Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The last time I spoke on the address-in-reply I was noting some of the changes that were made after the election. I was also talking about the South Australian result in the election. South Australia returned all House of Representative members with increased majorities, and a pleasing result it was indeed. Unfortunately, we have lost our third Senate spot, and that is Senator Dana Wortley. It is with great regret that we will lose Senator Wortley in due course.

We in the Labor government worked very closely with the Labor government in South Australia. It certainly is a tough time to be in government and the South Australian Labor government suffered some small losses in their last election. But that has not deterred the South Australian government working together with the federal government in a forward-looking agenda. That has resulted in a strong economy in South Australia in several areas—in particular, in mining, defence and education—and in continuing the focus on manufacturing in South Australia. South Australia has suffered by being seen as an old manufacturing economy. What the federal and state governments have done is work towards making sure that that manufacturing moves into the new century in a strong position by using new technology, new techniques and finding niches in the export market so that manufacturing can continue to thrive in South Australia, albeit in an ever-changing form. I pay tribute to the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Senator Kim Carr, who as the responsible minister has put in place programs that have enabled manufacturing in South Australia to be strengthened and move forward.

In looking at the way South Australia has that strong forward-looking focus, while maintaining a strong economy, I want to pay tribute to Mr Kevin Foley, who has recently stepped down from the Treasury portfolio. He worked hard to deliver outcomes within a responsible economic framework and he imposed close discipline on the South Australian government while making money available for projects that would make sure South Australia moved forward into the future—for example, the mining exploration programs, the preparation work for defence manufacturing and the expansion of the education sector in South Australia. I worked with Kevin Foley when I was in opposition in the state parliament and I know how committed he is to responsible economic management and the future of South Australia. I wish him well in his new portfolios and I am very pleased that he has retained that key defence portfolio. It is certainly a very strong, although vulnerable, position in South Australia and I hope that we in South Australia can continue to work closely with the federal government.

On a national basis, Labor also suffered reversals in the last election and is now in a minority government, which of course adds many challenges to this parliament. Like the South Australian government, the federal Labor government is still committed to a reform agenda and will need to work very closely with all sides of politics to deliver that result, but that in itself is not a bad situation. It can be used, if used properly, to make sure that the checks and reviews are in place and that we can move forward with a strong consensus government. The Labor government can look on its record in the past government with some satisfaction. The government prevented Australia going into a recession during the global financial crisis. The initial short-term step was to boost consumer confidence through the $900 cash bonus, and that kept the economy boosted in that initial shock phase of the global financial crisis. The next step was to invest in medium-term infrastructure, which included the provision of new buildings and equipment in the education sector in particular. Now we are seeing the third phase, more the long-term phase, of building infrastructure for future productivity.

The measures that the Labor government put in place enabled the creation of jobs and kept many working families employed. In fact, in a 12-month period, the Labor government created 349,700 jobs, contributing towards a total of over 567,000 jobs having been created since Labor came to office in November 2007. This was very important, because it enabled skills retention. Now that we are looking at some kind of world recovery and at a recovery in Australia, we are seeing a skills shortage around the world. Governments around the world are facing this problem. We need to build up skills but we also need to make sure that we retain the skills that we have in our workforce. It is clear from past experience in recessions that skills loss happens rapidly, that once people are behind—once they are not in jobs or in education—they lose skills rapidly and find it very difficult to make up that deficit. So, quite apart from the knock-on effect to families and wider education, skills retention was very important. The business community must take some credit for that also, because it was well recognised that business, rather than retrench people, introduced flexible employment arrangements. They might have had to take away or reduce overtime or put people on part-time work, but they did, in general, try hard to retain their employees.

The stimulus package was not solely about stimulating the economy; it was also about nation building—for example, with the Building the Education Revolution, community infrastructure, social housing, and roads and rail. Labor also invested in vital infrastructure, such as health centres, many of which are in our regional areas. I went to Wudinna in South Australia to open the health centre, for which the government provided $400,000 via the Rural Medical Infrastructure Fund, money which would otherwise have had to be raised by the local community. Work on the building was predominantly completed by local tradespeople, which was a testament to the skills and ability available within that community. I have now opened many Building the Education Revolution projects in schools across South Australia. It was very good to witness the joy of our communities, principals and parents when first accessing the buildings. But the real joy was in seeing the young students and knowing the significance of these buildings to their education advancement and student experience.

Now we are embarking on another major infrastructure program: the National Broadband Network. This signifies a major investment in productivity driven infrastructure, an investment of up to $43 billion delivered to 93 per cent of premises, with speeds of 100 megabits per second, if not beyond. This benefits business, the health sector and the education sector but it also provides regional Australia with the ability to be brought forward into the 21st century technologically. For small business, this is particularly crucial, especially when many of them are currently paying a high amount of money for a service that does not sufficiently allow for efficient use or for a greater capacity for growth.

People, either through ignorance or a wilful misunderstanding, talk about the NBN as being useful only for faster downloading of movies or playing of games. That is patently not the case, and businesses around Australia know that that is not true. People who talk about it in those terms have almost zero understanding of the dynamics of small business in particular, regional businesses in particular and the opportunity that fast national broadband makes for productivity increases around Australia, particularly in regional areas. It is sad to me that people who are against the details of the NBN take this kind of argument against this type of technology—that they argue against the technology rather than the details. I could tolerate an argument against the details or against the expenditure but not against the kind of technology, because that indicates a head in the sand attitude to the need for the Australian economy to be driven forward, to be made more productive and to create more jobs in this area, much less the benefits it will create in providing health and education services, which, again, we need for further productivity down the track. I do not want Australia to be lagging behind in broadband compared to many of those forward-looking economies in the world that will easily overtake us if we allow ourselves to be held back in this area. So I am very pleased that the Gillard Labor government will be continuing to press ahead with this very much needed productivity infrastructure.

What the Labor government also brought to the reform agenda prior to the election was a decrease in the company tax rate from 30 per cent to 29 per cent. This is a small step but one which will also drive competitiveness and investment in Australia, starting us on a path to make Australia a more attractive opportunity for foreign direct investment as well as increased investment within Australia, with greater innovation and entrepreneurial activity. It will again drive productivity, as companies who have more capital will in turn be able to grow the economic pie.

This reform was underpinned by the proposed minerals resource rent tax—a fairer system, I think, to allow Australians to gain the right value on the resources that Australians own and that companies are exploiting. I have had a long association with the mining industry. I have strongly supported the mining industry and the way that they have returned some of their profits back into R&D and back into the community, but there is no question that the terms of trade that they are experiencing are greatly on the increase, that they are more profitable and that they can pay more in taxation to assist our country to go ahead and to make productivity improvements, such as the NBN, such as reducing company tax and such as increasing our superannuation guarantee. It has been recognised widely—even by the opposition now, who opposed it in the beginning—that the superannuation guarantee levy has meant that Australia is in a good economic position despite the expected increase in the number of older people in our community over the next 20 or so years.

I want to return to the development of skills and training and the commitment of Labor governments to skills and training. It has been high on the agenda and it will continue to be high on the agenda for the Labor government. I would like to go back to my home state of South Australia and talk about the advantages for South Australians that this represents, because we do have increasing job possibilities in areas like manufacturing, defence, vehicle manufacturing and the mining industry. I would again like to commend the work of individuals in the South Australian Labor government—in this case, Premier Mike Rann and Minister Jack Snelling—who announced:

… a $125 million Sustainable Industries Education Centre to be built on the former Mitsubishi site at Tonsley Park by TAFE SA in collaboration with SA universities and industry.

The new centre will specialise in training more than 8000 people a year in new green technologies associated with the building and construction industry—including plumbers, bricklayers, designers and carpenters.

This was a great initiative by the South Australian government. The minister at the time, Jack Snelling, has now become Treasurer and so I look forward to seeing that initiative given continued priority.

I have very little time left but I would just mention that the Labor government continues to devote a lot of resources and efforts to finding a solution for the River Murray. I expect that South Australia will get much more rigorous and efficient irrigation infrastructure in the scheme and look forward to the resolution of that longstanding issue in Australia.

Finally, I want to talk further about the proposed carbon tax and what we are going to do about the climate change debate. I was very pleased to hear the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Greg Combet, talk this morning on television in very practical terms about reducing pollution and making our industries more carbon efficient. I just want to mention a quote by James Fallows in the Atlantic, December 2010, in an article entitled ‘Dirty coal, clean future’. He said:

Overall, coal-burning power plants provide nearly half (about 46 percent this year) of the electricity consumed in the United States. For the record: natural gas supplies another 23 percent, nuclear power about 20 percent, hydroelectric power about 7 percent, and everything else the remaining 4 or 5 percent. The small size of the “everything else” total is worth noting; even if it doubles or triples, the solutions we often hear the most about won’t come close to meeting total demand. In China, coal-fired plants supply an even larger share of much faster-growing total electric demand: at least 70 percent …

In short, coal is here to stay. Although we will put a lot of effort into alternative power sources, we need to face the fact that we need baseload power. We need coal and we may well need nuclear power in the future. I think that, more and more, we should concentrate on how that is going to work—looking at not only other forms of renewable power but how coal and nuclear power are going to continue.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A lot has happened since the Governor-General delivered her speech, prepared by the government, a few short months ago. With no disrespect to the Governor-General, it was a speech that was more noted for what it did not say than for what it did say. In fact, I think most of us by now have really forgotten what the Governor-General’s speech indicated. I emphasise that is no disrespect to the Governor-General, but of course, as we all know, the Governor-General’s speech is written by the government of the day.

In spite of dire warnings by Senator Wong, the Labor Party and the Greens about these climatic catastrophes that were about to befall the world and Australia, did the Governor-General say in her speech anything about putting money aside for those expected catastrophes? The Rudd government came into power with a $20 billion asset in the form of savings the Howard government had made. Elsewhere there was $60 billion put aside. All of that $60 billion has been wasted in two short years by a government that is addicted to spending and taxing. As a result of that, when we have these calamities that are very normal in Australia and for which governments must expect to have to pick up the bill every year, we find ourselves with the coffers bare and the government, the Labor Party and Ms Gillard again talking in the only way they know about a supposed solution for these issues—and that is to impose another tax on the already overtaxed Australian public.

Her Excellency, in her speech, made no reference whatsoever to the failures of this government’s predecessors or to the lack of any mandate that this present government has for any program. This government in its previous iteration was well categorised as a government that was all spin and no action. It was a government that had been elected three years previously with a lot of goodwill, goodwill that had been dissipated by the brutal removal of an elected prime minister by a group of faceless men who control the Labor Party in this country. Mark my words, Madam Acting Deputy President: the same thing will happen to the current Prime Minister. You can see already that the Rudd loyalists, as Mr Toohey in his very perceptive article in the weekend paper noted, are out there campaigning to get rid of Ms Gillard. In spite of the fact that Ms Gillard has clearly watched closely the performance of the Queensland Premier in times of tragedy, nothing will save Ms Gillard from the faceless men who control the Labor Party. You see around the hall the Rudd loyalists, the anti-Gillard people, already gathering. It will not be long. Senator Arbib had better watch out, because he was one of the leaders of the push to get rid of Mr Rudd and install Ms Gillard. He must now be regretting very heavily that action.

Labor’s huge majority in the previous parliament was completely destroyed. There were huge swings away from Labor to the coalition in the resource rich states of Western Australia and Queensland, and we saw the unedifying spectacle after the election of the Prime Minister, who had assumed office by the most deceitful and vicious action against her former leader, clinging to power by offering whatever it took to the Greens and the Independents. Cling to power the Labor Party did, by its fingernails. In the end, it became clear that the government had no program, no mandate, no authority and no vision. It did, however, have a very clear determination to cling to power because, in the end, for the Labor Party, power is what it is all about. The election campaign was full of promises by the Labor Party which it never intended to keep. The sort of duplicity that would have done credit to the former socialist governments of eastern Europe was replicated by the Labor Party in the election campaign. But, as bad as the Labor Party was during the election campaign, that negativity paled into insignificance against the dishonest and deceitful campaign by the Australian Greens.

The Labor Party’s campaign was full of mistruths and downright lies about the mining tax, the carbon tax and detention centres, for example. During the course of the campaign, we were told there would be no carbon tax. In fact, Ms Gillard promised the Australian public, the less than 50 per cent who voted for her, that she would not bring in a carbon tax—and they voted for her on that basis. Of course, as soon as she was in power, what was the first thing she did? She indicated that a carbon tax would be introduced. She said that a deal on the mining tax had been struck with the mining companies. We know that that announcement by Ms Gillard was also a downright mistruth: there had been no deal struck with the mining companies and that has become obvious now. We were told there would be no new detention centres. When the issue of a possible detention centre in Cape York at RAAF Base Scherger was mentioned it was denied by the Labor Party and its functionaries. We now know only too well how untrue that denial was.

The deceit and duplicity of the Labor Party in the national campaign was mirrored in the campaigns run by the Labor Party at local level. In the electorate of Dawson, up my way, we were told that the sitting member had retired from ill-health, but everyone knew that the real story was that he had been forced to retire by the faceless men of the Labor Party in favour of their selected candidate, the Mayor of Bowen—interestingly referred to locally as Moscow Mike. We know in the Townsville based seat of Herbert the wishes of the local Labor Party branch members were completely ignored when the national executive, the then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard, selected disgraced former Mayor of Townsville, Tony Mooney, as the candidate for what the party believed would be the easiest of electorates to win. In fact, it had become a notional Labor Party electorate following the re-distribution and it was ripe for picking by the faceless men of the Labor Party. As the Labor Party do, they buy, sell, trade and will these seats to their mates, friends and families.

In the case of Herbert the local Labor people were absolutely shattered. This had the impact of local Labor Party branch members not supporting the campaign, which resulted in the head office having to pay people to man polling booths in the electorate of Herbert. I will just repeat that: the Labor Party national campaign had to pay people to campaign in the electorate of Herbert. Indeed, in one of the most extraordinarily deceitful aspects of the campaign, the Labor Party in Herbert handed out a deceptive counterfeit how-to-vote card indicating that those wishing to vote Green should follow this counterfeit how-to-vote card, which appeared to be a Green how-to-vote card, giving the Labor Party second preference. So incensed were the local Green activists, who had made a deliberate decision in Herbert not to preference any party and not to hand out how-to-vote cards on polling day, they were running around the polling booths telling people who had received the fake Green cards that these cards were not Green how-to-vote cards but in fact bogus Labor cards.

I questioned some of the young people who were handing out fake Green how-to-vote cards at the booths, and so did colleagues of mine. There were some funny stories about them, I have to tell you, but it became clear from what I was told by these young people that they had answered an internet advertisement offering them a job at $25 an hour to hand out how-to-vote cards. Most of them told me they believed they were handing them out for the Greens political party and they were surprised when I showed them that the cards were actually authorised and produced by the Labor Party.

It was quite funny. A couple of the young people I saw giving out those cards were actually saying to the people they handed them out to, ‘Here is a how-to-vote card but we’re voting for Ewen Jones, the LNP candidate, and we urge you to do the same.’ Some of the people handing out how-to-vote cards did not even vote on election day, because they were New Zealanders looking for some cash during their backpacking tour around Australia. But can you believe it, Madam Acting Deputy President—the once great Labor Party having to pay people $25 an hour to hand out fake how-to-vote cards and to man their own booths? It was because Labor stalwarts in Townsville were so incensed at the faceless men who had destroyed their choice as the candidate and put in Tony Mooney. Of course, in both Dawson and Herbert we know the results of the Labor Party national executive putting in their favoured candidates. Both seats were won very comfortably by the LNP, and all credit to Ewen Jones and George Christensen.

Prior to the election, all the electorates north of the Tropic of Capricorn, numbering nine in all, were held by the Labor Party or Independents. When the dust settled after the election, the Labor Party had lost all but two seats in Northern Australia, and in Capricornia, for example, it had suffered an eight per cent swing against it. The result in Northern Australia was certainly a singing endorsement of the leadership of Tony Abbott, the policies of the Liberal and National parties and the organisational skill of the Liberal Party in Western Australia, the CLP in the Northern Territory and the LNP in Queensland.

The Governor-General’s speech talked about parliamentary reform. We know what the Labor Party think of democracy and parliamentary reform. Senator Cameron made it quite clear in his now well-publicised comment that Labor Party parliamentarians were just like zombies and had no say whatsoever. No-one knows why the people of Australia voted for individual candidates, because, according to Senator Cameron, all they do is act like zombies, sit there and get told what to do—although I expect the zombies will be rising, Senator Hutchins, looking at Ms Gillard and yearning for the days when Mr Rudd was leader. Let us hope Mr Rudd gets back as leader. I would look forward to the challenge of him being in charge again, but I guess it is six of one and half-a-dozen of the other.

The Governor-General spoke about a stronger economy. I have mentioned that the $60 billion the coalition had put aside in credit was frittered away in two short years by this government addicted to spending. Now, after the government promising no carbon tax, we are going to have a carbon tax. After the government saying the mining tax had been fixed, we are going to have a new mining tax. And now we are going to a new tax to do the sorts of things that governments are expected to do—that is, look after infrastructure and look after Australians who have suffered from calamities.

The Governor-General also made reference to climate change and sustainability. I still cannot understand how Senator Wong, Ms Gillard and the Labor Party can go around saying that Australia has to lead in reducing carbon emissions. Australia produces less than 1.2 per cent of the world’s output of greenhouse gases. The Labor Party want to break Australian industry and Australian workers so that they can go to the world stage and say, ‘We’re leading the charge.’ If all of the programs that even the Greens have put forward were adopted, the impact on global output of greenhouse gas would be absolutely infinitesimal. I have always said that, when the rest of the world does it, so should Australia, but to try and lead in this area will just destroy our economy and the jobs of workers, which the Labor Party pretend they look after.

On regional Australia, the Governor-General’s speech contained a couple of half-columns. The only person the government could find to be appointed to the regional portfolio was a bloke who represents an inner city Melbourne seat. Mr Crean is a nice guy, and to become the ACTU boss and then fight his way through the Labor machine to get elected to parliament, he clearly has got some things going for him. But stuck down in one of our biggest cities, in the centre of Melbourne, is the guy that looks after regional Australia. I suppose it is better than the Rudd government, which had two ministers, one sitting each side of Sydney’s Kingsford Smith Airport, doing the portfolio work for regional Australia. The government pay lip-service to regional Australia. I am the shadow parliamentary secretary for northern and remote Australia. I am not quite sure who I am shadowing at the moment, because after the election and the very poor result that the Labor Party had in Northern Australia, they have completely dropped the title. They have dropped any interest they ever feigned in Northern Australia, and it will be left to the coalition to give proper recognition to the wealth, the energy and the enthusiasm that Northern Australia brings to our nation.

I want to make some comment about the Greens political party. Their members are more interested in outdated and discredited socialist policies more reminiscent of eastern Europe in the fifties and sixties than a modern democracy of today. The absolute stupidity of those comments by the Greens leaders on Australian coal companies being the cause of the floods and cyclones is just beyond comment. That is the sort of group that keeps this government in power. That is the sort of group that will direct the Labor Party, who are only interested in power, and will direct the policies—those left-wing, socialist, eastern European policies of the fifties and sixties. That is what this government has to rely on to stay in office. Stay in office it will, and that means it will roll over to the Greens.

I will seek leave at the end of my speech to table a list of climatic conditions which is going around the internet. I have had my staff check them with reliable sources. As best as we can tell, most of the conditions are accurately portrayed. It shows that cyclones, floods, droughts, storms and other weather calamities have been happening since European man first recorded these things in Australia. Practically every year since 1864 there have been major climatic events. As far as I am aware, Senator Bob Brown, the Australian coal companies were not pumping out greenhouse gases back in 1864 and in practically every year since. I raise this only to show up the sort of stupid comment—an absolutely gormless comment—made by the leader of the Australian Greens. This is the party that the Labor Party relies on to cling to government, and that is a disgrace. There will, I am sure, be more said about that over the next months. Senator Brown will no doubt be trying to wiggle out of his comments, but he and his colleagues are absolutely ridiculous on these sorts of things.

I will conclude as I started, having said that things have changed quite a bit since the Governor-General made her speech. I think yesterday most of us in this chamber indicated our empathy, our distress, our support and our condolences for those who have suffered as a result of the natural calamities that Australia expects and that we have had over many years. It is on a sombre note that the parliament starts this week. It is of regret to me, however, that this government is so incompetent that it has not put aside or at least saved some of the money the previous government allocated for the work that we all know will have to be done every year as a result of natural calamities. I urge the Senate to support Senator Abetz’s very perceptive amendment to this motion and urge that the motion be adopted.

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Your time has expired, Senator Macdonald.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to table this list. Do I need leave to table a list?

The Acting Deputy President:

You do. Senator Lundy, is leave granted?

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, because Senator Macdonald knows that it is a simple thing to come and show us the document that he seeks to table, as is normal practice.

The Acting Deputy President:

Leave is not granted.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will show it to the minister at the table and perhaps seek later to have it tabled.

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

Senator Macdonald said a number of things in his contribution in this address-in-reply debate that I take issue with. One thing, of course, with which I would not take issue is his description of the Greens. While the major parties are often accused of being opportunistic and cynical, those of us who have observed the Greens in action here in the Senate and publicly, particularly in New South Wales, would have to say that the Greens are high up in both of those categories. Another point I want to make is the cynicism and the absolute political opportunism of the Green parties, but not at this stage because I do want to make sure that I do not miss them one bit. The one thing that I think we should remind Australians about is the day that Senator Hanson-Young brought her child in here, which caused a kerfuffle. You may recall that, Madam Acting Deputy President, because it was the same day, as I recall, that the Greens were being asked to explain a half-million-dollar donation—I think it was in cash—that they were having difficulty explaining. But only the major political parties get accused of being cynical, not the white knights in the Greens.

Senator Macdonald also talked about our Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government, Simon Crean. Senator Macdonald has been around a long time. He would recall that in the dying days of the Gorton government Billy McMahon was made Minister for Primary Industry. Billy McMahon was a member for an area around Sydney that covered Strathfield, Homebush, a bit of Ashfield and other places that I cannot recall at the moment. Prime Minister McMahon did not live in his electorate when he was a minister. He lived in the eastern suburbs of Sydney. He would have been an elector of Malcolm Turnbull. So it is not without precedent that we have had people who have lived in the inner city. Your party, Senator Macdonald, set the precedent by making Billy McMahon the Minister for Primary Industry.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yeah, but I think he had a farm.

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

He might have had a farm, but it might have been a tax dodge. Being a solicitor, you might be able to assist us in finding out where that tax dodge could be best used.

In this address-in-reply I want to talk about a few things. The first is the last election. It must be galling to you, Madam Acting Deputy President Boyce, and members of the Liberal Party that your leader from New South Wales, Tony Abbott, a member of the New South Wales division, as you call it, performed so poorly in the last federal election. Labor lost one seat. We lost one person who was holding that seat, Maxine McKew. Some might say that is not a bad thing; I will not comment. We also did not pick up a seat that we had held, which was Macquarie. But there were seats that the coalition could have, should have and would have picked up if their New South Wales division and Tony Abbott, being one of the leaders of that division, had performed much better. In the seat of Macquarie there was Louise Markus, whose campaign in 2004 in Greenway was marked by racist and anti-religious comments by people who were against our candidate, a fellow called Eddie Husic, by background a Bosnian Muslim. He was subjected to a lot of racist and anti-religious mail, anonymous of course.

Louise Markus had won the seat of Greenway and when the redistribution occurred after the last election Mrs Markus decided to run for Macquarie. The Liberals endorsed in Greenway a young fellow who had very little connection with the area, who was not known and who was in fact more seen by the people in that area as a puppet of his father. He was selected as the Liberal candidate. If I recall, and maybe my coalition colleagues will correct me when they have an opportunity to make a contribution, we won that seat by a handful of votes. If you were a Liberal from other states, you might wonder why the Liberals did not ask Louise Markus to stay and contest Greenway. You might ask that. It was intriguing to us in the Labor Party that someone who had been the member for that area for nearly six years was so gutless that she moved on to another seat, which she won narrowly, but we won Greenway narrowly.

Then you go to Tony Abbott’s favourite seat, Lindsay, where the Liberal candidate was selected I think six weeks before the federal election. I am being generous here—I think it was four weeks but let us say it was six. Fiona Scott, whose family is involved in business in the area, I understand won the preselection from the Liberal Party preselectors because she said she would spend a quarter of a million dollars of her own money in winning the seat. As soon as Ms Scott became the candidate, they could not wheel her out anywhere because Ms Scott had not been trained to be a candidate. She had not been prepared for the job that she was going to do. The lady who was defeated in the preselection was in Toastmasters, was a very articulate woman and probably would have given us a run for our money. I know I speak on behalf of not only the New South Wales Labor Party but the government when I say I am grateful that the New South Wales Liberal division endorsed Fiona Scott, because we might not have held that seat. Lindsay was one of Tony Abbott’s signature seats. In fact, on election day he had his daughters handing out cards there and he spent a lot of time out there during the campaign. As you may recall, Madam Acting Deputy President, so did the Prime Minister. We won that seat. We had a swing against us but we retained the seat with a one per cent margin due to the great work of the sitting member, David Bradbury.

I notice there are no New South Wales Liberals in here today but that there is a National Party senator. They did deliver for the coalition in the bush, unfortunately for us.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will in Queensland.

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

I am talking about New South Wales Liberals, Senator Mason. Then you go ahead and you have a choice between three New South Wales Liberals to run your party. Crikey. You have Mr Abbott, Mr Hockey and Mr Turnbull, all of them out of the New South Wales division, where you only picked up one seat overall in the federal election, the seat of Macquarie, which was not contested by a sitting member. How is it that you can go back to your party room and look at any of these New South Wales Liberals and expect them to deliver for you? Tony Abbott had his fingerprints all over the Lindsay preselection and in the end you could not win that seat with all that we had at the time going against us. I am very grateful to the New South Wales division of the Liberal Party. It is important that they be recognised for their contribution to the federal Labor government. It may be that we should strike a coin or a medal to Tony Abbott and the New South Wales Liberals. And if you saw or listened to the debate between Barry O’Farrell and Kristina Keneally the other day you would think that they are at it again. They do not know what they are about to do and all they are doing is being against. I am concerned that we might see a Liberal government in New South Wales and we do not know what they would do.

In the time left to me I wanted to speak about the people who advocate the decriminalisation of drugs. I do not think I am going to have the opportunity to make the contribution that I want to at the moment and I will have to leave that for another time.

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hutchins, for your information, the speaking list has been changed, so you have your full time available.

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

I understand that, but what I need to say is going to take longer than eight minutes and 47 seconds. I feel passionate about the issue of people who advocate the decriminalisation of drugs. We have seen an instance of that very publicly in New South Wales in the last few weeks where again the Greens have immediately jumped on the bandwagon and said they should be decriminalised.

In the few minutes I have left I want to talk about two things. The first is that I want to compliment the retiring chief executive of the Australian Rail Track Corporation, David Marchant. I am not sure how many years David has been the chief executive of the Australian Rail Track Corporation but in that time thousands of kilometres of rail lines have been changed from having timber sleepers to having concrete sleepers. That does not get a tick in terms of how sexy things are in the national economy, but it has meant that trains have been able to travel the 50 or 60 kilometres and not worry about the heat as they previously had to. That has contributed magnificently to the economy of this country. This program was started under the Howard government and has been continued by Labor. David has now retired from that position. I am not sure what he is going to do, and I forget the name of the chap who is taking over. I think that we should acknowledge grand public servants of the nation who have made such a significant contribution. I am sure my colleague Senator Williams, affectionately known as ‘Wacka’, would have seen the amount of rail track that has been replaced with concrete sleepers and the impact that it has had on the economy of our state. So I want to make sure that in my contribution today Mr Marchant is suitably recognised for his contribution.

Finally, I want to compliment a young lady who made her maiden speech in the Victorian parliament last night—my wife. I was listening to Natalie Hutchins make her contribution to parliament, and in fact I voted in the national executive of the Labor Party for Natalie to be the candidate for Keilor. At a pub named Taylors Lakes Hotel, which is not far from where Nat lives and where I will also be living shortly—it is one of the few places in Victoria where you can get a schooner, and Steve, Ann and Jessie look after us there—Nat has been affectionately christened by the locals as ‘the sheila from Keilor’. In her contribution last night she made a very considered and passionate speech on behalf of her electorate of Keilor. I think it is important that we acknowledge the contribution of activists. My wife is a former union official and a former small business woman and she is now a member of the Victorian parliament. She is very dedicated to her electorate and she of course mentioned her husband in her maiden speech, which I thought was very important! One of the interesting things is that my wife decided to run under her married name, Hutchins, rather than under her maiden name, which was Sykes. The reason for that is that her brother said to her, ‘What would you rather be known as, ‘Hutcho’ or ‘Syko’? So she chose the former.

I have a significant contribution to make on opposition to the legalisation of drugs and I will have to do that at another time. But I do want to just reiterate in my final comments that we in the Labor Party do owe a great deal of debt to the New South Wales division of the Liberals. Without their assistance, we probably would not be in power today. Without Louise Markus running away from Greenway and running in Macquarie, we probably would not have won Greenway. Without their poor selection of candidates in Lindsay, we possibly would not have held Lindsay. So it is left to me, a former president of the New South Wales branch of the Labor Party, to make sure that the New South Wales division of the Liberal Party is suitably acknowledged for their woeful efforts in the last campaign. Look at the magnificent contribution that you, Senator Mason, and you, Madam Acting Deputy President Boyce, must feel that you made as Queenslanders to the coalition effort, and then look at the contribution of New South Wales Liberals. Again, all you have got is three New South Welshmen to choose from, and, again, Tony Abbott does run the New South Wales division. So once more on behalf of a grateful Labor government we thank the New South Wales division of the Liberals for their magnificent effort in making sure that we are on this side of the chamber and you are on that side.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In her speech on the opening of parliament, Her Excellency the Governor-General said:

… education lies at the heart of the government’s agenda to strengthen workforce participation and enhance our nation’s fairness and prosperity.

Putting aside for a second the fact that what was supposed to be at the heart of the Labor Party’s agenda was in fact forgotten in the naming of their ministry following the last election, this concentration on education—the so-called education revolution—echos what Mr Blair and New Labour were doing 15 years ago and, indeed, there are echos going back to President Johnson and the ‘Great Society’ in the 1960s. It is quite common in the social democratic project to have education at the core.

The question really is: how has the government gone over the last three years with its—to use its words—‘core project’? How has the government performed? Senators might remember it all started with Mr Rudd and the laptop computers. Do you remember that, Mr Acting Deputy President? He stood up one day—it looked great on television—and said, holding a laptop computer, ‘This is the toolbox of the 21st century.’ It was great TV graphics. He said there would be a computer for every student from year 9 to year 12. He sort of said that, but then he spoke about access to a computer. Indeed, we wondered what the promise meant. But in the end, the government came to the party and said, ‘All right, we’ll provide a million computers so that every student gets one.’ There is a ratio of one to one—one computer for every student. What happened on this first part of the core project? The Commonwealth underbudgeted by about $2 billion. Far worse than that, it was only talking about the capital cost of the hardware—the computers. What about the installation, the maintenance, the insurance, the licensing and the software; who is going to pay for that? Guess who had to pay? State governments, private schools and parents ended up paying billions because the federal government had not thought about that—it did not look cool on TV—and in fact it cost four times as much as the hardware. For every dollar you spend on hardware, you need to spend about another $4 on other costs. So state governments, nongovernment schools and parents had to come up with somewhere between $2 billion and $4 billion to cover the so-called ‘laptop computer oncosts’. This was right at the start of the Building the Education Revolution.

How is the implementation going? As of last October 2010—the last estimates—out of one million computers promised, how many had been delivered? Only 345,000. I can accurately say, 34.5 per cent, about one-third, had actually been delivered. At this rate of delivery, even on the government’s own figures—and laptop computers become redundant after four years—given only one-third have been delivered after three, they will become redundant before they are delivered. This is a fiasco. It has received a lot of airplay but this was, in a sense, a principal commitment in the core objective of this government.

The other important aspect of laptop computers was not just the provision and delivery of them, it was also the internet connection. The other part of the promise that Mr Rudd made was to connect all laptop computers to fibre internet with speeds of up to 100 megabytes a second. Remember, that was the promise from 2007. So let me ask: how many laptop computers have been connected by the Commonwealth to fibre? Pick any number between zero and one million. The answer is none—zero, or as Mr Rudd would have said, zip. None has been connected by the Commonwealth government to 100 megabytes per second broadband, not one. But I am told at every estimates meeting not to worry. ‘Don’t worry, Senator Mason, because Senator Conroy has it under control. When the NBN gets going everything will be OK and all the computers’—even if they are redundant—‘will be attached to fast-speed broadband.’ By the time the NBN rolls out, the students who are promised fast fibre connection will be as old as me. It has taken a long, long time.

You know how generous I am—very generous. In my former life as a university lecturer, I commonly gave out marks to students and I was always very generous and well known to be generous. So I will give a scorecard on the first part of the education revolution. In terms of the laptops I have decided, after a lot of reflection, to give the government a fail mark—sorry, and that is being generous.

The next part of the education revolution was building school halls. Part of this was to provide stimulus to the economy, to answer the global financial crisis, and also because apparently new school halls meant better educational outcomes. We have never heard much about new school halls leading to better educational outcomes. That link has never been made conclusively. Putting that aside for the moment—as you know I am generous—we know that the building school halls project cost about $16 billion. It is the largest infrastructure project in our history.

The question really is: how could you spend $16 billion and have so many people unhappy? How could a government do that? There are several reasons. The first one is the lack of flexibility. These infamous design templates, which have a whiff of central planning, which I know my friend Senator Carr loves—the whiff of Stalinism; this soviet-era planning that he loves. Schools that wanted gymnasiums got libraries and schools that wanted libraries got gymnasiums. It was a shambles. The templates did not work.

Far more fundamentally, as the Commonwealth Auditor-General said, the problem with the entire project was this: the Commonwealth government did not have the technical expertise to adequately oversight state expenditure of Commonwealth money on schools. That is the heart of the problem—the Commonwealth government did not know whether they were getting good value for money or not. That, in a sentence, is the problem with the entire school halls project.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But what did Mr Orgill say about this?

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me get to Mr Orgill in a minute. That, fundamentally, is the problem—the government did not have the requisite nous, the requisite flexibility or the requisite expertise to ensure that Commonwealth taxpayers’ money was being well spent by state governments. The Auditor-General has said that. This has implications right across so-called cooperative federalism. It has enormous implications, not just in education but in health and elsewhere. This is an enormous administrative failure.

Let us look at the cost of school buildings built by state governments compared with nongovernment schools. We now know that costs have been inflated by price gouging and mismanagement, and that of course has cost billions. The building program is way behind, particularly in Victoria. We were told we had to wait because the market was overheating in Victoria, and now of course it has become inflationary. I always thought that stimulus projects were supposed to be timely, targeted and temporary. Remember that? That was the original test set by the government. Again, even on their own terms, they have failed.

The government dragged out poor old Mr Orgill, and what did he find in his first report? On page 22, schematic 4, we find that New South Wales government school projects cost $3,477 per square metre. For New South Wales Catholic schools the cost was $2,724 per square metre, and for New South Wales independent schools the cost was $2,148. The cost in New South Wales government schools is more than 60 per cent more per square metre than in New South Wales nongovernment schools. The independent schools are more than $1,300 a square metre cheaper. There is the same pattern in Victoria—government schools $2,850 per square metre; independent schools $1,841. That is a difference of $1,009 per square metre. In Queensland, government schools cost $2,743 per square metre; independent schools $1,736—a difference of $1,007 per square metre. The government is building schools in both Queensland and Victoria that are 50 per cent more expensive per square metre than independent schools, and more than 60 per cent more expensive than independent schools in New South Wales. That is a disgrace.

Mr Orgill, in his own report, said it was not just about cost per square metre; it was about quality and timeliness. Even though the New South Wales government and some of its bureaucrats tried to say that the quality in the Catholic and independent schools was not as good, Mr Orgill found that the quality across all sectors was very similar—the same. So quality is not a relevant differentiating factor. The only factor is time. It is true that in New South Wales the average state government project took 500 days to build while in the independent sector it took 600 days. It took 20 per cent more time to build independent school projects—about 100 days more, or three months—but cost 60 per cent more. In Victoria, the government school projects cost 50 per cent more than in independent schools and they were slower to build than in the independent sector. In Queensland, the independent school projects were completed faster and were much cheaper to build. So timeliness does not even get Mr Orgill and the government off the hook.

The bottom line for about 70 per cent of the schools in Australia—the government schools in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland—is absolutely disgraceful. How much did it cost? If those government school projects had been delivered at the cost delivered for independent schools, we would have saved the taxpayer, the community, about $2.6 billion. If they had been built at the same cost as Catholic school projects, the savings would have been about $1.8 million. I understand we are about to have a flood levy, and it is hoped to raise about $1.8 billion. If the government had secured the value for money that the Catholic and independent schools received from their school hall projects, there would be no need for this levy. The government did not have the oversight mechanisms in place to ensure that state governments secured value for money for their building projects, and that is an absolute disgrace. They knew about it, they were told about it, they were warned about it, but what did they do? Nothing. And, now we have spent about 75 per cent of the money, it is too late to secure value for money for these projects. It is an absolute and utter disgrace.

The other day poor old Mr Orgill had to fend me off in a committee meeting. He was uncomfortable, and I do not blame him—it is not his fault. It is the government’s fault, not Mr Orgill’s. I may have given the government a conceded pass on the building school halls program, but I have lost my generosity when I think that this crowd is about to impose a flood levy on the people of Australia that would not have been necessary if they had secured value for money for state school projects. They do not deserve any generosity in any way at all. All I can do is give the government a big F for fail there as well. It is absolutely disgraceful. It is perhaps the greatest financial mismanagement in the post-war era—and that is saying a lot. It has cost this country billions.

Let me go to the national curriculum—and I wish I had 50 minutes to speak and not just 20. Education is supposed to be the Prime Minister’s strong point, but everything she touches turns to sand. The national curriculum is not a bad idea. The government did well initiating it, and I accept that. It is a good idea because it can raise standards. It can mean world’s best practice. It can mean international benchmarking. I am not against the principle. But what has happened? It has been hijacked by the ideologues, and we have these overarching themes: Asia, sustainability and indigeneity. They are the three overarching themes in our national curriculum. Deputy President Hutchins, you might ask why we don’t have an overarching theme about the importance of liberal democratic institutions. I would have thought that was an important overarching theme. What about the impact of Judaeo-Christian ethics on our life here in Australia? I would have thought that was an important overarching theme. What about the role of science and technology in the material progress of mankind? I would have thought that was an important overarching theme, but apparently not as important as Asia or sustainability or indigeneity. It shows just how out of touch I am, obviously, to possibly believe that the importance of liberal democratic institutions might trump even that. How wrong I am.

The trendies have got involved and the ideologues have got involved, and what has happened? Support for the national curriculum has started to fall. Some states now do not want to introduce it. I know that New South Wales always thought that they had the best system. People like former Premier Bob Carr, who was very strong on education, are concerned that the national curriculum will mean lower standards in New South Wales. I was going to give a pass mark on the national curriculum, but I am not sure I can. I am not sure we should be adopting it. Mr Pyne certainly is not sure we should be adopting it. It seems it is not a good idea—certainly based on its implementation.

The government talks about vocational education and training. Remember the trade training centres? Remember all that? They promised one for each school. With 2,700 schools, there should be 2,700 trade training centres—potentially with some clusters. After three years, how many are up and running? Does anyone want to have a guess? Of the 2,700 that were supposed to be created, how many trade training centres are up and running? After three years, 48 are up and running. We were promised 2,700—another implementation process in shambles. That is the problem.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not what the Auditor-General said.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, yes, it is an absolute shambles. We have 48 out of 2,700. I do not have time to touch on higher education, but in conclusion let me say this: laptops were a failure in the cost of implementation and internet connection. The Orgill report highlights the gross failure and outright gouging of expenditure in state schools that is costing this country literally billions of dollars. In vocational education and training, 48 out of 2,700 schools have one of those trade training centres. This government has failed in what is supposed to be its core business.

Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In this address-in-reply, I want to respond to those matters in the Governor-General’s speech dealing with defence policy. In particular, I want to reflect on a number of matters relating to defence procurement in Australia, following the lengthy visit I made to the United States late last year. The Senate would be aware of my longstanding interest in defence policy matters, in particular the management of procurement. There are many relevant reasons for the importance of US defence procurement policy for Australia. Firstly, of course, the United States has long been a key source of defence materiel for the ADF and it is important that we keep abreast of new technology. Within the alliance there are matters of shared long-term strategies. There is also a growing degree of interoperability and a growing interdependence of our own defence industries. We do need to be sensitive to the changes affecting United States industry not only strategically because of the direct flow-ons for the cost of purchases we might make but also because of the direct implications that they may have for our domestic defence industries where we need continuity and an assurance of skill retention and supply capability. The importance of this knowledge of the health of US defence industries cannot be overstated, especially in a rapidly changing international economic and military climate. It is important that we understand these applications and their context.

In response to the global financial crisis, we are now seeing dramatic reductions in defence budgets in those countries with high levels of sovereign debt—for example, countries such as the United Kingdom and France, whose public debt levels are such that their entire financial security is under threat. Public expenditure on defence procurement throughout Europe has also been slashed. The demand for defence items has accordingly reduced sharply. Defence industries will immediately feel the brunt. Defence capability will be reduced significantly and no doubt over time R&D will also decline. No doubt cooperation with the EU on defence capability might be accelerated, and the discussion between the United Kingdom and France on shared naval resources is a case in point. Hence, the United States is important. Equally, there is a huge amount of pressure for budgetary cuts for much the same reasons—not to mention the realisation that defence and all other public expenditure such as state grants and federal programs can no longer be financed so heavily from debt. That debt, as we know, was generated by two phases of the global financial crisis driven by the collapse of the subprime market. As well as that, we have the massive indebtedness to China through China’s trade surplus, principally with the United States, now being corrected by a reduction in the value of the US dollar.

Yet there are other circumstances in the US defence procurement environment which are different and these circumstances directly affect the state of the industry. The key element is simply the dramatic nature of the US military budget, which—notwithstanding the growth since the days of the Reagan presidency—has grown in real terms by 79 per cent since 9/11. In fact, 21 per cent of the current budget is spent on overseas deployments; therefore, the growth in demand for military hardware production over the last decade has been huge. It should be noted that this growth followed a long-term decline after the Cold War, which for a period saw capability reduced; however, during that period no other industry efficiencies were sought by government.

It was said to me by both industry and government representatives that opportunities in that period to restructure, close redundant bases, innovate and invest were not taken. Competitive discipline suffered as the emphasis was placed on production on a cost-plus—but not on a competitive—basis. Companies, through large production runs of increasing unit costs, accumulated large cash surpluses which were not returned to shareholders or invested. Productivity and R&D dropped away as sustainment was the driving force—not efficiency and certainly not cost. Importantly, a huge level of skill was also lost, especially from government, which was driven mostly by outsourcing.

No doubt as part of that obsessive concern with the size of government in the US, Defense lost enormous numbers of people specialising in contract tendering and project management. Lack of salary, flexibility and wage restrictions within government were also limiting factors, I was told. Companies, though, maintained their levels of expertise, with the disparity then perhaps creating unevenness between the two negotiating parties. So complaints familiar to us in Australia began to emerge.

The United States government had no idea of how industry worked, communication was poor and tender specifications were inadequate. The symptoms were the same as they were in Australia: namely, tenders were regularly priced low and then increased as time passed under the cost-plus principle; budgetary evils such as spending limited to a financial year; limitation encouraged hollow logging and unmerited advances of payment; tender processes were cut short for reasons of expediency; product was poor and delivery times blew out significantly; there was lack of coordination across the three services; tender specifications were not met; and needless to say, costs just continued to go through the roof.

There was too much emphasis on partnership with industry, rather than on an objective, arm’s length relationship. There was constant pressure at the outset to underestimate costs to facilitate decisions, with costs not included and risks not evaluated or priced. There was poor articulation of the policy and the military strategies that supported purchasing. Supplementary funding was easy to acquire, especially where there was high constituency value in a particular contract. Prescribed processes were ignored. Payments were made on progress of process, not outcomes, and there was a chronic lack of knowledge or understanding of systems integration.

However, it must be said that the worm seems to have turned—or to at least be in the process of turning. Now, with some reduction in demand following the withdrawal from Iraq and faced with budget reductions, the US industry faces a double whammy, firstly, because demand is reduced post Iraq, and secondly, because efficiencies and productivity, which should have been achieved earlier, are now being demanded by government. In fact, action akin to that taken in Australia over the last decades following the reports of Kinnaird and Mortimer is now becoming the norm. The political climate is now demanding tax concessions and smaller government.

In the face of the need for added revenue and government investment, something has to give and US Defense is being directed to take a disproportionate share of that pain. Secretary Gates has been blunt about what the administration expects. Not only have programs for the production of aircraft and the naval fleet been cut but processes are being reformed. For example, plans are afoot to restore the level of procurement skill in Defense previously lost, and I was told this could mean the hiring of an additional 20,000 people. New competitive tendering processes are being put in place. It is important to note that the restrictive clauses of the US National Defense Act, which strictly limited the sale of equipment to allied nations such as Australia, are being removed and the United States is well advanced in that process.

While it may have added complexity, the US congress has weighed in as well. It is insisting on new levels of accountability from Defense and industry that were previously unknown. Industry did express some frustration at these reforms to me but it is also interesting to note how they have reacted otherwise. Many of the large prime manufacturers, for example, have moved to divest themselves of some of their own existing vertical integration. They say that this will provide added flexibility in a reduced market as well as reduced costs over time. At the middle level, however, there has also been a process of consolidation, which will no doubt lead to added efficiencies within the supply chain. The risk is that competition may be reduced somewhat, though compared with our own limited market that is hard to comprehend.

So we must therefore ask this question: what does this all mean for Australia and our own defence industries? One thing is inevitable—that is, the defence expenditure in the United States will continue to be reduced for the foreseeable future. The pressure from the administration to improve competition and productivity will be unrelenting—notwithstanding the traditional demands from constituencies in the United States. Above all, the capacity of the United States to become involved around the world will most likely change considerably. I note that the recent visit of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense is somewhat symptomatic of that change.

There are some negative views on this. Those views focus narrowly on the fear that unit costs must increase for Australian purchases. I would put a contrary view. First, there has been a significant decline in the value of the US dollar, which is quite intentional—that is, the Australian dollar can now buy more and so can other currencies where the GFC has only had a limited effect. Next, US companies are clearly shaping up under the restructuring, and new procedural disciplines are being exercised in order to be much more efficient. With the surety of their own domestic markets reduced, they are becoming much more active in new markets. As they told me, Australia is a shining light not only as a valued ally but also because of the long-term financial commitment inherent in the government’s white paper. This long-term plan has committed hundreds of billions of dollars to defence procurement and sustainment over the next 20 years. No doubt other financially secure nations in the world will be similarly targeted—for example, Canada, Norway and Germany.

I can only conclude that the US industry will present significant new opportunities for Australian companies in the procurement market. The linkages already built by some should be of great advantage. Most importantly, cost savings ought to be in the offing, not to mention improved access to previously restricted technology. None of this should be news to Defence or the DMO, whose relationships with US Defense and industry are deep and extensive.

I am aware that the exchange of information at government level and at the bureaucratic level is improving even though, in reform, we clearly commenced much earlier, although we still have a long way to go. Added to this is the seriousness with which our relationship with US has developed more recently under the Gillard government. Rather than being threatened by the rationalisation of procurement in the US, I can only say to Australian companies that they should be eager to avail themselves of opportunities as they arise. Australia’s defence industry has the ball at its feet as the result of the government’s defence capital investment program. Never has there been such an opportunity as in the current relationship with the US government, a relationship which proffers such levels of cooperation. I must say that, during my briefing by US officials and company executives at the most senior levels, I was impressed by their understanding and appreciation of both sides of the relationship with Australia.

We might ask: what does all of this mean? Will there be any real change or will we just continue to plod on incrementally? The cynics might say, of course, that the more things change, the more they remain the same. My concern is that, within Defence in general, this could well be fair comment. Despite all of the reforming zeal which has been directed at procurement and military justice, for example, we are still seeing significant evidence of repeats of old behaviour. I refer in particular to the very disturbing evidence emerging from the HMAS Success inquiry, referred to publicly by Minister Smith. Although we were given all the assurances that the initial allegations were not true, it seems they are likely to be proven otherwise—or indeed even worse. Given the work done by the Senate in this area, this is quite disappointing, especially the cultural attitude of denial which seems to continue and the regular failure of internal inquiries to reveal the absolute truth.

It is likewise, of course, with procurement. Last week’s revelation of difficulties with the MRH helicopter purchase so soon after the Seasprite disaster is very concerning and so is the revelation that the procurement of landing craft has been cancelled, having commenced back in 1997—more waste and incompetence, especially if it is correct that the original design was wrong, not to mention the faulty manufacture. Even more concerning is how this project slipped under the radar. Why did we not know about it as a project of concern? How many other failed projects are there which fall below the financial reporting threshold? The report of faulty keel laying for the first of the AWD’s in Melbourne suggests that, despite all the government’s pressure for reform, procurement processes remain, at best, problematic. This is depressing considering the strong intent of government. There has been a regular failure, or an apparent continuing failure, of Defence to make the necessary changes demanded and requested by successive ministers. The extent to which governments and ministers can manage Defence is therefore a matter of ongoing interest, especially when it comes to accountability for such a massive bureaucracy. This matter of accountability through the bureaucracy is a matter I will return to at another time.

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

Senator Boyce, Queensland.

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President, for acknowledging the state which I am so proud to represent. Whilst responding in general to the Governor-General’s address to this house, I will firstly just touch on a couple of issues that have been raised by senators already. I thank Senator Hurley for her suggestion that nuclear energy is an issue that must be addressed and properly assessed and properly debated by this house. This is not a view that is shared, I know, by a lot of her colleagues but, if we are to go to a low emissions, energy efficient future, nuclear energy must be on the list. More and more of the research that is becoming available suggests that this can now be done, given rising power prices, at comparable cost to the ongoing use of coal. Of course the coal industry will continue to be a core part of Australia and Australia’s prosperity, not just internally but externally, for many years to come. But it is only sensible to now put nuclear energy on the agenda and I was pleased to hear Senator Hurley mention this as something that should happen.

I will also comment, Mr Acting Deputy President, on some of the remarks that you made during your contribution to this debate. I can understand perfectly that you would want to comment on New South Wales—that you would not want to mention Queensland. Yet I would suggest that, if you had perhaps listened more carefully to the contribution of Senator Macdonald, you would have noticed, in his forensic analysis of what was wrong with Queensland Labor, that the attempts, over and over, to parachute people into seats where they were not known by the locals were one of the reasons for the complete slaughter of the federal Labor Party in the election in Queensland. As Senator Macdonald pointed out, there had been no Northern Queensland LNP members of the House of Representatives before the last election. There are now no Labor representatives in that area. It has been a clean sweep.

Moving further south to the seat of Longman, for which I was the patron senator, we were delighted to have a young man—in fact the youngest person ever elected to this parliament—Mr Wyatt Roy, win the election very convincingly. He is a local young man whose family has lived for generations in the electorate and who knows the voters of the electorate and the issues of the electorate. It is that sort of care taken when selecting candidates that is responsible—in part, along with very strong campaigning skills—for the success in Queensland.

So I certainly understand that Senator Hutchins would not want to reflect on the national result for Labor and would want to stick very carefully to his own state, which is one of the very few states in which Labor almost survived. Certainly there is nothing for Labor to be proud of in the election result that they achieved at the last election.

As many people have pointed out, it does seem a long time ago—and like a different world—that the Governor-General made her address to this place. As Senator Macdonald pointed out earlier, the Governor-General delivered a speech that had been written for her by the government, and I think if we look through that speech we will see that one of the biggest problems with it was its lack of a ‘vision thing’. There were very few real, practical suggestions for a way forward other than to continue some of the proposals that had been put up by Mr Rudd. As we know, most of those proposals have since been trashed completely. They have disappeared from the face of the earth.

It is interesting right now to reflect on the brave new world that Mr Rudd and Ms Gillard were supposed to be creating, where the blame game with the states would end and COAG would become a hotbed of collegial, fraternal and sisterly love. I do not know that we have seen any of this actually happen yet. I had the pleasure yesterday of attending the national conference of the Australian Health Care Reform Alliance. The alliance brings together 40 national and state organisations of health professionals, health consumers and health services. In the sense that it represents those three constituencies, it is unique. It has advocated actively for many years for a more equitable, efficient, robust, sustainable and accountable healthcare system and has put forward a lot of policies and principles that it believes will lead to a healthcare system that seamlessly and efficiently focuses on the needs of the individual and meets those needs. Can I say that the mood in the room at the conference yesterday was sombre at the very least. There was, in my view, a quiet sense of desperation. There was a sense of: ‘Why are we bothering to be here to talk about health care reform when sitting on our shoulder is the likelihood that the big, shiny hospitals and healthcare reform agenda of Mr Rudd and, allegedly, Ms Gillard is likely now to go down the drain, leading to even more inefficiencies in the system than we currently have?’

As an example, there was a session yesterday that talked about mental health. I have spoken in this place a number of times on mental health and the future of mental health. Labor has continued some of the Howard-Costello reforms, such as the introduction of PHaMS, the personal helpers and mentors scheme—after initially getting a bit confused around alternative therapy programs and better access to medical health, Ms Roxon yet again backed down on what she had initially thought was reform, put the program back pretty much as it was when the Howard government established it and put some more funding in—and the Labor government got ticks for that, but that is all they got ticks for.

Yesterday Senator Colbeck, from Tasmania, moved a motion in the Senate regarding the end of funding to a Tasmanian mental healthcare service. He characterised this as an organisation that is designed to stop people slipping through the cracks itself slipping through the cracks. I would also mention the Cairns Mental Health Carers Support Hub. This organisation was set up by professionals, consumers and carers in North Queensland, where there is a dearth of services. Wherever you go in Australia there is a dearth of services, but the further you get from the capital cities, the fewer are the services. This service in Cairns had been set up and was functioning well; it meant that for the first time in a very long time the parents and carers of adults with schizophrenia were somewhat more comfortable about the safety and care that was being offered to their adult children. Their funding is about to lapse, although it appears no-one can quite be bothered telling them whether or not it has lapsed. So, once again, we have a group designed to stop people slipping through the cracks that is itself slipping through the cracks. This is apparently the brave new world of the Labor government in the area of mental health.

I should mention that I know there were some people in the room at the Australian Health Care Reform Alliance conference yesterday and there are many others in the health area who are bitterly disappointed in this government. They listened to the talk that was talked by Mr Rudd, Ms Gillard and others and they thought there was going to be change; they thought there was going to be improvement. They are bitterly disappointed not only that this government has done almost nothing in this field but also that this government has betrayed them by talking about doing wonderful things and then doing less than nothing.

I would like to also mention the vision that could have been developed in the speech provided to the Governor-General by the government as to the development of Australia long term. If you look at many of the reports that are now being made, you see we finally seem to be getting people talking about a two-speed economy. Anybody in Queensland last year could have told you that there was a two-speed economy. If you were involved in the mining industry or supplied the mining industry, you were probably going okay. If you were not involved in the mining industry, you were in trouble as your business was in trouble. There were people talking about their turnovers being down 30 per cent or more. This was all happening last year whilst the government congratulated itself on full employment and whatever else. In some sectors, yes, there is a lack of skilled people to take jobs but this is masking the lack of turnover, the lack of production and the lack of jobs in other sectors of the community. This is particularly felt in a state that is not as reliant as, for example, Western Australia on the mining industry.

This was happening before the floods and cyclones. It has just been exacerbated, magnified dozens of times, by the floods and cyclones. Yet it appears the government continues to be interested in flood damaged businesses, homes and individuals—and it is the same with cyclones—without any concept that you do not have to be flood or cyclone damaged to be flood or cyclone affected. I do not know one individual who has not been so affected and I do not know one business in any part of Queensland, whether it is an agribusiness or whether it is a small business or a large business, that has not been affected in some way by the floods or cyclones. This might be a company where a major customer has gone broke because of the floods and cyclones. It might be a company where a major supplier cannot supply because of the cyclones and floods. It might be a company such as those in Kingaroy that could not actually get products sent to them because there was not an economically efficient route by which to send the products in. Trucking companies have had problems too with lost trucks, roads that they cannot use and customers that have not got anything for them to put on the trucks to send somewhere. It goes on and on and it affects every corner of Queensland but, in my view, this has not been acknowledged.

Nor is there any sort of basic plan underneath, other than to help now, to further build Queensland or Northern Australia or the Australian economy. I would like to look briefly at an organisation that I think deserves support in this place. It is called Australians for Northern Development & Economic Vision. You might recall, Mr Acting Deputy President, a report from what was initially an inquiry, one that was started under Senator Heffernan and finished under the Rudd Labor government, into development in Northern Australia. Perhaps not surprisingly, the focus of that inquiry seemed to change radically. What we ended up with was a report that emphasised—and I do not think any of us needed to be told this—the environmental fragility of Northern Australia. It emphasised the need to develop small-scale Indigenous businesses in Northern Australia. No-one has any problems with those aims, but that is not where Australia’s economic future lies, nor are these things incompatible with real economic development in Australia. Australia’s economic future, as ANDEV point out, is as ‘a regional provider of seaborne minerals and coals and various other commodities’. They believe that without a vision and without input from the government Australia’s resource industry itself is at risk.

So where were the comments in the Governor-General’s address on things like the high rates of taxation in Australia compared to those of our competitors? In fact, if you look at personal tax and company tax, you see we are now looking at a carbon tax; we are now looking at an income tax allegedly to save the government and save the flood-prone and cyclone-prone areas. We have high wages compared with those of other countries. Great, and I think that’s fabulous, but we do need to acknowledge it and we do need to work out how we are going to develop a competitive system if we are to maintain that standard of living. There is absolutely no point in having high wage rates for people who are not employed. I do not think we should be changing the wage rates but we certainly need to acknowledge that we have an issue and a competition problem there.

Slow approval procedures are a very, very serious issue here. So much for the government that was going to reduce all the red tape. We get little reports on how many changes have been made or not made to legislation and yet the government fails to tell us that for every one that has been taken away there are currently about 15 that have been put in place. So the lack of red tape is just not happening.

The other concern is the current development of very large ore carriers by countries that compete with us to sell ore. The Asian ports are being modified to allow for these very large ore carriers. One of the ways we have been able to get over the fact that we have high taxation and high labour rates is that we are close to the markets that want the ore. When other countries in South America, South Africa and Canada can transport huge amounts of ore at competitive freight rates, we have nothing left to make us competitive with the others. So could I please beg this government to think just a little about the future of the country, not just how on earth it is going to stay in power and how it is going to meet the next interest rate bill in the very sad economic situation it has brought us to.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek to make some remarks in the address-in reply and pick up a point that Senator Boyce made. There is a very good reason there was nothing in the Governor-General’s address-in-reply about the flood situation in Queensland. That is because it had not happened then. If Senator Boyce were really serious about helping not only the flood victims in Queensland but also the people whose livelihoods have been affected not directly by the flood but by the consequences of the flood, she would be lobbying in her own party to support the proposed flood levy of the federal government. That is really the only serious way that the people of Queensland who have been affected by these dreadful natural disasters are going to be assisted. That is what this federal government is seeking to do.

I would like to dwell upon some of the things that the federal government has done in the water area. As you would be aware, Mr Acting Deputy President, it has been four months since I took over the job as Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You mean you found time out of your factional activities to attend to it.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Look, I prefer my factional activities to yours.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Fierravanti-Wells interjecting—

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

Carry on, Senator Farrell. Ignore the interjections.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for that protection, Mr Acting Deputy President. I certainly need it. What I have done in those four months is travel widely across Australia, meeting with communities who are all interested in the future of our water supplies and the best ways in which we can manage them. I have been particularly struck by the adaptability of these communities on the back of prolonged drought and many are now facing extraordinary flooding. That is the ancient cycle in Australia—drought, flood, drought, flood—but I continue to be amazed by the extremes we encounter in Australia and the likelihood that those extremes might increase over the years ahead.

Our thoughts and prayers are with those people in Queensland who have suffered the worst flooding in living memory and also those in Victoria, New South Wales and other areas who have been hit by floods. We extend our sympathies also to those who have felt the catastrophic impact of tropical Cyclone Yasi. Now the residents of Perth, who have experienced record dry weather, were dealt another blow over the weekend with devastating bushfires.

This dramatic variability emphasises the importance of the commitment of the Gillard government to a sustainable Australia. It reinforces our commitment to invest significant funds in a range of alternative water supplies such as desalination, water recycling, stormwater harvesting and reuse, and other water efficiency projects. Diversifying our water sources enables communities to manage water supplies across the wide range of weather and climatic events that Australia experiences. While much of the eastern part of the country has been suffering from floods, history has taught us that droughts will return.

The recent investment of the Gillard government in alternative water sources will save or supply significant volumes of water and will help us be better prepared to get through the next drought. We are working closely with local and state government partners who are responding to the demands of urban development and growing population. We are supporting projects that will use treated stormwater in major cities across Australia and regions such as Dubbo. Since I took on the role of parliamentary secretary, I have launched stormwater-harvesting projects worth $7.6 million—$4.5 million being for the Dubbo City Council stormwater-harvesting and reuse project under the $904 million National Urban Water and Desalination Plan. The Dubbo project will capture, treat and distribute about 42 million litres of stormwater each year to be used on the Apex Oval in the town and in the East Dubbo Sporting Complex. I went up there with a person whom I think you might know, Mr Acting Deputy President, Mayor Allan Smith, a very good mayor of Dubbo and a very fine fellow.

In October, I announced $3.1 million in funding for five stormwater-harvesting schemes to be constructed in the city of Hobsons Bay in Victoria. Looking forward, the Australian government’s stormwater-harvesting grants program will soon open for its $100 million third round, as committed by the government in the 2010 election. Underpinning the investments is the establishment of the national centres of excellence in desalination and water recycling and the National Centre for Groundwater Research and Training. These centres are bringing together national and international researchers to address the complexity of securing urban water supplies in a practical way.

In December I announced the National Centre of Excellence in Desalination’s second round of funding. Through the second round the centre is providing nearly $3 million in funding for research projects investing in ways to advance desalination technology. One of those projects—and I am sure Senator Bernardi will be interested in this—is being conducted by researchers at Flinders University in his home state of South Australia, which is also my home state. And a great state it is, isn’t it, Senator Bernardi?

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I agree with that.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We can agree on something. The project, which I visited in December, is developing coatings that will reduce biofouling of the reverse osmosis membranes—that is not easy to say—used to take the salt out of the water. Biofouling can reduce the performance of the membranes which, in turn, can increase the cost. So, by reducing the extent of the problem, the costs of desalination can be brought down.

In November last year I was proud to announce the opening of a pioneering groundwater replenishment trial in Perth—even drinking some recycled water on that occasion—that received more than $19 million in Australian government funding. This important project has the potential to substantially offset the impact of the decline in inflows to Perth’s dams that has occurred over the last 30 years. It is interesting to note that, if you drew a line from, say, Geraldton to Adelaide, there was rainfall everywhere east of that line, but in the remaining portion, particularly around Perth, they continued to have very severe drought conditions. This project that I am speaking about will trial the world’s best, state-of-the-art managed aquifer recharge technology and will test the impact of the groundwater replenishment on aquifer water quality.

The Gillard government is also delivering more than $11 million in funding to a landmark water recycling project in West Werribee in Victoria. As you would probably know, West Werribee is a dramatically expanding part of Melbourne. I can see Senator Ryan nodding in agreement with that because he has probably been there as well. This project will take recycled water from Melbourne Water’s Western Treatment Plant and further process it to reduce salt and then inject it into the underground aquifer for storage. The water will then be available for use in home gardens, for toilet flushing and in public open spaces through the West Werribee Dual Supply project. Research efforts and projects like these will help future water managers to manage our water supplies through the peaks and troughs of increasing climate variation. The Gillard government is delivering on its commitment to sustainable urban water management across the nation through projects that help consumers better manage their water use.

In December I travelled to Senator Carol Brown’s home state and visited Hobart to launch the Water Metering Tasmania project. The Gillard government is providing $10 million to Tasmania’s three water corporations to install water meters to unmetered properties and to upgrade meters that do not meet required standards in regional Tasmania. The project is expected to save more than eight billion litres of water a year through improved detection and repair of leaks. The smart meters will make it very clear if you have a leak on your property, which you will be able to act on rather than wait until an expensive bill comes through. The meters will also enable consumers to make informed choices to better manage their water usage.

A few days later I was in Maryborough in Queensland where, unfortunately, the impacts of that state’s flood crisis have since been felt. While in Maryborough I was very impressed by the town’s Proud Mary: Modernising Maryborough’s Water Systems project. The Gillard government has committed $5.7 million to the project, which involves an integrated suite of activities that will improve the efficiency of the town’s water supply system. One of those activities will be the rollout of more than 9,000 smart water meters which can be read remotely using a receiver. This system was demonstrated to me in nearby Hervey Bay where hundreds of meters are read in minutes using the technology, and where consumers have access to detailed information about their water use.

Water resource management is supported by our authorities: the Bureau of Meteorology and the National Water Commission. In October last year I was very pleased to officially launch the first national water storage information website hosted by the Bureau of Meteorology. I know that, if Senator Bernardi has an iPad, he can download a map that will now give him that updated information. This new product is an important step in providing the Australian community with a consistent and comprehensive national picture of Australia’s water resources, pretty much in real time.

I was also very happy, in December, to visit the picturesque town of Esperance, not that far from Yorke Peninsula, on the southern coast of Western Australia, to open a purpose-built new Bureau of Meteorology observation office. The office features a new 14-metre-high radar tower, which is double the height of the one it replaced, which will provide higher resolution weather surveillance at a greater range.

In terms of sustainability, in November, it was my great pleasure to attend the switch-on event for Sydney Theatre Company’s Greening the Wharf project. The project, which is supported by the government with $1.2 million in funding through our Green Precincts Fund, features the second largest rooftop photovoltaic array in the country. Senator Bernardi would be interested to know that the largest one, of course, is at the Adelaide Showground. It is expected to produce up to 70 per cent of Sydney Theatre Company’s energy requirements, while an innovative rainwater harvesting, storage and reticulation system will supply 100 per cent of the company’s non-potable water.

But Green Precincts projects are not just about energy and water savings. The Greening the Wharf project will create a showcase green precinct at a well-recognised harbour-side wharf. Its value includes the demonstration of sustainable practices to the very large number of people, more than 300,000 each year, who attend the Sydney Theatre Company. It also demonstrates that significant sustainability practices can be undertaken at important heritage sites.

Sustainability and water security continue to be vitally important issues for Australia now and in the future. The extreme and tragic weather events we have seen across Australia in the past few weeks—floods, cyclones and fire—illustrate the unpredictable nature of our nation. While much of the country in the east is now experiencing flood, it is not so long ago that much of Australia was besieged by drought. As we, the Gillard government, work together with state and local governments to rebuild those areas hardest hit in recent times we will not be distracted from the importance of urban water reform and securing Australia’s water supplies for the future, whatever the weather may bring.

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

It is a pleasure to join the debate on the address-in-reply and support the amendment moved by Senator Abetz. The address-in-reply is a rare opportunity to address the entirety of the government rather than any single measure or, in this case, any single failure of a government. Indeed, this is my first opportunity to do so, given that I arrived in this place many months after the 2007 election.

This government provides a wide array of material to work with, but today I would like to skip over many of the specific examples that have been covered in such depth by my colleagues because I want to outline and debate what I consider to be a flaw at the core of this government. All of its failings—its waste, its massive deficit and debt, its raiding of various capital funds put in place by the previous government for future generations of Australia and even its political failures—reflect a weakness at its core. This government suffers from several fatal conceits. It suffers from the conceit that its core functions can be taken for granted as it relentlessly expands the scope of its own activities to suit the desires of its members. It suffers from the fatal conceit that it can tax relentlessly not only to feed its own voracious spending and debt but also to covertly limit the choices of individuals in our society and guide them to what its own members deem to be appropriate behaviour.

This government has no sense of its own limitations, it has no sense of the limitations of the state and it especially lacks a sense of the limitations of the personnel that comprise it. When it is warned about the flaws in its programs it reacts by simply playing the man, to use the football vernacular. History tells us, however, that it was warned about the blow-outs in the school halls and the waste with the pink batts. But this government ignored the warnings and, despite the efforts of the Prime Minister, these failures will follow her in office, whether she is the real Julia or not. This government’s profligate spending has driven our budget into record deficit and, despite all its claims and all its spin, there is one simple economic truth about this matter: debt is simply deferred taxation; it is taxation upon future generations of Australia. As the government seeks to raise taxes now in a desperate attempt to manufacture a tiny surplus for an election several years hence, the Australian people do not trust its motives nor do they trust its management.

One of the major issues of last year, and one of the issues listed by the current Prime Minister as a reason for the removal of the former Prime Minister, was the mining tax. What was a resource super profits tax became a mineral resource rent tax. None of the constitutional or administrative issues have been addressed in either. It was right that this became the subject of debate, despite the verballing of some of the proponents of that debate by members of the government. Thousands of Australians work in this industry and its associated industries. Some work in information technology. Some work in construction equipment. The money flows right through the economy, even to my home city of Melbourne, which is a long way from many of the mining centres. The government justified the tax simply by attacking the profits of those who mine. At a particular low point in the debate, some people also went as far as to attack the nationality of the shareholders or the companies of those who mine, in an appalling, retrograde reminder of economic Hansonism in this country. But only in the world of academic economists, or the Canberra bureaucracy, would a government try to determine what an appropriate profit would be and use that definition to levy nothing short of a punitive tax.

Underlying the whole tax problem in this is a flawed economic assumption about economic rent with respect to iron ore and coal. The truth about these products is that, unlike oil or a precious metal, coal and iron ore are not rare. The capital to get them to market is rare, even though that in itself is being applied dramatically all around the world as we speak. What is rare temporarily is the access to markets of mass quantities of those commodities, and Australia is in a position to benefit from that at the moment. Yet all around the world, in Africa, in South America and in Russia, what we are seeing is a dramatic expansion in the facilities that will bring those products to market. This is only a temporary spike, even though it will probably lead to a long-term increase in our terms of trade.

Ironically, the Labor government of the 1980s introduced the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax. One of the ministers involved was a former senator, Peter Walsh, and it was Peter Walsh who said in his memoirs: ‘There is rarely any economic rent in iron ore.’ That did not come from this side; it came from the person who helped set up the PRRT. Unlike this government, Peter Walsh, who I respect, had a basic understanding of economic principles. Peter Walsh was one of the ministers who took difficult decisions, and later I will go to more of what Peter Walsh did which this government has ignored. That is an important point. When the PRRT, which this government tried to compare the MRRT and the RSPT to, was set up, one of the people involved wrote: ‘There is rarely any economic rent in iron ore.’ But this government would not take notice of such a Labor luminary, and not just because he was one of the first to warn the nation about the rise of green fanaticism and green rent seeking, which this government has been such a part of; he also warned the ALP about the risk the green movement would pose to their political future. But that is not my concern here today.

This government, through taxes like this, seeks to plan our economy by defining what an appropriate profit is. If anyone thinks that the mining industry will be the only industry subject to such a definition then they are foolish. We heard the promise before the election that there would not be a price on carbon, the euphemism used to try and avoid saying what it actually is: a tax. Only days after the election, the Prime Minister not only back-flipped but tried to justify this as some far-reaching economic reform. In 1998 when this side of politics took tax reform to the Australian people we outlined exactly what was involved in that tax reform. It is a cowardly government and Prime Minister that says one thing two days before an election and then tries to hide in the cloak of reform only days after in a desperate attempt to stay sitting on the right of the Speaker in the other place.

But that is only the start. We have the carbon tax. Very soon, despite promises to the contrary, we will probably have a junk food tax of some variety as the government seeks to tell people what they can and cannot eat. In all the papers from all the so-called health experts who seek to tell people in Australia what they can eat and how to live their lives, I am fascinated that the taxes always seem to land on Big Macs rather than on foie gras. But that might be a reflection of the tastes of the people writing the reports.

We have in the Henry review the flagging of a congestion tax. For the first time we are going to try and tax the movement of people in this country. Through the creation of a false market by the effective granting of licences to use roads paved by our grandparents, our parents and people today the governments will seek to institute what 30 years ago was a parody in movies from Hollywood. The government will determine where you are allowed to travel. They may deny it now but they have said that the Henry review on tax was merely an attempt to stake out territory for future government efforts. This side of the chamber will not allow such a regressive expansion of the role of government. This government seeks to make respectable what was once inconceivable. I put to you that, if we went back in time 20 years, the idea that there could be a tax on the movement of people in our cities would have been laughed at.

Like with many others things—such as poker machines—this government seeks to use technology as it was used in 1984. The only thing that George Orwell got wrong was the timing of technological development. The motive of those people opposite is still present. And this government seeks to clothe its intentions in the language of reform. Because of its desperate need to find a purpose, it harks back to the 1980s. But let us measure and compare the differences between the people that sit opposite me today and the people in this parliament in the 1980s and the 1990s who dramatically changed this country for the better.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Farrell was a candidate in the 1980s.

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

I had forgotten about that, Senator Bernardi. The 1980s and 1990s were about governments saying no. The government and political leaders in this country on both sides of politics—at least until 1996—said then that they could not stand between the people of Australia and the rest of the world. They said that they could no longer protect a dying car industry that was making cars that no-one wanted to buy. Let me use a simple example: who in Australia today wishes that they could go down to their local Retravision store and pick up an $800 19-inch colour television set? No-one does. We are dramatically better off for having opened trade barriers. We are dramatically better off due to having freed our economy up and having given people the choice to spend their money in the way that they choose, not in the way that the government chooses.

The difference between this government and the governments from the 1980s and the 1990s is clear. For 70 or 80 years in this country, the government tried to tell you what you could buy through punitive tariffs and quotas, which made alternatives expensive. It penalised primary producers and miners for decade after decade to protect people in the cities. This government might not want to reinstitute those same trade barriers but it still wants to tell you what to buy. It wants to say, ‘Don’t use your air conditioner on a hot day.’ I recall, Acting Deputy President Fisher, the Premier of your home state, and sadly he is still the Premier, on a particularly hot day—it was 45 degrees—in February 2009 in the weeks leading up to the tragedy of Black Saturday in my home state and that heatwave saying something along the lines of, ‘People should seriously reconsider whether they need to use their air conditioners today.’ Can we consider the absurdity of that statement? No-one buys an air conditioner for a 25-degree day. The idea that we should tell people, many of them mothers with children, senior Australians and retirees, that that day is the kind of day that they should reconsider using their air conditioner when it was going to hit 45 degrees is laughable. It is like us going back 50 years and telling people not to turn the fridge on.

The people opposite, along with their Green allies, are seeking to determine personal, private and individual choices. They constrained the development of technology and measures like generation capacity for decades to somehow justify the contrived market that they seek to create. They talk about electricity prices, but they will not allow supply to be added to. They talk about prices on carbon, and yet do not understand that their ability to measure and police it is virtually nil.

The 1980s was an era of deregulation. It was an era of privatisation. It was a lot easier before 1996, when we were sitting on this side of the chamber. That era involved the government telling people that it cannot solve their problems and asking people to take more responsibility. As I said in my maiden speech in this place, this government is throwing away the legacy of the 1980s and the thousands of people who lost their jobs and careers, particularly in manufacturing, and made legitimate sacrifices for future generations. This government is seeking to institute other forms of control over the economy, all of which have a dramatic cost, not the least of which is their idea that somehow a profit is super and the government should be able to take extra from it.

I have noticed that this government has lately compared the carbon tax to the floating of the dollar. I do not understand how they cannot see the irony. They cannot see that not having the scientific or testing means to measure or set a carbon limit that is enforceable is the opposite of the government nearly 30 years ago saying that they were unable to set the level of the dollar. This government thinks that it is omnipotent and that it can set all things in the economy. Paul Keating used to say that he could pull the levers. These people think that the economy is a keyboard that they can jump on. All of this government’s alleged reforms involve it doing more, taxing more and telling Australians how to live and what to choose a lot more. That is something to which this opposition is committed to keeping at the forefront of Australians’ minds. This government wants to tell you what to eat. It wants to tell you where and when you can drive. They want to tell you where you can use an air conditioner. They have overweening hubris and no sense of their own limitations.

This government has capitalised on what one could call ‘expressive politics’. It does not matter what you actually do. It does not matter that, tragically, people died in the home insulation bungle. It does not matter that billions were wasted on the school halls fiasco. It only matters what you ‘care’ about. Platitudes and ‘caring’ are the easiest things for politicians to do. Actually sitting down and doing things and making sure they work, that they respect the needs of the community and that they represent value for money for taxpayers is the hard bit, and that is what this government has been an abject failure in. In the address we heard last year there was no indication that the government had learnt that lesson whatsoever. This is a government that seeks to define itself purely by its aspirations, where what it aspires to is more important than the actual outcomes. It seeks to defer, delay and obfuscate any sense of measurement of what it has actually achieved.

But, as well as eventually bringing about the end of this Labor government—about which I am confident—there is something more concerning about this: this is actually reducing public faith in the political process. This government said that, if you argued against the BER school halls waste, somehow you were against education. Who in the Australian community did not think there was a better way to invest $13 billion in our education system than putting school halls over schoolyards, in some places that were ill-fitting and overpriced? I could think of some. My mother is a teacher; my uncle is a teacher. I am particularly passionate about this. To think what we could have got for that money, which can never be regained: it is a tragedy for every Australian child that will go through those schools.

When it comes to the environment, despite its vilification of those sitting on this side of the chamber, I do recall that it was not those sitting over there to your right, Madam Acting Deputy President, who had a policy on climate change going into the election—other than a citizens assembly, which we tend to force people to go and vote for. That was rightly ridiculed. It still even shocks me that someone who was Prime Minister, or someone who works in a Prime Minister’s office—or whoever came up with the idea—would even conceive that, during a campaign for an election to the national parliament, we should randomly pick a focus group and play with the agenda to contrive a particular outcome. That is the real danger: as slogans become more important than outcomes, it reduces faith in the political process. This side of politics is committed to outcomes, and we will stand against the contrived slogans of this government as well as its long-term threat to the wellbeing of the Australian economy and the liberty of the Australian people.

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

As I rise to speak to this address-in-reply I am reminded of the first Governor-General’s speech that I listened to almost 18 years ago. It seems that, no matter how much things change, the more they stay the same. We had a Labor government back then. The Keating government had just been re-elected, full of promises. There was one difference, of course: the Keating government was elected by a reasonable majority. After the 2010 election we had a government that was not wanted by just about 50 per cent of the Australian people—as near to 50 per cent as you can get. The thing that was the same, of course, was the fact that the Keating government was elected with a blaze of promises—and, as soon as it was re-elected, just like the Gillard government, it started to break those promises. I can still remember L-A-W tax cuts! Who can’t? The Labor government went to the election promising ‘It’s in law: L-A-W’, and the minute that government was re-elected that promise was broken. And here we have, after the 2010 election, the same trail of broken promises already, when this government has only been in place for barely six months. We have the same trail of broken promises, which are highlighted in the amendment that has been moved by Senator Abetz, as Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. That amendment details the promises that were broken immediately, once they were able to cobble together a government—and I call it ‘cobbling together’.

I cannot think of a worse combination than a national government that is held to ransom by the Greens. I cannot think of a worse combination. For those who will be here after 1 July, I say: I do not envy your task, as we see the Greens put pressure on this government, which relies on their support to stay in power. I am fearful of the outcomes that might pass this Senate following 1 July, when the Greens hold the balance of power in this place.

I came in here for a short time during this debate and listened to Senator Hurley extolling the virtues of this government. Not only that but she managed to mention the virtues of the South Australian government as well, another government which got less than 50 per cent of the popular vote yet still managed to hang onto government. I heard Senator Hurley talking about the wonderful assistance to the car industry. I can only assume she was referring to the cash for clunkers! I cannot think what else she would have been talking about when she talked about assistance to the car industry in South Australia. She then went on to extol the virtues of the former Treasurer of South Australia, Mr Kevin Foley, a man the Labor Party factions decided to kick out from his job only last week, so that he lost the deputy premiership and lost the Treasury. And here she is extolling the virtues of Mr Foley and what he had done for South Australia! I am quite amazed when I hear someone, I guess for party purposes, coming in here and talking about someone working in a state government and what a wonderful job they have done.

Senator Ryan, in speaking just before me, highlighted the issue of waste. I think that, if there is anything that typifies this government—the Labor government since 2007, both the Rudd government and the Gillard government—it is the waste of taxpayers’ money.

The one thing that has not changed in the nearly 18 years that I have been in this place is that people still think that, if the government is providing them with something, it is not costing them anything, it is somebody else’s money. They forget that it is their money, it is the taxpayers’ money—and we in this place should be ever-vigilant to ensure that the taxpayers’ money is not being wasted. The government is spending the money on their behalf. And if it cannot get value for money then in fact the government of the day is not performing its function properly, it is not doing its job, it is leaving the taxpayers short changed. This government, over the past three years, both the Rudd government and the Gillard government, has short-changed the Australian people by spending their taxes in a reckless manner: the second phase of the stimulus package, the school halls, the pink batts—you could go on and on. I see Senator Conroy is here. We might even add the NBN. Is that a proper function of the spending of taxpayers’ money? Could it be done in a cheaper way? The United States are not putting out a National Broadband Network in the same way. They certainly would not do that, as Senator Conroy well knows. We do not have any cost-benefit analysis or anything like that, which any government worth its salt—

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

It might give the wrong answer.

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

You are right, Senator Ryan. If they get the wrong answer, they might find they have something to explain to the taxpayers of Australia who are being short-changed by this government. We have a situation where in government there is a total responsibility to make sure that, in the spending of every taxpayer’s dollars, there is some accountability and some justification for that expenditure.

I want to talk about another matter which is particular to my state just at present and it deals with minerals exploration and mining. I am a great supporter of mining exploration and the minerals industry in Australia and the tremendous work that they do. The resources that we have in Australia contribute largely to allowing us to have the lifestyle that we currently lead. But I am not a supporter of exploration for mining at all costs. We have a situation in South Australia right now in which the state Labor government has just reactivated a minerals exploration licence for Marathon Resources in the Arkaroola sanctuary in the northern Flinders Ranges of South Australia. I have been to Arkaroola and seen this unique sanctuary. It is only a small area. We almost have more uranium resources in Australia than we know what to do with—some of it unexplored yet.

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

They are not allowed to use it, though.

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

We are not allowed to use it, that is right. We can sell it to other people but they do not like us using it. Arkaroola, where Doug and Marg Sprigg have continued the work of their parents in the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary, is quite a unique part of South Australia. Only two years ago Marathon Resources were found to have breached the requirements of their exploration licence and had allowed waste products to be left there in a manner in which they were not entitled to. They have now had their exploration licence reactivated. I am totally opposed to the exploration of minerals, particularly uranium and maybe rare earths, in the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary because it is such a unique part of Australia.

I hope that the state government in South Australia will come to its senses. It says that exploration does not mean that it would allow a mining licence. If you are not going to allow people to mine minerals, why on earth would you allow them to explore for minerals within that area? My support goes to those people particularly in the Liberal Party and many of my state colleagues who are opposed to exploration in the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary. I hope that at some stage in the future there will be some sensible decisions taken which will allow Arkaroola to remain that wonderful wilderness sanctuary that it is and that the tremendous tourist operation and environmental protection that has been put in place by the Sprigg family will remain.

I could go on about many of the broken promises and the waste of this government, but I am not going to because it is all highlighted in the amendment that has been moved by Senator Abetz. However, I particularly refer to the carbon tax. Specifically at election time, the Prime Minister said that there would be ‘no carbon tax in Australia’. She gave an assurance during the campaign that there would be no carbon tax. So what happens when you cobble together an agreement with some Independents and the Greens as soon as the election is over and the government has been cobbled together? That promise is immediately broken and we now have the intention to introduce a carbon tax. My views on this issue are well known and I am not going to expand on them now. But that just highlights what we can expect from this current government—a party of higher taxation, a party that would wish to control our daily lives.

We have only to look at the current issue of restrictions on gambling that Independents, who wield considerable power in the lower House, are trying to put in place. I do not want to be living in an Australia where the government controls every action of our daily lives. We are all individual citizens. Anything that is done in regard to gambling or all the other things that this government would wish to control is a matter for the individual to decide and it should be left to individuals to make their own way in society.

This is the last time that I will speak in an address-in-reply debate. I look forward to the day when some of the issues that were raised by the Governor-General in her speech on behalf of the government are not issues of conflict between both sides of parliament and that we get to the stage where we will have a government of a different political persuasion that will govern in the interests of all Australians, that will allow for the individual freedoms that we stand for, and have always stood for, and that does not want to control the day-to-day activities of Australians in the way that this government does. I commend the amendment that has been moved by Senator Abetz to the address-in-reply and I urge senators to give it their support.

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator Abetz’s) be agreed to.