle the increased rates of suicide in society.

We have asked the Productivity Commission to investigate and develop options for how the aged-care sector might be reformed to meet the needs of the population. The commission is due to release its draft report in December 2010 and to present its final report to government in April 2011. The Prime Minister has nominated aged care as a priority for reform in the second term of the Gillard government. As someone who has a strong interest in this area, I look forward to working with the Prime Minister and the new Minister for Ageing, Mr Mark Butler, on this after the government receives the Productivity Commission’s report and the consultations that will flow from that report. If the government and all members of the sector do not grab this chance for reform in the aged-care sector, then it could be years before we get another opportunity. The government sees the delivery of the Productivity Commission report as the beginning of serious reform effort.

The government is also intent on developing a more inclusive society as part of our next term agenda. Around five per cent of working-age citizens experience multiple forms of disadvantage. Our second term in government will focus on ensuring that as the economy grows we will overcome entrenched disadvantage so that fewer people are left behind.

The Labor Party has always accepted the science that climate change is real and that action needs to be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We have introduced a range of measures focussed on renewable energy and measures to tackle climate change, including the expansion of the renewable energy target by four times, to 20 per cent. This means the equivalent of all household electricity will come from clean, renewable sources like wind and solar.

We have made a significant investment in renewable energy technology—the largest ever investment in renewable energy—and we will see the development of wind, solar, geothermal and other clean energy sources. This will help to ensure that Australia invests in the industries of the future, like renewable energy, and in jobs using new technologies, creating new areas of investment and the market for new low-pollution jobs. We have invested in clean coal to develop world-leading carbon capture and storage technology. We have also committed support for energy efficiency measures to help households and businesses cut their energy bills and reduce their emissions.

We have announced the formation of the new Climate Change Committee. The Climate Change Committee will be chaired by the Prime Minister. Other members will include the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Wayne Swan; the Minister for Climate Change, Mr Greg Combet, who will serve as deputy chair of the committee; Australian Greens leader, Senator Bob Brown; and Australian Greens deputy leader, Senator Christine Milne, who will serve as co-deputy chair. I understand that Mr Tony Windsor is keen to join the committee and the government has invited the coalition to provide two representatives for the committee. The committee will also be made up of four independent experts—Professor Ross Garnaut, Professor Will Steffen, Mr Rod Sims and Ms Patricia Faulkner—as well as receiving support from a secretaries’ group, comprising the secretaries of departments involved in implementing climate change policy. I look forward to all members of the Climate Change Committee working constructively and effectively together, working out the best way to take action on climate change.

Over the previous decade under the watch of the Howard government we saw the nation’s infrastructure suffer from severe underinvestment. Upon entering office the Labor government immediately set about rectifying this situation by investing in the infrastructure Australia needs. By doing so we began to tackle the infrastructure bottlenecks which had developed and which were significantly affecting our nation’s productivity. Under our nation-building infrastructure plan we set about upgrading the nation’s roads, rail and port infrastructure, with significant investment right around Australia. Investment in infrastructure will continue in our second term.

We will also deliver a renewed focus on regional Australia’s infrastructure needs. Already, 60 per cent of the government’s nation-building infrastructure funding has been allocated to regional Australia. We have also announced the $6 billion Regional Infrastructure Fund which will also be allocated to regional Australia, significantly increasing the funding available to regional Australia. Building upon these measures we will also have a regional priorities round, worth up to $500 million, from the Education Investment Fund, which regional universities and TAFEs will have access to.

As we move to our second term, I look forward to being a member of the Labor government, a government which has clear policy objectives to improve our country and the lives of the people who live here. It will not be easy—the new minority government paradigm presents us with a new set of tasks—but I am hopeful that in this new era of cooperative government those opposite will not become a political wrecking ball. We need to work together to deliver stable and effective government. The parliament we are faced with is the will of the people, and it is our responsibility to make it work for their benefit.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to make some remarks in reply to the address given by Her Excellency the Governor-General. The other day when I was listening to the speech that she presented here in the chamber I had this feeling that we were heading down to some sort of nirvana land of political perfection—if you actually believed all the things that were in the speech. One of the things in this new world that we seem to have, with the ‘new paradigm’—as my colleague Senator Moore said yesterday that she was not going to mention it again, that is the one and only time I am going to use the P-word—is the government’s renewed focus, or even new focus, I would call it, on regional Australia. Interestingly, a lot of the people out there that I have been speaking to do not really believe that the government is genuine in its view of regional Australia which has suddenly come tipping to the fore. They are looking at it more as an expression of political expediency rather than as any great, long-term, genuine interest in regional Australia, and that is something I will perhaps explore a little further as we go along.

One area in which there has been a particular lack from this government is regional education. I looked through the Governor-General’s speech in quite a lot of detail, and not once did she use the phrase ‘regional students’—not once. This is from a government that has been telling the Australian people for quite some time that there was going to be an education revolution. I do not see how you can have an education revolution without having regional students as a priority. This has been borne out in some of the government’s actions, and quite a number of the things that I will raise today go to the heart of the fact that the government is not genuine in its belief in the future of regional Australia.

The government certainly do not understand regional students’ needs. You only have to look at the issue of the changes to the independent youth allowance that the government made to realise that they have no understanding whatsoever of the needs of regional students. The changes that they made left thousands of regional students unable to access financial assistance through the independent youth allowance—and that, certainly to this side of the chamber and, I know, to many people across our regional communities, was simply appalling. What the government have done is use some lines on a map to preclude thousands of regional students from being able to access independent youth allowance. We have heard some stories about this. My very good friend and colleague Darren Chester, the member for Gippsland, raised with me the other day a situation in his electorate where there are two students living on either side of the same street: one student can access independent youth allowance; the other cannot. How fair is that? This is a matter of fairness and equity for regional students. If the government are so keen on and so concerned about having an education revolution, there has to be fairness and equity so that regional students are able to access tertiary education.

We know that around 55 per cent of metropolitan students go on to tertiary education, compared to only 33 per cent from regional areas. The evidence shows that that is due to the financial impediment for those students, who have no choice but to relocate to be able to attend a tertiary institution. That is simply appalling. That gap is too great. Now the situation has been made even worse by this Labor government, because it is taking away that avenue, taking away that option—taking away the ability of many of those regional students to access the funding they so desperately need to get a tertiary education.

The coalition have lodged in the House of Representatives a notice of motion calling on the government to reinstate the inner regional zones for eligibility for those students so that they can access independent youth allowance. It is only fair and equitable that we do that. The Prime Minister, when she was the Minister for Education, was responsible for that change. Perhaps she did not realise it was going to have the effect that it did, but she should now realise that it has had an enormous impact on these regional students and she should show leadership and move to fix it—because it is not fair on these students that their pathway should be cut so dramatically by this Labor government.

The government should rise to this challenge, admit their mistake, reverse the decision and include the inner regional areas. It is as simple as including a line in the legislation. It is not arduous. It does come with a financial cost, but that can come from the Education Investment Fund. So it is a simple and straightforward decision for the government to make, to turn around now and make sure that those students are treated fairly and equitably, if in fact they want to prove that they really are serious about making sure that regional education is sustainable.

Interestingly, the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee that I chaired held a very detailed inquiry into access to education for our regional students, both secondary and tertiary, last December. We came up with a series of recommendations that had been very thoroughly looked at right across the country. There has been not a word from the government, nothing, no response whatsoever in nine months to the recommendations that the committee, the bipartisan committee, put forward to the government. That does not say to me that this government is taking regional education very seriously at all. There has simply been no response whatsoever—not even a response we did not like; there has been nothing. There has been absolute silence from the government on the issue of the sustainability of regional education for those students. I think that is simply appalling.

One of the other areas that were raised in the Governor-General’s speech was water. Everybody in this chamber would know, or should know, that the Murray-Darling Basin plan guide is due to be released. It was due to be released in the middle of this year, but somehow or other it slipped off the agenda while we went through an election campaign—funny about that! Apparently, it had something to do with ‘caretaker mode’. However, there were a number of things that still went forward while the government was in caretaker mode, so there is a fair bit of scepticism about the fact that the plan did not come out when it was supposed to.

What we have now—and you will love this, colleagues—is that the plan is due to be released at four o’clock next Friday afternoon, in the middle of the school holidays and in the middle of the Commonwealth Games. If that is not a sign that the government is trying to bury the report, I do not know what is. I know that interested groups in the sector have written to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority pointing out the inappropriateness of having a release date of four o’clock next Friday afternoon. One would hope that perhaps it was an oversight. Perhaps I am being a little bit too harsh. Perhaps it was an oversight on behalf of the authority and they will move to release it on a far more appropriate date.

The government has absolutely no idea about the impact of removing water permanently from our regional communities. There has been precious little work done by this government on those socioeconomic impacts. That is neither fair nor appropriate for those people who live in those communities and, indeed, people right across Australia, who benefit from the production capacity of those regions. But, yet, the government has still, willy-nilly, gone down this course without having the appropriate work done. Fortunately, some groups have done some work on this and it really should alert the government to how important it is that we understand the impact that this removal of water is going to have. I simply do not believe that this government does understand that.

There was a report done recently by the Cotton Catchment Communities CRC looking at how the removal of water entitlements in the basin is going to affect basin communities. It was based on eight case studies across New South Wales and it found that a 10 per cent cut in water equates to 6,000 lost jobs, a 25 per cent cut in water equates to 14,000 lost jobs and a 50 per cent cut in water equates to 28,000 lost jobs. These are the types of scenarios that we are going to have to realise are going to occur if the government does not take steps, put measures in place and take the right decisions to ensure that these communities are not belted around the head like these figures show they are going to be. I was encouraged the other day to hear Minister Tony Burke point out that it actually is an issue, that we do have to look at what those social and economic impacts are going to be—talk about a long way down the track for somebody in the government to raise that as an issue, because this is the key issue. This is absolutely the key issue.

One of the things that are of great concern is the fact that the government ministers—previously we had Minister Wong; now we have Minister Burke—are seemingly abrogating their responsibility for the decisions that are going to be made about how this plan is going to work. That is not appropriate. It is not right for those ministers to abrogate their responsibility. The Australian people should be well aware that this is what they are doing. We heard Minister Wong, when she was in the role, saying that she would accept the Murray-Darling Basin Authority’s plan. We have subsequently heard from Minister Burke that he is also going to accept the plan from the authority. I will just take the chamber back to the act itself, the Water Act 2007, which states:

(3) Within 30 days after the Authority gives the Minister a version of the Basin Plan under subsection (2), the Minister:

(a) must consider that version of the Basin Plan and the views given to the Minister under subsection (2); and

(b) must either:

(i) adopt, in writing, that version of the Basin Plan; or

(ii) direct the Authority, in writing, to make modifications to that version of the Basin Plan and give it to the Minister for adoption.

The minister has the power here to look at that basin plan and determine whether or not it is appropriate. I think it is entirely wrong to make that decision even before the plan is public. Apparently the ministers have not seen the plan. Maybe they have—who knows? Maybe that is why they are abrogating their responsibility now. One would hope that if they had seen it they would have let the Australian people see it at the same time. But for the ministers to say they are simply going to accept what we will assume at this stage is a sight unseen plan is absolutely abrogating their responsibility to the Australian people. The Australian people, particularly in those regional communities, should be horrified that a minister is going to accept, sight unseen, a plan that is probably going to be one of the key things that has happened in this country for decades. It is going to affect not only those water users and not only those irrigators but whole communities. Remember, irrigators tend to get a pretty hard time out of this. So many of those irrigators live in communities that were put there by government policy. And now government policy is potentially going to tell them, ‘Sorry, we are just going to take your livelihood away.’

Around all that, for the minister to say, ‘Hands off. I’ll leave it up to the authority; I’m not going to have a view on this,’ is absolutely appalling to me. I hope that the Labor Party has not tied the hands of Minister Burke and I hope that he will reverse his decision. Again, maybe I was taking him out of context; I will give him the benefit of the doubt. But I hope he will reverse his decision to accept this plan, sight unseen, after doing absolutely nothing to properly evaluate this plan and without the proper social and economic work being done around it.

The government talk about their support for regional Australia. Let me just run through a few of the things the government have done with regard to regional Australia since they came into government which, to me, have absolutely been in contrast to this new-found professed support for regional Australia. They abolished Land and Water Australia, $12 million was cut out of the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, $63 was million taken out of the CSIRO, $22 million was cut out of Farm Help, $42 billion was taken out of the budget from renewable remote power generation and $2 billion was taken from the Telecommunications Fund, which was specifically set up to support telecommunications delivery in regional communities. What did the government do? Snap, bang, gone! That is how much they care about regional communities, and the Australian people should be well aware that what they say about their support for regional communities is completely in contrast to what they do. They need to understand that very clearly. Do not believe the slick words. Do not believe what they say. Do not listen to what they say; look at what they do.

The one thing that really stands out amongst the myriad things being discussed at the moment is the potential carbon tax and the backflip from this government that had promised us before the election that there would not be one. Indeed, Wayne Swan said:

... what we rejected is this hysterical allegation that somehow we are moving towards a carbon tax ...

The Prime Minister said:

There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.

That went out the window, didn’t it? It absolutely disappeared. How the Australian people can believe anything this Prime Minister and this Labor government say is beyond me.

The carbon tax is going to have a huge impact on this country and on our economy, and there are two key things that the Australian people need to be very, very aware of: it is going to be a massive new tax and it is not going to make the slightest bit of difference to the climate. What do we see now? The government set up their climate change committee with all sorts of hype and hoopla and bells and whistles. What sort of a committee is it that gets set up and only lets people on it that agree to a predetermined outcome? What sort of inquiry can you have if the door is open only for people who want to walk through and sign up and say, ‘Whatever you come up with at the end, yes, I will be agreeing with that because I am on board with all of this’? How stupid is that?

What the government should be doing is just moving towards it. Why do they need the smoke and mirrors of some inquiry, some committee that is going to be set up to look at all of this, when those members who join it have to actually believe what the outcome is in the first place? That is not true representation of the people if that is what the government is trying to do, not by any stretch of the imagination. I want to quote my very good friend and colleague Senator Boswell, who said in this place yesterday:

Australians need to understand that all that the imposition of a carbon tax in Australia, ahead of action by others, will do is destroy our economy by destroying our competitiveness while having absolutely nil effect on global climate.

He is absolutely spot-on. How on earth is a massive new tax going to cool the globe? And my very good friend and colleague sitting here in front of me, Senator Joyce, said:

If taxes were going to cool the climate, this place would be freezing.

That is absolutely true. It is a nonsense. It is a furphy to try to sell to the Australian people the idea that the carbon tax is going to bring down the temperature of the globe. Even if we reduced our greenhouse gas emissions to zero, it would have nil effect on the temperature and climate. And to watch the Australian people being led down this path again by this Labor government is such a significant concern to those of us on this side of the chamber.

How on earth can we believe anything that the government say? You only have to look at their track record and the broken promises down the path during the last period that they were in government. At least they broke those promises halfway through; now we have the Prime Minister actually telling us that she is about to break her promises. This is a whole new concept in government. She did say this about the carbon tax—and I will quote an article from the Age:

Julia Gillard has declared that climate change and some other election promises will not be kept to the letter by her minority government—and ‘people are going to have to get used to it’.

If she could not form a government that was going to be able to deliver on the promises that she made to the Australian people, then perhaps she should not have formed a government in the first place. The Australian people voted for the Prime Minister because they believed her promises. They believed that she would at least embark on the path of trying to implement what she promised, putting in place for the Australian people those things that she promised them. We now have a Prime Minister telling the Australian people within weeks, ‘Forget about that. Those promises—forget those—we are not going to keep them.’ The Australian people have every right to be extremely concerned, very disappointed and very, very sceptical when it comes to this Labor government and what they will deliver. (Time expired)

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to rise in this chamber and provide my contribution to the Governor-General’s address-in-reply and to be a participant in the opening of the 43rd Parliament in this place in Canberra. There is no doubt it was a most significant event we witnessed on Tuesday, significant for a whole range of reasons. Many people, in their speeches previously, have already commented on the significance of having not only a female Governor-General opening the 43rd Parliament but also the presence of a female Prime Minister. For many of us, I think, who have stood back and supported women getting into politics and into senior positions in this country, it was quite an inspiring day and should lead to a lot of young women in this country truly taking that as a message of inspiration and opportunity.

The 43rd Parliament is also significant in that we have seen elected to the House of Representatives for the first time an Indigenous person of this country. I want to acknowledge his election to the House of Representatives and congratulate Ken Wyatt on being able to achieve that significant goal. We have also seen the first Muslim elected to the Australian parliament in Mr Ed Husic. I think that truly demonstrates that, due to a democratic election in this country, this parliament is able to have representation that does reflect what is happening out there in the broader community.

I want to also acknowledge that for the second time we have had a Welcome to Country ceremony at the opening of parliament, and this time it has become part of the institution of opening the parliament. The terrific ceremony we witnessed and were participants in in the forecourt on Tuesday acknowledges that as a country we have come some considerable way to recognising the role that the first Australians and Indigenous people play. They were the first inhabitants of this country, and no doubt even of the land we are standing on, and we now have at least the manners and the foresight to recognise that as part of the significant beginning of each and every parliament.

I do note also that, as part of the agreement in this parliament, recognition of country will be stated each morning in the House of Representatives. Some of us are asking why that has not been the case in the Senate. Some of us on this side are asking—and, hopefully, the opposition will also take up the call—to have that recognition of country in the Senate each morning as well as in the House of Representatives. Let us hope we can achieve that and that when the new Senate begins on 1 July next year it becomes part and parcel of our everyday life here in the Senate each morning as well.

I do want to turn to my own election. As people would be aware, territorians have the opportunity to be elected to this chamber every three years, not every six years, so senators from the ACT and the Northern Territory go up for election each and every time the House of Representatives goes up. I was re-elected to the Senate and I want to place on the record how honoured I still continue to be to have been chosen by the people of the Northern Territory to represent them in this chamber. It is a humbling experience. It is a daunting experience sometimes when you have such a vast expanse of land to cover. Having 1.3 million square kilometres in the Northern Territory and only one per cent of the population presents some challenges from time to time, but it is certainly a very humbling experience.

It was my fifth federal election and on Tuesday I was sworn in in this parliament for the sixth time. Last night I was calculating with Kate, my 14-year-old, that, after 4,486 days, as of today I am now the longest serving senator from the Territory. That is something I am significantly proud of. I want to take this opportunity to formally thank my family for their support again not only during the election campaign but during the past three years. I also want to thank the members of the party and supporters of the party in the Northern Territory. You do not get to be in a place like this unless you have a huge, competent and energetic team committed to not only the Labor Party but getting you here. You do rely on them enormously during the election campaign. I also want to thank the voters of the Northern Territory, who have shown their confidence in me again.

I want to formally place on the record my congratulations to Senator Nigel Scullion on his re-election. I acknowledge as well that voters in the Northern Territory place confidence in him to represent them. Although we do differ from time to time on many points of view, I think the address-in-reply debate is a time to formally acknowledge his election to the Senate as well.

So, as I said, Tuesday, for me, was still a very significant day. I had the honour of being joined by a very close friend of mine who I have known since primary school, Anne Lindhe. She is here today as well in the gallery. It has been a great week spending time with her and her son, Tristan, here in Canberra. I want to acknowledge as well her friendship over decades. I will not hint at how old that actually makes us. We will not go there at all.

Let me now turn to the federal election. I want to make some comments about the way in which the election is conducted in this country, particularly when you come to an expansive part of the country like the Northern Territory. I want to place on the record the way in which the Australian Electoral Commission go about their business. It is true that this country has the best democratic system and it is true that we have the best electoral commission in the world. When you look at the way in which our elections are conducted, the role of the AEC and the way in which they are eminently competent, we are head and shoulders above anywhere else in the world, I believe, but we will not stay the best in the world if we do not continually revise and reflect on the way in which elections are conducted. It is a bit like an action research project.

I think there are some things we can do to improve the participation of people when it comes to regional and remote Australia. Covering a place like the Northern Territory is not an easy task. Not only are there six regional towns but there are many hundreds of communities with populations of 500, 25 or 3,000. The Electoral Commission undertakes vast work to ensure that in the lead-up to polling day a polling booth goes into each and every community, homeland and place it can imagine where people may live. In fact, two weeks before the polling day 22 mobile polling booths start going around the Territory.

I notice that in the Northern Territory we have a significant number of people who are not on the roll. In fact, I think around 35,000 people in the Territory were not enrolled to vote but could have been, if you look at the ABS statistics. I notice in a briefing paper from the Parliamentary Library that at the time of the 2007 federal election more than 1.1 million people who were eligible did not enrol to vote and then as a result we have had nearly 2.3 million Australians not fully participating in the election despite being entitled to do so. So you have people who are not getting on the roll and those on the roll not getting a chance to vote.

I know the Electoral Commission in the Territory use innovative ways to get people on the roll. They go to sporting events in communities and they go to festivals and have stalls at the Big Day Out and Bass in the Grass. So they are doing the best they can, but I think it is time this nation came up with a more innovative way to get people on the roll. I think we need to link that to a Medicare card, so that if you have a Medicare card in this country or you are a Centrelink recipient you also have to be on the roll. Perhaps we do not issue drivers licences to people unless they are on the electoral roll as well. We have to do something to encourage, or even mandate, people to be on the electoral roll in this country. It is part and parcel of what we need to do to keep our democracy precious and alive.

Then of course we can go to the issue of voter turnout and have a look at the number of people who actually turned out to vote in the Territory. In the electorate of Solomon 90 per cent of people turned out to vote. Solomon takes in Darwin and Palmerston—it is an urban electorate. So a 90 per cent turnout is probably not that good, but at least it is an improvement on Lingiari. Lingiari is the electorate that takes up the rest of the Northern Territory. There we had a voter turnout of only 76 per cent. I think that is appallingly bad. I think the turnout was so low that it is time to rethink the way in which we conduct our mobile polling. I think we have got to the stage where we need to actually start to trial some static mobile booths in some of the largest communities. I mentioned this to the AEC on the day of the declaration of the ballot. I think that in large communities like Yuendumu, Maningrida, possibly Wadeye and even on the Tiwi Islands it is time to trial a static pre-poll booth so that you have a chance to go to that booth and vote on the Wednesday, Thursday or Friday before polling day.

At the moment the system is that we fly into a community and we are there for one day. If you do not happen to be in that community on that day then you do not get a chance to vote. So, logistically, if you are at Milingimbi one day and the polling booth is 500 kilometres west of you and then the next day it goes to Milingimbi but you go to the other community then you have missed out on your chance to vote. I think the low turnout is not because people do not want to vote. I do not think people do not come to the polls as a sign of protest; I think they do not come to the polls to vote because we just do not have them out there for a long enough period of time. It is a submission I will be making to the Joint Committee on Electoral Matters when it is reconvened and it is also a proposal that I will send directly to the AEC and ask them to consider for the next federal election. Hopefully, we will be able to get more Indigenous people not only on the roll but also voting. I think that will mean a better democratic system for us.

I want to turn to some of the issues that we encountered during the election campaign. Of course I want to focus on the Indigenous issues. I think it was very disappointing that we did not see any policy come out from the coalition until a couple of days after people had started voting. Jenny Macklin, our Indigenous affairs minister, made a watershed speech on 17 July and another speech on 9 August at the Garma Festival at Gulkula in north-east Arnhem land. So there were two clear signals, two clear road maps, for Indigenous people to pick up and say, ‘If I am going to vote for the Labor Party then this is what it means.’

I was very saddened and very disappointed to find out that the coalition could not produce their policy until a couple of days after the mobile polls had started. Mobile polling started on 10 August. From memory, the coalition launched their policy on 12 or 13 August. I did have people out in some of those remote static polling booths ask me what was the difference between our policy and the coalition’s policy. I had to say to them, ‘I can’t tell you because I haven’t seen a coalition policy yet.’ So it is unfortunate that the coalition could not quite get its act together to have an Indigenous policy out there prior to when people started to vote. Perhaps it says a bit more about their intent and commitment to where they stand with that policy development work.

In our road maps we clearly laid out for Indigenous people three areas that we want to address. I think these are significant. If you look at the policies that we said we would introduce and if you look at our commitment to closing the gap and putting in place fundamental government structures to improve the lives of Indigenous people then you see that we want to do three things. First of all, we want to address the decades of underinvestment in services, infrastructure and governance. The second key area we want to address is working with the communities to rebuild the positive social and community norms that are so necessary for strong families and healthy communities. Thirdly, we want to strengthen the relations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. For me, it is a bit like a triangle: we cannot have one without the other two or the whole plan will collapse. So we look at addressing the underinvestment, we look at working with communities to strengthen and build healthy committees and at the same time we look at our relationship with Indigenous people.

Clearly we can look at the result of the vote in the Northern Territory. Warren Snowdon was re-elected. I place on record my congratulations to Warren. He works diligently for his constituents in Lingiari, and that was recognised again. I am really pleased that he has been reappointed to the ministry. But there is no doubt that people turned to another party during the election campaign—though not significantly enough to not get me or Warren re-elected. I might add that they did not vote for the coalition in turning to another party. They did, though, voice some objection to some of the ways in which they believed our policies were impacting on their lives. For us it is a good time to take stock and have a look at the way in which our policies are being communicated to people and the way in which we are interacting with people. If you do not do that after an election and if you do not take stock of where you are going then I think you start to lay out a pretty bad road map for the future. We do have good news stories happening in the Territory and communities that recognise where they are happening. Particularly in north-east Arnhem Land and around Katherine and some of the communities in Central Australia, there was a recognition of the work we have started in the 2½ years we have been in government and there was a recognition that we need to keep going.

I do not agree with Senator Ludlam’s assertion in this place during one of the debates yesterday that we lost all of the mobile polling booths south of Tennant Creek. That is not correct. If Senator Ludlam goes back and checks the record, he will see that that is not a correct statement—not at all, in fact. So there is still confidence in supporting the Labor Party from Indigenous people in the Northern Territory, and we now have a significant challenge in order to live up to that expectation. One of the things I do want to say is that there are two significant areas we have committed to in the coming term which I think are fairly exciting areas. There is a commitment of $20 million to try to break the cycle of substance abuse, to implement a national framework through COAG to deal with alcohol and substance abuse and try to break that cycle in Aboriginal communities. I think that is one area where we can work with Indigenous people, and Indigenous people are seeking some leadership, support and commitment from a federal government to do that.

The other significant area that I enthusiastically look forward to being part of is Indigenous constitutional recognition. There was an announcement during the election campaign that we would pursue bipartisan support for taking the steps needed to progress the recognition of Indigenous Australians in the Constitution. That is not going to be an easy process. I was here in the Senate with former senator Aden Ridgeway when we attempted previously to try to amend the Constitution to get Indigenous people recognised. Just agreeing on the format of words, on exactly how you would go about doing that, is a challenge in itself, let alone getting to the point where you actually get the Constitution amended. So it is a great idea and it is a terrific, visionary area of reform that we will embark on with Indigenous people, but I also think it is going to have its significant challenges. I look forward to the establishment of the expert panel on Indigenous constitutional recognition and the work that that panel can undertake and come up with. Let us hope that it is consensus driven enough to have some outcomes for Indigenous people.

In closing, I want to say that the coming three years provide an opportunity for us to work very closely with people in rural and regional Australia. I have not had time in this speech to talk about the agreement we have with some of the Independents about reforms in regional Australia. The elevation of Simon Crean into the cabinet as a minister for regional Australia will also have flow-on effects to people in the Northern Territory. I think some of the focus we will now see on people who live in the bush, in remote, rural and regional Australia, is a good thing for this country. I think it is going to benefit not only my constituents in the Northern Territory but also Indigenous Australians. (Time expired)

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to respond in this address-in-reply debate to the Governor-General’s speech. In the last three years there has been both bad news and good news for Australia. The bad news has been that, while we did not fully realise it at the time, the major world economies, including Australia’s, stood on the brink of an economic disaster, which was to unfold with full force during 2008 and became known as the global financial crisis. I am a Geelong supporter and a Geelong member so GFC has different connotations for me, and unfortunately we are having our own little crisis too. But I am talking now about the global financial crisis that turned out to be the greatest economic setback experienced by the global economy since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Very few leading economists forecast the speed or the extent of the world economic downturn. In fact, few could have expected the dire situation the world would face as we stood upon the virtual precipice of a systemic collapse of the world’s financial systems. However, through the concerted action of the major Western economies, the global economy was brought back from the brink of ruin and fortunately is recovering, although in a modest fashion. Neither the US nor Europe have yet to restore their economic health to the levels previously enjoyed. Indeed, many leading commentators remain pessimistic about the likely speed of economic recovery in the US and Europe. The US still has significant problems with high unemployment and high debt levels, and several European nations are by no means out of the woods yet. Closer to home, there was no doubt that at the time we faced the massive risk that our economy would be overwhelmed by overseas events. While our economy is strong, we are reliant to an extent on the health of nations such as China and India, who represent major export markets for us.

The good news for Australia has been that in November 2007 Australia elected a Labor government. This decision by the Australian people provided a government prepared to make the hard decisions. On 24 November 2007 Australians elected a government that knew what needed to be done to protect the jobs and livelihoods of millions of Australians. The Labor government was prepared to make the hard decisions. It was this Labor government that took decisive action to provide economic stimulus that kept thousands—and I mean thousands—of small businesses’ doors open. It was a stimulus that kept brickies, sparkies, plumbers, roof tilers and many more actively engaged, a stimulus that provided much sought after work to truck drivers, store persons and suppliers of building materials. It was a national building stimulus. Unfortunately, that lot opposite at every single turn opposed our stimulus packages, did not support one—none of you.

David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We voted for the first one.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You too, Senator Bushby from Tasmania, voted against it. It was a stimulus that provided not only much-needed and appreciated employment to hundreds of thousands of Australians but also to over 9,000 school communities throughout this country. These school communities and the students of these schools had been sadly neglected under the 11 years of the Howard and Costello era and would still have been neglected if it had been up to the likes of Mr Abbott, had he been in power when the GFC hit us. What was the opposition’s response to this economic crisis? Chaos. The shadow Treasurer, the member for North Sydney, first claimed—I think it is imperative that everyone understands this—that the government’s economic stimulus was ‘ineffective’ in protecting the Australian economy and was a waste. But not for long: within weeks he was bemoaning the stimulus as being too effective.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Ms Julie Bishop, the member for Curtin, said we should have waited to see what happened before taking any action. I ask you, Mr Acting Deputy President: could you imagine where we would be now if we had taken Ms Bishop’s advice? Indeed, what would Mr Abbott’s response to the GFC have been if he had been Prime Minister? In just February this year, Mr Abbott argued that we should have followed the example of New Zealand and avoided direct stimulus. Here are some interesting facts: New Zealand, a nation which is still recovering from unemployment as high as 7.3 per cent and whose debt per GDP exceeds Australia’s, has lauded this government’s response as an example for others to follow. Thank goodness Mr Abbott was not in charge of this country at the time.

But others are not alone. I want to talk about Professor Joseph Stiglitz. Professor Stiglitz is the Nobel economic laureate and former World Bank chief economist, and he has repeatedly said that the Labor government did a fantastic job. He said the stimulus worked:

… Australia had the shortest and shallowest of the downturns of the advanced industrial countries.

He said the Labor government had put in place a Keynesian stimulus package that was ‘one of the best designed of all the advanced industrial countries’. As we enter the 43rd parliament it is extremely fortunate that we still have a Labor government, a government led by Australia’s first female Prime Minister. Prime Minister Gillard played a vital role in ensuring Australia’s prosperity through difficult times, and the Gillard government will continue to make the hard decisions needed to drive Australia’s economy into the future.

Australia has retained a government that has the track record to manage Australia’s economy at a time when major parts of the world economy are still extremely fragile. It has also retained a government that is passionate about issues important to Australians such as climate change, the National Broadband Network and a fairer return for our natural resources through the mineral resources rent tax. Unfortunately, this has not been a bipartisan goal of the Australian parliament. Over the past three years there has been a chorus of negativity coming out of the mouths of the opposition, an opposition whose men and women yesterday continued to echo past failed conservative policies and attitudes. It was no credit to the opposition to continue to talk down the performance of the Australian economy during the global financial crisis, when the Labor government was receiving—and continues to receive—widespread praise for its policy response to it.

Australia has emerged from the worst global economic downturn since the Great Depression with a strong and vibrant economy. This did not occur by chance; it happened because of decisive decisions and actions taken by the Labor government. As we enter the new parliament, the Gillard government will continue to put forward policies that will benefit Australians. The mineral resources rent tax, or MRRT, is a levy on companies who profit greatly from digging up our natural resources such as coal and iron ore. I wish to stress ‘coal and iron ore’. The implementation of the MRRT is not, as those opposite will argue, an impost that will damage the mining and resources industry. We cannot allow the opposition to camouflage truth and reality with glib one-liners, as was their form during the recent federal election. It is important to understand that the three largest miners in this country—BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and Xstrata—have signed up to the government’s mineral resources rent tax. Under the guidance of Mr Don Argus, the former head of BHP, and Minister Martin Ferguson, we will continue to work through the MRRT proposals with other interested parties. This process of negotiations is just another example of how the Gillard government understands how vital our resources industry is to Australia’s prosperity.

The MRRT is not—I stress ‘not’—designed to bankrupt this sector, as the opposition continues to claim, but to ensure that these highly-profitable companies pay a fair share for the resources that they dig up. I know that the idea that wealth should be distributed evenly to all Australians is one that is alien to those opposite and to their backers such as Mr Clive Palmer, the man who owns the Nationals, and his fellow Rolex revolutionaries such as Mrs Gina Rinehart. Mr Palmer has recently made headlines in the west over allegations that he has received favourable treatment from the leader of the WA Nationals, Mr Brendon Grylls. I would never want to insinuate that Mr Palmer would attempt to exert undue influence over a minister or government—not at all—but it seems quite coincidental to me that Mr Palmer was able to have a multimillion-dollar environmental bond removed from his Balmoral South project in WA after several meetings with Mr Grylls, the leader of the party to which Mr Palmer has made not one but several generous donations. I would also note that one of these meetings involved Mr Palmer taking Mr Grylls on a joyride in his helicopter. Fair enough. As I said, I would not want to put any credence to these allegations that have yet to be proven, but it should be a very good lesson for those opposite that you should be very careful who you associate with—or, in the terms of the WA Nationals, who you have fund your election campaigns.

Mr Palmer is not alone, though. WA’s own mining magnate, Mrs Gina Rinehart, is also a vocal supporter of those opposite. Here is a lady with visions. Mrs Rinehart has a vision for Australia, and it involves sacking Australian workers. Those are my words. Mrs Rinehart has a view that in the great state of Western Australia we should have northern economic zones and that these northern economic zones should have fences around them within which Australian wages must not be paid to the workers. She said it in a full page in the West Australian and she was not on her own; there were a heap of her mates who signed up to it. We should have foreign workers who should come in and build these massive mining projects not on Australian wages—her words—but on much lower wages. Why? So her company could still afford to sell iron ore to India and China. She was not going to take a dip in her profits—no. But the workers must not be paid Australian wages. Thankfully, her vision will not come to any fruition while there is a Labor government in power. It amazes me just how quick those on the other side were to stand up for the billionaires ahead of working Australians—but, then again, let’s never forget that that is the party of Work Choices.

It was only several months ago that the Hon. Senator Abetz was pushing for a return to Work Choices, apparently believing that a bit of tweaking here and there would be needed. I am sure Senator Abetz just had some minor changes in mind, minor changes such as a quick cut to wages and a quick slash to conditions here and there—who knows? But Mr Abbott was not too happy about having his policy published before the election. We know it happened. It was in the first week of the election and Senator Abetz was making his tweaking references. After that, we never saw Senator Abetz. I do not know what happened to him. He was probably hanging around in the Tasmanian wilderness, not that that would be a bad place to be hanging around during an election. I would not have minded it myself. But he has appeared again this week. He is back out of the woods.

The Gillard government, however, does care about the wages and conditions of Australian workers, and the Gillard government will continue to produce policies that benefit all Australians. In the first week of the new parliament we will be introducing over 40 pieces of new legislation that will make a difference to the lives of Australian families. There will be legislation to establish the first National Preventative Health Agency, which will tackle the preventative health challenges we face like diabetes and heart related health, and legislation to strengthen ozone protection mechanisms and strengthen water efficiency labelling. There will also be legislation that will give real recognition to carers, acknowledging their enormous contributions.

At the recent federal election the Australian people had their say, and the new parliament reflects that. It is of course suicidal for any party to ignore the wishes of the Australian people, and it is incumbent upon parliamentarians from all sides to heed the lessons of the election and enter this new parliament with those lessons firmly in their minds. The Gillard government has responded to those lessons by entering into reform agreements with their parliamentary colleagues. These agreements are designed to lead to a new parliamentary system that will provide better legislation and better outcomes for the Australian people.

Initially it seemed as if the opposition would also engage with their fellow parliamentarians. Indeed the Leader of the Opposition was only too eager to sign up to the parliamentary reform package put forward by the Independents. Mr Abbott called for a kinder, friendlier parliament and nearly seemed sincere in his convictions. Unfortunately, since the agreements with the independent members of the House which saw the Gillard government returned, Mr Abbott has decided that not only can he not be taken at his word—that is what he said—but also his signature cannot be relied upon.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about your policy on backflips?

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was only earlier this year that Mr Abbott admitted, Senator Cash, that what he said could not always be trusted, that the Australian people should only put their faith in what he had actually put in writing. Now Mr Abbott has shown that, even when he has signed up to something in writing, he cannot be trusted to hold true to that agreement. I daresay there are some quite decent Liberal members who would privately be quite concerned that their leader could rat on an agreement in such an arrogant manner.

In a country that has been built on a handshake, on the principle that a man’s word is his bond, Mr Abbott has shown that his words mean nothing and his signature even less.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, they are all awake over on that side. Welcome to the debate, you lot; nice to have you on board, sitting there—I nearly had to give you a nudge because the snoring was starting to scare me.

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

Order! Senator Sterle; use the correct words when referring to senators in the chamber.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Having walked away from the parliamentary reform agreements, Mr Abbott has shown that he stands for nothing except the acquisition of power. When the opportunity to form a government was on the table, we saw an opposition and an opposition leader who were ready to bend over backwards to be seen as constructive and inclusive of the ideas of others. With that prospect taken away, however, we see the opposition once again slide back into its normal state of being.

This is an opposition that has a sense of entitlement when it comes to government, and having been denied this we know the recriminations will be swift and brutal. We saw in the last parliament the manner in which the Liberal Party gave in to a tendency for infighting once in opposition, and I am sure the member for Wentworth is biding his time, waiting for an opportunity to pounce on those who were the undoing of his first incarnation as opposition leader.

While acknowledging Mr Turnbull, it would be remiss of me not to mention the other elephant in the room. The Nationals are locked together with the Liberals in an ill-fitting coalition of convenience. At this stage what we have witnessed—and it is only Thursday of the first week—is that they are still in bed together but their pyjamas are firmly bolted up.

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Fair Competition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ryan interjecting—

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are not bolted up—the pyjamas are not bolted up? I take that back. While the opposition continues to look backwards to the past glories—

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Fair Competition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ryan interjecting—

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just had a vision, Mr Acting Deputy President; I am so sorry. I will apologise to Senator Boswell later. While the opposition continues to look backwards to past glories, the Gillard government will work within the new parliamentary environment to produce legislation and policies that benefit all Australians. Just as the Labor government took the hard decisions to steer Australia through the global financial crisis, the Gillard government will continue to make the hard decisions, and we will work with our parliamentary colleagues to ensure this great country’s continued prosperity.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Sterle for the comic relief he has provided to us in this otherwise very serious and important debate. I rise to support Senator Abetz’s amendment to the question before the chamber and to put in perspective what is unfortunately a very unbalanced itemisation of this government’s agenda. As a responsible member of this chamber, I cannot support a program put forward by the Gillard government which is, in my view, a representation of a weak and dishonest agenda. As a responsible member of this chamber, I believe that the program the government has outlined neither boldly confronts the nation’s challenges nor honours the commitments made to the Australian people by this government at the recent election.

At the heart of my criticism of the way that the government has presented its program is the perception that there is at the core of this agenda a constant desire by the government to wrap its actions and its intentions in deceptive clothing, to erect the appearance of a solution when in fact it has none, and to paint itself as acting in the national interest when in reality it is seeking to secure its own political advantage or that of its mates. A colleague of mine in the other place referred some time ago to this government as being ‘addicted to spin’. I thought at the time the term was a little bit harsh, perhaps an exaggeration, but the more I look at what the Rudd and now Gillard government has done and the way it has tried to sell itself through all of its broken promises and mistakes I have to say that I think the term is very apt.

The first thing that this government asks itself when announcing some new program or when trying to explain, when something has gone wrong, why it has gone wrong is: ‘How do we portray ourselves to make us look better than we are? How do we escape blame for our own mistakes?’ When we have the language of honesty and openness and sunlight permeating the government’s present pronouncements in the new parliament it is frightening to see it reverting in its program to the kind of spin addiction that was so common in the last term of parliament under both prime ministers. Labor’s addiction to spin is based on the underlying assumption that its mission is so important and its cause so righteous that deception and even outright lies are justified in the furtherance of that mission.

We see this in the language that the government has used since cobbling together the unlikely alliance which has delivered it power and delivered it based on the principle that holding power is much more important than knowing what to do with that power once you have it. They are now apparently the party of consensus and we are the party, they say, of wrecking. Every Labor MP that walked through the doors into Parliament House on Tuesday of this week used the words ‘Tony Abbott’ and ‘wrecker’ in the same sentence. What has brought this about? Apparently, it has been brought about by the fact that the opposition will not sign up to the new paradigm. We are not prepared to buy the line that consensus must be elevated at the expense of conflict of any sort. This government seems to believe that a more effective parliament means all MPs having to agree with some form of the government’s program. If you do not agree with the government you are destructive.

I do not believe that this government actually does believe in consensus politics and the evidence I have of that is its behaviour during the 12 years of the Howard government during which time it agreed with the now opposition, the then government, on absolutely nothing. This government has signed up to the consensus mantra because it has been forced to by the weak position it has been left in by the Australian electorate. It has to compromise on its program because it lacks the authority of an election win and of a mandate to govern with. Because it has been cut off at the knees by the electorate it expects other parties to share this enfeebled position with it and to throw their policies away because Labor cannot keep hold of its. This opposition will not do that.

This opposition took a strong agenda to the last election, an agenda that faced up to Australia’s problems, an agenda that attracted some 700,000 more voters than were attracted to Labor’s agenda and we make no apologies for saying that we will pursue this agenda in the life of the 43rd parliament. We will confront Labor’s weak, spin-conceived agenda at every turn. That of course is the job of a good opposition. Benjamin Disraeli once said that you cannot have a good government without a good opposition and we intend to be a good opposition. By that I mean we intend to hold up government programs to the most intense scrutiny and if necessary to rebuff those programs. Why should we do that? In a sense we are reflecting the fact that the Australian electorate also rebuffed those programs.

The government said it wanted to move forward at the 2010 election, it wanted to adopt a new program, it wanted to put new things in front of the Australian community. In fact it suffered a swing against it of 2.7 per cent. People expressed by that decision a great reservation about the program Labor was putting on the table and I do not blame them one iota. I do not think this government is stupid; they know what scrutiny means. They know that parliamentary reform means that they are subjected to more pain on the floor of these two chambers. The fact is though that the government continues to speak in a strange, twisted language when it talks about this new era of openness and consensus. How do you reach a consensus by forming a committee with a predetermined outcome? How do you have openness when such committees proceed in secret and work with documents and submissions which are not open to the Australian community?

This government is not worried that the coalition will wreck consensus for Australia’s interests; it is worried that the opposition will wreck Labor’s interests not Australia’s interests. They conflate their own interests in the pretence of concern for the national interest and that frankly is not good enough. Take for example the phenomenon of them having been denied a majority in this parliament. You would think that that would lead an honest and open government—a government interested in openness and being forthright and frank with the Australian community—to say: ‘Our policies will be hard to deliver. We will try but we cannot promise that everything that we said we would put forward will get passed by the parliament.’ That would be a fair and honest thing to say.

But what the Prime Minister actually said, having been confronted by this new reality, is not that. What she said was that the government would now have to expect that all of its election promises could well be dumped and that nothing it promised would necessarily make it even to the floor of either the Senate or the House of Representatives for consideration by the parliament. Its promise to have a people’s assembly on climate change disappeared within days of the election. It has not even tried. It is not even interested anymore. That is not the reaction of an honest and open government, and there are so many policies of that kind.

The government ruled out a carbon tax explicitly, repeatedly and unequivocally before the election, and now the new minister, Mr Combet, says that the different political environment entitles them to simply trash that policy. Yes, a carbon tax is back on the agenda. They talked about an immigration policy—a very half-hearted and insincere immigration policy, it seems to me—that was based on an East Timor solution. Where does that stand now? Where is the progress with that? I suspect it is very much on the backburner. Every indication that has been given is that this will not happen in the life of this parliament. They said that they would not be extending the Curtin detention centre; there would be no plans for extension at all. That was simply a nonsense. It was a lie. Within days of the election it is happening. What they said would not happen is happening. They said that there would be a release of all the costings for all the states’ spending programs under the BER, Building the Education Revolution. Where has that gone? Nowhere—and so on and so forth with these broken promises. We have yet to hear by any means the end of that story. It is not good enough to cite the new political environment as an excuse to say that your promises are no longer of any importance. If this is the new paradigm, I am not interested. It is not good enough for me and it is not good enough, I think, for the Australian people.

Of course, the Labor government is not the only factor that is critical in the actions of government in the course of the next three years or whatever the term of the 43rd Parliament is. There are also other players, and I want to turn to them. Particularly in reference to this house, I am interested in the role that the Australian Greens will play in the formulation and delivery of government policy. I have to say that I particularly fear that element of this government’s program. Because the government and the Greens have offered to enter into an agreement, an alliance or a coalition—call it what you will—we have to hold the Greens responsible for the actions of this government as well. They said before the election that they would hold the balance of power, and they do. As a result, the Australian community needs to put them under a degree of scrutiny which they have not previously enjoyed.

With the advantages of being in a governing coalition come responsibilities. Senator Brown and the Greens took a great deal of time during the election campaign to distinguish themselves from the Labor Party, saying they had different policies and were not the same as the Labor Party. In fact, it almost seemed as if they were deliberately setting out to draw votes away from the Labor Party into their camp. But since the election result has been delivered, or at least since election day, Senator Brown has become almost the chief protagonist for a minority Gillard government. He has been spruiking it up and down the country and seemed to be the most relieved man in Parliament House when the Independents announced that they would support a minority Labor government.

Particularly in the ACT, where the Labor Party holds three of the four seats in the federal parliament, the Greens were at pains to say how they would stand up for Canberra against decisions made by a Labor government that mistreated this community. They would not be taking part in any decisions that were harsh to the people of Canberra. But within days of the election they were in alliance with the Labor Party. They were part of an informal coalition with a Labor government. They did not mention that during the campaign, and I can see why.

The Greens now have a responsibility to be honest about their policies, and particularly how much they will cost, because that is one issue on which they did not come clean during the election campaign. Senator Brown complained, even in this week’s sittings and beforehand, that the media had not given the Greens sufficient scrutiny; they were not giving them the sort of attention that they gave to the major parties. I would suggest to Senator Brown that that is actually a good thing, because the Greens’ policies, and in particular the cost of their policies, would not have stood up to very serious scrutiny. The Greens promised enormous sums of money—billions upon billions upon billions of dollars—in the course of this election campaign. No issue was too small or insignificant. No community sector’s concerns were too lightly held to warrant a considerable expenditure of money by the Greens. They made those commitments freely, and they clearly outspent the major parties many times over, with no explanation of how they would actually pay for these promises. The Greens have a responsibility to engage with contrary points of view and to respect the will of the Australian voters at the ballot box—and, after all, the vast majority of Australians voted for parties that said that they would rule out a carbon tax. They need to bear in mind that other parties’ programs are of at least equal value to their own.

Their policies, with great respect, are dishonest. I particularly refer to their policies on non-government education. In this territory, where take-up of non-government education is at its highest level anywhere in Australia, the Greens soon realised that their policy of cutting funding for non-government education was a considerable liability, so Senator Brown came to the ACT and told local media that the policy would not proceed and that there would not be cuts to non-government education in the ACT or anywhere else. The policy had been evacuated. That was fine until a few days later, when Senator Brown was interviewed on ABC News 24 and was asked by a journalist about this change in policy. Senator Brown said: ‘Oh, no. There’s no change in policy. Our policy stands as it appears on the website.’ Again, in the ACT we raised the issue of what exactly the Greens’ policy was. The Greens’ Senate candidate reiterated that the Greens’ policy was not to cut non-government education in the ACT. Again Senator Brown went to the National Press Club and was asked by a journalist about apparent plans to cut funding to non-government education, as per the Greens’ website. Yes, said Senator Brown: that policy stood. Again we went back to the Greens’ Senate candidate and said, ‘Do you or do you not intend to cut funding to non-government education?’ She said, ‘No, there’ll be no cuts to non-government education.’ That is the kind of scrutiny that the Greens now deserve. We need to know exactly what the policy of the Greens is and, frankly, relying on their statements during the election campaign is not enough to do that.

The Greens, however, were not the only party involved in this election campaign who displayed spectacularly high degrees of dishonesty. I am referring here not to another political party but to the role of the organisation GetUp!. GetUp! spent colossal amounts of money in this election campaign. I am not sure what happened in other electorates, but in a great number of booths in the ACT there were large numbers of GetUp! workers handing out glossy brochures advising people about how to ‘cut through the spin’ and to work out what was happening in the election campaign.

I had experience of GetUp! in the previous election in 2007, so I watched with some trepidation what their role would be in this election campaign. In the early stages of the campaign I actually had a little bit of hope spring to my heart because they said that they were going to campaign on three specific issues: asylum seekers, climate change and mental health. As a person who has taken considerable interest in mental health I was interested in this particular position because I knew that the coalition was putting forward a policy that would undoubtedly be seen by all objective observers as a better policy than that which, at that stage, was evident from the Australian Labor Party. Indeed, by the time the election itself came around it was clear that we had a much better policy: $1.5 billion for new programs to assist people with mental illness in this country, building on the policy of $1.9 billion announced by John Howard in 2006—a very sound and a very appropriate policy for the challenge of mental illness. I thought to myself, ‘Well, I’m sure we will get marked down by the GetUp! people on asylum seekers, and I’m sure we won’t get many points on climate change from them. But at least, if they are honest, they will tell the people that we have the best policy on mental health.’

Election day came around and the obligatory brochures appeared, handed out by the workers from GetUp!, and—miraculously—of the three criteria that they had announced they were going to use to judge the political parties in this election campaign two had remained much the same but the third had somehow transformed itself. It was no longer a question of judgment on the criterion of mental health; they had now changed their policy considerations to health care, of which only one component dealt with mental health. The other two dealt with other issues altogether—closing the gap for Indigenous life expectancy and a national plan for improving preventative health. These were not issues that they had raised during the election campaign and not issues that had been dealt with within the forum that I attended a week before election day. These were completely new issues and—surprise, surprise!—because of these other things we no longer had an advantage over the government. We no longer had brownie points in that department and—surprise, surprise!—once again the Greens, which promised to do everything in all of those areas without question and to provide unlimited dollars to solve these problems, got the highest score from GetUp!.

GetUp! is a front for the Greens and, to a lesser extent, for the Australian Labor Party. It is not a credible independent observer of Australian politics; it is a player. It is a party in all but name, and it should be regarded so by the Australian community.

I believe that this government starts its term in the weakest possible position. It comes to the Australian people pretending that it has an agenda of reform and change when, in fact, it has scrabbled to find an agenda at all before the last election in light of the fact that its agenda from the previous election had virtually collapsed, either because it had failed to find a way of delivering it or because its policies were undeliverable. This government does not fill me with much hope that it can do any better than the previous Rudd government.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to support the amendment to the Governor-General’s address-in-reply moved by my leader, Senator Abetz.

The opening of the 43rd Parliament on Tuesday confirmed many things about the Gillard Labor government. Perhaps what it confirmed more than anything was that Gillard Labor, just like Rudd Labor, is all about spin over substance. In the opening paragraphs of the address to the parliament setting out the Labor government’s agenda for the 43rd Parliament, the Governor-General acknowledged the remarkable circumstance in that our nation has its first female Governor-General and its first female Prime Minister. She, obviously, did not go into the circumstances in which we got our first female Prime Minister, because the speech was written by the government.

The Governor-General said:

I also acknowledge the remarkable circumstance of our nation having its first female Governor-General and first female Prime Minister.

And she then went on to say:

This historic conjunction should be an inspiration not only to the women and girls of our nation but to all Australians.

I was watching Prime Minister Gillard at the time, and she sat there in silence and nodded. She nodded in what was clear agreement with the words being spoken by the Governor-General.

But this is where the problem arises, because that was nothing more and nothing less than Labor spin. We all know what happened when the female Prime Minister of this country left this place and returned to the House of Representatives. She returned to the House of Representatives and presided over the execution of a female member of the Labor Party, Anna Burke, from the position of Deputy Speaker. This was absolutely disgraceful. She sliced and she diced one of her own after sitting in this place and nodding in agreement at the words that the Governor-General read out, lauding women in Australia. That is an absolute disgrace of spin followed by what the Australian people now know is typical of the substance of the Labor government.

The women and the children of our nation that Julia Gillard was hoping to inspire by those senseless words should now be asking themselves, ‘How can the Prime Minister of Australia sit there and nod in agreement at the words being spoken by the Governor-General but then walk out of this place and by her actions execute a female member of the Labor Party? And not only that; then actually support a male to take her place?’ The answer to that can be nothing more and nothing less than that Julia Gillard has a self-serving desire to retain power. Despite championing women’s rights in this place, in a statement to the parliament she is happy to sacrifice one of her own female parliamentarians when it comes to scoring a cheap political point. And that is, well and truly, spin over substance.

With the commissioning of the minority Labor government, politics in Australia has well and truly sunk to an all-time low. Just days after the Prime Minister of Australia took the commission from the Governor-General, in a blatant attempt to try to justify what have now become her admitted policy backflips she informs the people of Australia that the Labor Party can do this because we are allegedly in what is now known as the new political paradigm, the new political environment, and because we are now in this new political environment, as far as Julia Gillard and the Labor Party are concerned, all bets are off with the people of Australia. I say to the people listening in the gallery today that I hope none of you relied on a promise made by the Australian Labor Party when you were voting in the election, because if you did the bad news for you now is that all bets are off. Julia Gillard made the statement to the people of Australia: ‘I can break my pre-election commitments. I never had any intention of honouring them. I do not have to because we are in a new political environment.’

If the Prime Minister of Australia did not believe that she could actually put her pre-election commitments into place, then she should not have accepted the commission from the Governor-General. If the Prime Minister of Australia did not believe that she was going to be able to keep the faith of the Australian people, she should not have formed government. But she did. And the problem we as Australians are now faced with is that we are subject to a weak government that lacks any form of coherent policy direction. That lack of any form of coherent policy was more than confirmed by Labor’s so-called policy direction on what is possibly considered one of the most important issues, and that is national security—the issue of border protection.

The issue of border protection was left to the dying moments of the Governor-General’s address. In fact, I think Ms Gillard was hoping that if you had blinked you just might have missed the fact that Labor will be doing absolutely nothing to solve the mess created by the former Rudd Labor government. That is an absolute disgrace. So what we have in an agenda on the back page for the 43rd Parliament is more rhetoric—nothing more and nothing less than rhetoric. The Labor government has presided over disaster after disaster, budget blow-out after budget blow-out, boat arrival after boat arrival—and yes, another boat arrived last night—all at the expense of the Australian people.

But does the Labor Party care? Do those on the government side of the chamber care that they are compromising the people of Australia? The answer is quite simply no. And do you know why? Because principles and sound policy mean absolutely nothing to those in the Australian Labor Party. They are motivated solely by a self-serving desire to retain office and sit on those government benches. In fact—and, Senator Ronaldson, you will appreciate this—Julia Gillard is merely following the edict proclaimed by the ALP powerbroker Graham Richardson, who gained notoriety with his very famous statement, ‘Labor will do whatever it takes to succeed and retain power.’ Graham Richardson himself was confirming to the people of Australia that Labor will do whatever it takes to succeed and retain power. The problem, though, is that once Labor is in power its ability to govern this country in the national interest is absolutely abysmal.

The unwelcome influx of boats carrying unlawful immigrants into Australia was a major cause of concern at the very recent federal election. But does Labor see this as an issue it needs to take steps to address? The answer is clearly no, and this is highlighted in the address that was given to this parliament on Tuesday. The spin over the substance, the continuation of the Rudd Labor government into the Gillard Labor government, was evident when we heard the Gillard government tell us it will ‘promote an approach to processing or assessing refugee claims that is efficient, timely and fair’. That was the spin. Let us now look at the substance. The Labor Party, on 9 April 2010, decided to suspend the processing of refugee claims from Afghanistan. That is the substance. Why did it do that? That was an absolute sham. It was nothing more and nothing less than an artificial contrivance of policy for politically motivated reasons. Let us go back to what Graham Richardson said: ‘Labor will do anything, whatever it takes, to stay in power.’

There was never any intent by the then Labor government for the suspension of the processing of claims of asylum seekers from Afghanistan to be a genuine policy response to the absolute mess that they created. Labor were prepared to use the people of Afghanistan, and the people of Sri Lanka at the time, for their own desperate political ends. And what an absolute mess this policy has now created. There are now more than 5,000 people being held in detention by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship on the mainland and on Christmas Island, and there is still a suspension in place, but the Gillard Labor government expect Australia to believe, as the Governor-General said, that they will be ‘promoting an approach to assessing refugee claims that is efficient, timely and fair’. That is an absolute joke.

It gets worse. In the few short lines that were dedicated to the important issue of border protection in the Governor-General’s address to the parliament, the Labor government also led Australians to believe:

The government will always honour the obligations under the United Nations Refugee Convention to which our country became a party under Prime Minister Menzies in 1954.

Again, that was the spin; now let us look at the substance. The substance is that Labor’s commitment to the UN refugee policy is nothing more and nothing less than rhetoric, because the convention, for those who have bothered to read it, clearly states:

The Contracting States shall apply the provisions of this Convention to refugees without discrimination as to race, religion or country of origin.

So there is the substance. The suspension of the processing of claims by Afghani—and, at the time, Sri Lankan—asylum seekers was in direct conflict with our obligations under the convention. But that does not stop Labor from spinning to the Australian people. But the Australian people are not foolish and they can see through the shallow promises made by the Labor Party. While those on the other side like to stand up and say, ‘It was a great election victory; we’re back on the government benches,’ they forget to tell the people of Australia what the reality is: they lost 13 seats at the federal election. This is the first time in a very long time that a first-term government has lost its majority. That is not a success, whichever way you look at it.

In my home state of Western Australia, Labor was overwhelmingly rejected by the people. Western Australians voted overwhelmingly to reject Gillard Labor. The Labor Party has now been reduced to just three out of the 15 House of Representatives seats that Western Australia has in the federal parliament, such is the contempt that Western Australians have for what was the Rudd Labor government and is now the Gillard Labor government. And, of those three seats, not one of them is now considered to be a safe seat. They are all marginal seats. Mr Gary Gray must feel very sick when he looks at the way the people of Brand voted in the last election, because he is now in a very marginal seat.

We may have a new Prime Minister in Ms Gillard, but insofar as the actual workings of the Labor government are concerned nothing has changed. Nothing has changed. We have a Labor government that continues to break election commitment after election commitment, at the expense of the Australian people. In the less than five weeks that this government has been in power, Julia Gillard has openly admitted that she is breaking a number of election commitments to the Australian people. Forget the citizens assembly—that was bad policy; that has now gone. In terms of her commitment to the people of Australia that ‘there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead’, again, under this new paradigm, this new environment, all bets are off and we are now seriously considering one.

Directly relevant to the issue at hand was the announcement on 17 September 2010, just three weeks after forming government, about expanding a number of onshore detention facilities, because this directly contradicts commitments given by Ms Gillard, the now Prime Minister of Australia, to the people of Australia just three days before they went to vote on 21 August. In this place we all thought Senator Wong was the queen of backflips, in terms of her stance on the ETS—will it commence on this date; no, it will not; it will commence on that date—but Ms Gillard is now giving her a run for her money.

Since the execution of Kevin Rudd, we have had 24 boats arrive in Australian waters, carrying a total of 1,307 unlawful immigrants and crew. Ten of these boats have arrived since 21 August, the day of the federal election—10 since the federal election, which was but a few weeks ago. The statistics were updated last night because, yes, another one arrived last night.

The people smugglers are clearly rejoicing in the fact that the Labor government have been returned to power. If they had had any concerns that Gillard Labor may actually tighten up the area of border protection, those fears have been completely allayed because they now know it is business as usual for people smugglers under the Gillard Labor government. Chris Bowen, in but his third press release in his new portfolio—one might say he has taken over a poisoned chalice from Senator Evans—is now announcing that this is the Gillard government’s response to protecting our borders. They will now have to build additional immigration detainee accommodation. That is it. Instead of taking steps to stop the boats coming, the Gillard government solution is to build more accommodation. Perhaps Prime Minister Gillard might like to tell the people of Australia why the boats will stop coming and why the people smugglers will stop plying their despicable trade when all she is doing is instituting a building program for refugee accommodation. She is sending a clear message to the people smugglers to bring people down to Australia.

There is so much more that could be said about the failures of the Gillard Labor government. However, the new paradigm of politics, the new environment that Julia Gillard refers to, can only be this: all bets are off and Labor, should they so choose, will not be honouring their pre-election commitments. That is a very sad state for politics in Australia. (Time expired)

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In some 50 minutes on Tuesday the veterans barely rated a mention in the government’s speech delivered by the Governor-General. In a couple of quick words today I want to say how much I am looking forward to serving as the shadow minister for veterans’ affairs. It is clearly a complex policy area and it is a vital area of government policy. It was in the pursuit of government policy that we sent and still send our countrymen and country women to fight and wear our uniform. As a nation we have a special responsibility to those people who serve and who served our nation in times of war and relative peace.

I note with some pride that my son completed the ADF Gap Year program a couple of years ago and my grandfather was a decorated soldier of the Royal Horse Artillery in the British Army during the First World War. My son’s service was in stark contrast to mine, as I achieved the lowly rank of signal sergeant in the school cadet corps. But it was a great honour for me to be co-chair of the Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial in Ballarat, which is a magnificent structure dedicated to some 38,000 Australian PoWs, of which some 8,000 died.

At the last election the coalition released a comprehensive policy document focused on veterans and their families. I pay tribute to the former shadow minister for veterans’ affairs, the present member for Macquarie in the other place, Louise Markus. Louise’s efforts have been loudly championed by the people I have already spoken to in the area of veterans’ affairs. Her dedication is manifested in the election commitments made by the coalition. I look forward to building on her good work in so many areas.

The coalition government’s objectives for veterans’ affairs can be summed up as follows: military superannuation reform, reform of pharmaceuticals for disabled veterans, an increased focus on veterans’ widows and wives through the establishment of online resources, enhanced family support for ADF personnel and new veterans especially during the transition phase from the ADF into civilian life, the provision of additional funding to support the absolutely pivotal and critical workers of our largely volunteer veteran advocates and welfare and pension officers; and, finally, a commitment to the review of military compensation. I do not propose to discuss each of these in any great length today, but I think it is important to place on record the clear differences which still exist between the coalition and the new, compromised government in the area of veterans policy.

In contrast to the coalition, the Gillard Labor government’s commitments in veterans’ affairs were a major let-down. Labor’s key commitment was to finally deliver on a promise made at the 2007 election in relation to pharmaceuticals, but even this has not done enough and is not widely supported by the veteran community. The government has also committed to a review of aged care for veterans, bringing the total number of reviews in this portfolio to 12 since the Australian Labor Party won the 2007 election. There were 12 reviews, but delayed responses left the veteran community wondering whether they were just stalling mechanisms rather than a means of achieving change.

In relation to military superannuation, the coalition is the only party in this place committed to affordable reform of military superannuation. On 27 June this year the Leader of the Opposition announced a plan to change the method of indexation for superannuants who are members of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme or the DFRDB. Under the proposed changes, from 1 July 2011 DFRDB superannuants aged 55 and over would have had their pensions indexed at the rate of the consumer price index, the male total average weekly earnings or the pension and beneficiary living cost index, whichever was the greater. It was our intention to bring these increases in these pensions into line with the way other Australian government pensions were indexed. This change represented a major turning point in the debate about military superannuation. It represented an important first step in the reform of military superannuation.

The previous coalition government commissioned Andrew Podger to inquire into the military superannuation scheme. I concede that the findings were given to the previous government ahead of the 2007 election and not released publicly. However, after releasing the report on Christmas Eve 2007, the Rudd-Gillard Labor government did nothing on military superannuation for 2½ years. It took the coalition to do what this Labor government promised to do—take action on military superannuation.

Not surprisingly, after being gazumped by the coalition on this issue, the Labor Party tried to trash our costings during the recent election campaign. The Treasurer and the former Minister for Veterans’ Affairs tried to claim the coalition was leaving an $8 billion black hole for the future. The shamelessness of this claim was simply breathtaking. Labor’s claim, first and foremost, was based on inaccurate numbers. They deliberately misused advice from the Government Actuary to misrepresent what the coalition had committed to. I can also confirm that the coalition will seek to use any measure available to us to force this government into making the change so loudly called for in the veteran community on the issue of DFRDB superannuation.

I will now turn to pharmaceuticals. The coalition’s pharmaceutical reform for disabled veterans would have assisted more than 87,000 disabled veterans to access pharmaceuticals with no out-of-pocket expenses from 1 January 2012. Under the coalition’s plan, disabled veterans in receipt of a disability pension paid at or above 50 per cent of the general rate would be eligible to have the pharmaceutical safety net threshold reduced from 60 to 30. This means that eligible veterans would pay for 30 scripts per year, and from the 31st script onwards would not pay any more for their medications. This reform, fully-costed, would have provided real relief for 87,343 disabled veterans. It was, once again, widely welcomed in the veteran community as a positive step that would have provided real relief to veterans.

I again contrast this with Labor’s late scheme. It is a stark contrast. Labor promised action in this area during their first term, and failed. They held a review, issued a paper, and forgot about it until the election. Labor’s plan would only benefit up to, in the government’s own words, 70,000 disabled veterans. And the government’s scheme requires disabled veterans to have qualifying service to be eligible. This excludes over 800 of our most severely disabled veterans, those who are totally and permanently incapacitated, who are on the special rate, but who do not have ‘qualifying service’.

The government’s scheme is also administratively complex. Under the government’s proposal, out-of-pocket expenses will be reimbursed to the veteran, meaning they will still have to forego the expense during the year and wait for a cheque from the government some time in the following year. Veterans will find themselves keeping their receipts and scripts as proof of purchase, in case the reimbursement does not arrive.

In conclusion, I would like to briefly address the Review of Military Compensation Arrangements, which is presently underway. The review is important, and I restate the coalition’s commitment made during the election to consult widely with the veteran and ex-service community on the recommendations which are included in it. We have to get this right. I call on the new Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, who is in the other place, to be upfront with the veteran community about the timeline for the release of the review. It was due out earlier this year ahead of the election; now in the countdown to the end of the year and Christmas I hope that we have it in enough time to give consideration to it before the end of the year. I am looking forward to the opportunity to serve in this portfolio. I say to the veteran and ex-service community, ‘I will be a forceful advocate for you in this place, and I will always do my best to be honest with you about the coalition’s position on veteran matters.’

I turn now to the Governor-General’s speech on Tuesday. It was 50 minutes of pure rhetoric. That is not a reflection on the Governor-General but it is a reflection on the government. I have had my issues with some of the activities of the Governor-General. Honourable senators would be aware that during Senate estimates there has been considerable discussion about the Governor-General’s trip in relation to the desire to secure a position on the Security Council. This was affectionately known as ‘the trip to Africa’—not the trip out of Africa!—or ‘the African safari’. Half a million dollars-plus was spent by the Rudd-Gillard government to get the Governor-General to do their political work for them. That was completely against all tradition.

The Governor-General’s office initially tried to deny that the reason for the trip was that she was courting these African nations to vote for Australia’s position on the Security Council. That is why she was there; she was doing the government’s political work. It was absolutely and totally inappropriate. Half a million dollars of taxpayer funds were spent on the Governor-General in getting her to do the government’s work for them. I hope that the fact that that has been exposed will mean that we will no longer see that sort of behaviour.

I want to talk about this Labor government. It is, at best, a compromise government. It has been cobbled together with no vision. It was defeated on the floor of the House of Representatives, yesterday. That is almost unprecedented. It has been some 40 or 50 years—I think that is right, Senator Bushby, isn’t it?—since that has occurred. This is a compromise government cobbled together with the Australian Greens.

I would like to talk about my colleague Senator Humphries, who was taken on by the Greens and by the utterly duplicitous group known as GetUp! I can assure honourable senators that GetUp! float around this place and act as if they were the honest broker. Well, Senator Humphries knows that GetUp! are no honest broker. As Senator Humphries has said, they are a complete and utter front for the Australian Greens and the ALP. But what Senator Humphries did not refer to was the fact that they are a complete and utter front for the Australian union movement. They have no legitimacy in this process. They are not an honest broker; they never have been and they never will be.

We have a government without authority and without integrity. We have a government without the support of the Australian people. Quite frankly, it is a government that does not deserve to serve a full term. The so-called ‘new paradigm’ is another example of the sort of spin that you would expect from the Australian Labor Party. Expressions such as ‘the new paradigm’ are expressions of the Rudd-Gillard government. They are expressions of spin. They are the expressions of the focus groups that a former prime minister, Prime Minister Keating, has had a lot to say about and has attacked his own party over.

We have the remarkable claims from this government that it is a government of stability and of integrity. We all know full well that two of the cabinet ministers in this ‘stable government’ said to the Prime Minister: ‘You sack me, and I will not be in the House of Representatives. You can have a couple of by-elections and take your chances then, Prime Minister.’ So what did the Prime Minister do? She kept them there. Former Senator Richardson—so ably quoted and referred to by Senator Cash earlier on in her terrific contribution to this place—made it quite clear that one of those people was probably the member for Kingsford Smith, Mr Garrett—Mr Garrett, for goodness sake! Mr Garrett was responsible for the failed Home Insulation Program, the Green Loans Program—the latter of which was the subject of an Auditor-General’s report which was an absolutely damning indictment of the activities of the minister and the government.

So when you threaten the Prime Minister with a by-election because you are hanging on by a thread and relying on a collection of Independents to survive, when you threaten to leave, you end up staying there and getting rewarded. Senator Feeney is in the chamber. He got rewarded because he is responsible for getting rid of Mr Rudd. I suppose that is politics, and that is fine. But should Mr Garrett get rewarded for the pink batts debacle that is still going on—a debacle that cost the lives of four young Australians? There are still houses that are electrified around this country, and he got promoted for that! He got promoted for a Green Loans Program that the Auditor-General has condemned.

The other matter I want to refer to is the carbon tax. I would have thought that a ‘new paradigm’ would involve keeping election promises—that would not be a bad start for a new paradigm—and being honest with the Australian people. While the majority of Australian people did not actually support Prime Minister Gillard, she still has a responsibility to them. Everyone in this chamber knows that, prior to the election, the Prime Minister ruled out a carbon tax. I will tell those in the gallery—and a warm welcome to you—why the Prime Minister ruled out a carbon tax. The Prime Minister ruled out a carbon tax because every one of you under a carbon tax would pay between 26 and 48 per cent more for electricity. The Prime Minister did not want you to know that before the election, so she ruled out the carbon tax. No sooner had the re-elected Prime Minister’s feet touched the ground than the carbon tax commitment was off and running and back on the agenda. I promise you, ladies and gentlemen in the gallery: that is what will occur in this country with a carbon tax.

I will tell you why that will happen. I suspect a very grubby deal has been done between the Australian Labor Party and the Greens. What I find of great interest is that the Australian Greens refused to acknowledge that one of their key platforms is the reintroduction of death duties. There will be people listening to this today or reading these speeches later who will remember the diabolical outcomes of death taxes. People, like me and Madam Acting Deputy President Troeth, who have spent the bulk of their lives outside metropolitan Melbourne know exactly what the outcome of death duties was—it ripped the heart out of Australian rural families. It destroyed many rural families. Some 30 or 40 years after that, we have a political party that will have more members from 1 July next year who will be running this compromised ALP government.

I put Senator Feeney and the Australian Labor Party on notice: if you do a dirty, grubby deal with the Australian Greens in relation to the reintroduction of death taxes, it will be on for young and old.

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

Senator Feeney interjecting—

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McEwen interjecting—

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have my absolute commitment to that, Senator Feeney—if you try and do a dirty deal with the Australian Greens to reintroduce death taxes, it will be on for young and old. I tell you: you will not be able to get in and out of this place because every farmer and every small business owner in this country will be out the front of this place to make sure that this does not occur. (Time expired)

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, I thank you for the opportunity to speak on the motion to adopt the address-in-reply to the speech of the Governor-General in this place two days ago. That was my first opportunity to be part of the opening of a new parliament, and it was a great privilege—which reminds me of the honour that it has been for me to be re-elected by the people of Western Australia, to whom I express my appreciation. What was regrettable for me on that occasion was that the quality of the content that was given to the Governor-General to present to this place did not in any way match the quality of her own presentation to us. It was an opportunity wasted. It was an opportunity—with everybody here assembled from both places, with the guests who were privileged to be able to be here and with the Australian people listening in—for the Prime Minister, through the Governor-General, to have actually presented something. We know that when the last Rudd-Gillard government was elected, in 2007, it promised much and delivered little. The regrettable thing I heard in the presentation the other day was that there is very little to deliver on this occasion, because little was promised.

In the moments that I have, I will reflect on some of the promises most important to me and my constituency. The first relates to education. We were told that there will be a new focus on rural and regional Australia, particularly with regard to education. I have spoken in this place of the terrible circumstances that now beset regional and rural universities. In my own home state of Western Australia, we have been fighting a rearguard action to keep the Muresk Institute of agriculture alive after 85 years. That is slipping. It is slipping because there is not, has not been and apparently—according to the speech—will not be an increased focus upon the need to keep regional universities and places of higher education open, recognising the added costs.

Speakers have already mentioned in this place the challenges associated with isolated children. There is a need—which we had hoped to see addressed—for youth allowance to be extended for tertiary students and for greater support to be provided for students from secondary schools. If you look back at the history of tertiary education in this country, and particularly at those who succeed at tertiary level, whatever have been the programs in place, low socioeconomic status has not been the main barrier to successful achievement at university. What has been and continues to be the case—and we see no reason, as a result of the speech, for this to change—is that those who cannot attend universities from their own home, in other words young people from regional agricultural communities, have been those who are disadvantaged. We saw nothing in the Governor-General’s speech to prevent that.

I was hoping that we would have heard an apology for the scandalous Building the Education Revolution funding of some $16 billion, but we did not hear any apology. I would have thought there would have been some explanation. I would have thought there would have been some accountability as to how these funds could have been so badly wasted in the state education sectors—particularly those of Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland—in contrast to the funds that went to the Catholic and independent schools.

I sat on the Senate committee that inquired into this. I exposed the fact that the Catholic and independent schools, under their block grant authorities, spent the funds that were made available to them exactly in accordance with what we would have expected per square metre. The difference between expenditure for the Catholic and independent schools and expenditure for the state schools was highlighted. The state school figures per square metre were double and even triple what we saw elsewhere.

It was unfortunate that people such as the Director-General of Education and Training in New South Wales said to us that it was because the Catholics and the independents did not factor in add-on costs such as furniture, fixtures and fittings—only to have them correct that. He then said that the difference was in the quality of construction. Well, history is already proving that there is a difference in quality of construction, in that many of the buildings put there by the contractors of the state systems are already falling apart. There certainly has been no indication at all that there has been inferior construction or use of materials in the Catholic or independent school systems.

I was hoping that there might have been a recognition by the Prime Minister, through the Governor-General’s speech, that the so-called Building the Education Revolution never at any time had any impact or effect on the so-called economic stimulus, because as history shows—we have heard it from Tax, Treasury and others—we were already recovering from the global economic circumstances by the time the first bricks were actually being laid. I think always of those poor people from Tottenham Central School in western New South Wales who came all the way into Sydney only to learn how successfully others, in the Catholic and independent schools, had been able to spend their funds, as opposed to the small tin shed that they got as a cafeteria, which in occupational health and safety terms was too small to even be used.

On the National Broadband Network, far from there being a statement by the incoming government that they would pull it, review it and develop a business plan and economic case for it, all we heard was that they will move ahead with some $43 billion to create another government monopoly, whereas every other country in the world is taking advantage of competitive activities in the private sector to deliver in this area. I investigated this during the election campaign. I had a very well experienced software programmer—a person who has spent most of his life in this area—make the point to me that in fact Australia communicates only about five to seven per cent of all its internet connectivity within this country while between 90 and 93 per cent is overseas, in what he called the offshore pipeline. The point he made to me was that there is not a cent of the $43 billion that is actually committed to widening, increasing, doubling or changing that pipeline.

His analogy was simple. He said that within your home—within Australia—you can have the biggest, widest reticulation pipes you like, but if the pipe going from the mains in the street into your block is only three-quarters of an inch, or 19 millimetres, wide it is not going to change the connectivity and therefore the speed of access to the rest of the world. Surely, one would see that as being essential. I thought we would have found the answer to the question: why is it that in Tasmania, where connectivity has been free of charge, less than 50 per cent have taken it up?

I now turn to the agricultural sector—again, a sector which was absent from the Governor-General’s speech. As I have reminded the chamber before, Australia has both the obligation and the opportunity to feed more than 1.9 billion additional people in this region by 2050. I would have thought we may have seen an indication of where there would be stimulus and support for the sector. We are going to have to do it with less land, less water, less fertiliser, less fuel, less money and with an ever ageing population of farmers. With the government’s embrace of the rural regional Independents who have helped form this new rainbow coalition government, I have seen no indication at all on that. Not only that, but we are seeing our exporters being disadvantaged. More and more burdens are being placed upon them and it seems to be easier for importers. We see this in the horticultural sector at the moment. We see the assault on the apple industry in this country. We are trying to fight the importation of apples from countries—China and New Zealand in particular—that have apple blight, a disease we do not have. We know that, in those countries, they are using antibiotics to spray the trees before the fruit comes into this country. Yet we do not seem able to stop it.

I mentioned a few moments ago the question of education in the rural sector, and I come back to it again. If we cannot educate the next generation of farmers and agribusiness personnel to a level where they can pick up that challenge, we are going to be severely disadvantaged. I want to see some leadership from this government for however long they occupy the treasury bench.

I would like to speak of farm viability for a moment. How wonderful it is that in the eastern states this year you have got a season that will produce good crops. We in the west are having a diabolical season. It is likely that up to one-third of Western Australian grain producers will not be viable to put in a crop in 2011. The opportunity is there for government to provide leadership. For example, they can have a look at multi-peril crop insurance. For many years this has been a stabilising influence in North America, Europe and South Africa. Yet here we do not yet have that opportunity; we do not even have people willing to have a look at it. Those are the sorts of things I hoped to hear of in the speech from the Governor-General about the Prime Minister’s leadership of this country.

Being from Western Australia I cannot let this opportunity pass without reminding the chamber of the question of minerals royalties. How easily the previous Prime Minister and the Treasurer talked about our minerals being ‘the asset of all Australians’. The Australian Constitution is very clear. If we in this chamber do not stand up for the integrity of the Australian Constitution, who is going to? Under the Constitution, mineral royalties are the province of the states, not the Commonwealth. A mineral royalty is merely the price at which the government of a state, on behalf of the people of that state, is willing to sell that mineral to a would-be purchaser. A royalty is merely a purchase price by a company or an entity that wants to buy the mineral. It is nothing more, it is nothing less and it is nothing to do with the Commonwealth.

In all of the discussions that take place on minerals royalties, minerals taxes, resource rent taxes et cetera, let it be remembered that this is nothing more than a state issue. There is no role for the Commonwealth to be grabbing the royalties of the states. How disappointing it was to see negotiations with three multinational mining companies—and this was apparently going to change completely the relationship with the entire mining sector—only to be told, ‘We were really there representing the interests of the minor players, so get on with it.’ Well, ‘get on with it’ not at all—it ought always have been!

I hope this government has learnt for the future that you do not change by bullying, you do not change by arrogance; you change by good negotiation and good consultation well in advance, not in arrears and not with a gun to the head. Madam Acting Deputy President, this government has no idea of the damage it has caused internationally to the reputation of this country and, from the viewpoint of the smaller miners, the damage it has done to confidence in the banking sector. Whilst the banking sector might not be saying too much publicly, they are certainly concerned about where risk lies—and, as we all know, banks reflect risk in interest rates and in charges to their clients.

There has been much discussion about the carbon tax and climate change. My colleague Senator Ronaldson has spoken about the Prime Minister’s turnaround on the carbon tax. Will she stop at nothing to get elected? It is more about the future of this country than getting elected or re-elected, and everybody in this place should be devoting their attention to it. I remind you that we only produce 1.4 per cent of the world’s carbon. Any effort by Australia in isolation will either do nothing or, because of carbon leakage, add to the level of world carbon. Of course we must move in relation to the rest of the world, but we must not at any time put families, businesses and industry at risk by some form of unilateral action.

The IPCC has been discredited in this whole process. There needs to be a robust debate by credible scientists and others. But there has not been that debate. We must surely engage but we must do so at a level that is commensurate with good science, good economics and good business, and we must not act in isolation from our trading partners and trading competitors. For those of you who do not know China, India, Indonesia or these other countries, go and have a look at their business practices, go and have a look at their procedures, and then ask yourself: to what extent are we in Australia going to have any influence at all? I can assure you we will have little influence.

I wish to draw attention—as indeed Senator Crossin courteously did—to the election to the House of Representatives this week of my associate Mr Ken Wyatt, who was successful in winning, after a spirited battle, the seat of Hasluck. Those who heard Ken Wyatt’s speech yesterday were immensely proud. Those of us from Western Australia, those of us in the Liberal Party, were immensely proud, and those who worked so hard to support Ken’s election are duly pleased and proud.

Ken Wyatt yesterday drew attention to the need for education and the need to support the elderly in our community. I have heard Noel Pearson speak eloquently about three factors when it comes to trying to lift those of low socioeconomic status, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. He speaks of the equation being: self-respect added to opportunity equals capability. We heard that theme yesterday from Ken Wyatt when he said that self-respect came from his family, from his opportunities and from those who supported him, and that opportunity, for him, came from hard work and from education. Putting those things together—self-respect added to opportunity—we certainly see in Ken Wyatt a level of capability that I am sure is going to create new standards in this parliament.

I was particularly concerned at the time to learn of a limited number of emails from people to Ken, to his office, to say, ‘If I had known you were an Aboriginal man I wouldn’t have voted for you.’ Let me tell you: for every one of those stupid people there would be hundreds who, if they had heard his speech yesterday, would have said, ‘Knowing that you are an Indigenous man, knowing your quality and calibre, I certainly will be voting for you.’

Ken’s activity reminded me that I am privileged to have recently been invited onto the board of the MyKasih Foundation, a philanthropic foundation based in Malaysia which supports the mothers of low socioeconomic families. Funds are placed, on a fortnightly basis, for one year only—remember: there is no social security in Malaysia—into an account which the mother can access from her Malaysian identification card, the MyKad. On a fortnightly basis, she can actually shop as anybody else does for goods for her family. But linked to that financial support is a skills development program in budgeting and other household activities. The third component is encouragement for her children, be they young or adolescent, to participate in education—coming back to that all the time. As Ken Wyatt spoke yesterday I reflected on the value of that MyKasih concept and its possible application here in Australia.

I conclude now with reference to the coalition between the Greens, the Independents and the Labor government. Now is the time: for the first time in the history of the Greens, they are actually in a position to influence policy in this parliament and I call on this government to call the Greens to account in the areas in which, they have said to the Australian people, they want removals. They want removal of the private health rebate—that 30 or 40 per cent. They want removal of the funding to the Catholic and independent schools sector, which will cost every Australian $6,000 for every child that is in a Catholic or independent school. And they want the introduction of death duties. I call on the government to repudiate and reject each of those three policies.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! We will have a brief interruption for Minister Feeney.

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

I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

Question agreed to.

Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.