Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the following address–in–reply be agreed to:

To Her Excellency the Governor–General

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR EXCELLENCY—

We, the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign and to thank Your Excellency for the speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament.

It is an honour and a privilege to move the address-in-reply to Her Excellency the Governor-General's speech yesterday to the 44th Parliament. I echo Her Excellency's sentiments on the endurance of our democracy, founded on the principles of freedom in which the people who govern do so at the behest of those who give their consent to be governed.

This day marks the return of a majority government to the Australian parliament. It marks an end to the dysfunction, vitriol and divisiveness of the last three years. What Australians expect from those gathered in this place is a return to the stability of a government with a clear mandate to represent the aspirations and wishes of the people of Australia.

Stability does not mean stagnation; it does not mean Australians will not embrace meaningful change for the good of their nation; it does not mean we do not vigorously debate the issues. What stability means is the provision of an environment which gives Australians the confidence to propose, debate and implement change peacefully and democratically. That is what Australians look forward to from the 44th Parliament. This majority government has been given an emphatic mandate to deliver meaningful change. It is time for government to get out of the way and let Australians get on with their lives and their business. This is a priority commitment of an Abbott coalition government. This commitment is demonstrated in the words of Australia's longest-serving Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies:

This is a wonderful country. It’s going to be more wonderful still, but it will achieve greater wonders on the hard work and efforts of its people and not by a spirit of dependency, not on the kind of attitude towards governments and what governments ought to do that our opponents find so easy.

I say it often in this place and I will say it again: governments should only do what individuals and the private sector won't do, can't do and shouldn't do. We are committed to the principles of small government.

We will repeal legislation which increases the costs of living and the costs of doing business. We cannot expect Australian businesses to profit and to create jobs by controlling every aspect of their operations. We cannot expect Australian businesses to be competitive by nullifying their inherent comparative advantages with increasing costs and time spent complying with thousands and thousands of regulations; nor can we expect investors, both foreign and domestic, to inject the much-needed capital into our economy by scaring them away with excessive costs of regulation.

In this parliament we will dedicate entire sitting days to winding back the legislative and regulatory burdens which shackle our economy and threaten our prosperity. Our commitment is to reduce red and green tape by the equivalent of a billion dollars every year. As a priority we will introduce today legislation to repeal the carbon tax.

In 2010, Australians installed a government they were told would not introduce a carbon tax. This year Australians installed a government that is committed to repealing it. The responsibility of this government and those opposite is to acknowledge the Australian people's rejection of the carbon tax. Rejection of the carbon tax is not a rejection of the facts of global warming and the contribution of human activity on it. Australians overwhelmingly accept the science; as does this government, which is committed to a five per cent reduction in emissions by 2020. We will take direct action with an emissions reduction fund which will allocate funds to emissions reduction projects wholly within Australia. We will not spend a cent on foreign carbon credits. Our aim is to meet our national target by not forcing businesses to reduce emissions through the imposition of a tax which damages the economy and raises the cost of living but empowering and enabling businesses through incentive to contribute to the good of Australia and the global community. The Abbott government will also move to abolish the minerals resource rent tax, a massive impediment to the investment in one of Australia's most important sectors, the mining sector.

Our commitment to small government also means a commitment to efficient and responsible government. Governments should not be a jobs program. It should not be an endless parade of committees and councils, agencies and authorities, convened and established at a whim, creating yet more layers of stifling bureaucracy and interference in Australian life. The Abbott government has already started the process of making government more efficient in this respect, winding up bodies whose activities are better and more efficiently handled within existing government departments.

Most importantly, this government will work to get public spending under control. Our aim is to return to sustainable budget surpluses in a responsible manner as soon as possible and to pay down Australia's record debt. This debt has been costing the Australian taxpayer more than $7 billion in interest payments alone every year—funds that would be far better spent on critical public services and infrastructure.

We aim to get spending under control through a number of means: reduction of duplication and overlap between different levels of government; allowing natural attrition to reduce the burden of the Commonwealth Public Service payroll; refocusing the public service towards better provision of effective front-line services; and ensuring value-for-money government programs.

We have established the National Audit Commission headed by Mr Tony Shepherd, the president of the Business Council of Australia, to identify savings which must be made to reverse Australia's budget crisis. The escalating budget deficits and national debt have been a massive and completely unnecessary drag on the economy which the Abbott government will address as a priority.

The development of a strong, productive and diverse economy will indeed be the driving force behind the Abbott government's policies. A healthy economy is fundamental to achieving every national goal: a high standard of living, job creation, quality health and education, and competitive industries and modern infrastructure that will meet the needs of the 21st century. Building a stronger economy also requires building infrastructure that makes it productive.

The Abbott government is committed to completing the National Broadband Network more quickly than the previous model at a cost that is lower to taxpayers and more affordable to consumers. Every household and business will have access to the NBN by the end of 2016. We will give greater priority to areas, particularly in rural and regional Australia, where existing services are basically inadequate. Most importantly, we will not raise the expectations of Australians about the NBN and then fail to live up to them. We will be up front and transparent about the progress of the NBN rollout and deliver the network Australia needs at a price Australians can afford.

The Abbott government is also committed to building the roads of the 21st century. Her Excellency the Governor-General highlighted some of the major projects to which we are committed. I take this opportunity to welcome the Prime Minister's commitment to address the critical bottleneck on Adelaide's South Road.

The section of road between Darlington and Sturt Road, which includes the Southern Expressway intersection, has been a major traffic choke point for decades. Motorists from the Adelaide's southern suburbs will welcome the relief this project will bring. It will be part of a long-term plan to upgrade the entire north-south corridor in Adelaide with the ultimate aim of creating a nonstop flow of domestic and freight traffic right through the heart of South Australia's capital city. The Abbott government is keen to see this project through to fruition.

A healthy economy is also one in which government interference and regulation is minimal. Since the foundation of this country, the free market has been the most efficient and effective mechanism for regulating the economy, while government has always been the most inefficient and ineffective. Boosting productivity will be the key to building a stronger economy, and we aim to do this in a number of ways: we will encourage more people into the workforce by providing incentives to employers to hire young people and seniors; by introducing a genuine and inclusive paid parental leave scheme; by introducing a job commitment bonus for people who get themselves off welfare; by introducing a job seekers relocation bonus for young people prepared to move to take a job; by supporting more opportunities for Indigenous employment; and by tightening requirements for people on the dole, including making working for the dole mandatory for all long-term unemployed under 50 and suspending payments for people under 30 where work is readily available to them.

The best form of welfare is always a job. Having a job provides purpose, self-esteem and the means for a person to look after their affairs instead of that responsibility being taken on by someone else. Having a job means a person is making a contribution to Australia rather than depending on the support of the Australian taxpayer. The Abbott government aims to create a million jobs over the next five years and two million jobs over the next 10.

We will also improve productivity through improved government services and ensuring our essential public institutions are more efficient and responsive to the needs of the Australian people. We will improve productivity by reviewing and improving competition laws, and providing for a genuine level-playing field in the marketplace for both big and small business. We will improve productivity by building the infrastructure Australia needs for the future and reducing the bottlenecks that hamper both industry and the Australian worker. We will also improve productivity by bringing workplace relations into balance and ensuring all stakeholders are playing from a similar set of rules.

A key focus of our plan to build a stronger economy will be small business. I make no secret of the fact that I am unashamedly an advocate for small business—after all, every big business started life as a small business. Small business employment employs almost half of the Australian workforce and is a sector in which job creation is more readily achieved, provided that government gets out of the way and instead helps foster the conditions in which business success can be achieved instead of penalised.

Small business is the sector where people bet on their own innovation and skills, their ideas and their vision, and really make things happen. Small business is also the backbone of many of our rural and regional communities. We aim to double the growth rate in the number of small businesses by addressing the poor circumstances and regulatory burdens which see so many start-up businesses fail within their first year.

The Abbott government's economic policy also seeks to ensure prosperity and manage economic risk through diversity. Our policy recognises that the mining, energy and resources sector, while critical, is not the be-all and end-all sector that drives our economy. Our aim is to build a five-pillar economy to unleash the potential and make the most of the wide range of inherent advantages that Australia enjoys. In addition to mining, the pillars include world-class education and research, advanced services, manufacturing and innovation, and agricultural exports. Australia has sometimes been referred to as the clever country, but it is essentially an empty phrase unless we as a nation foster education and research, both publicly and within industry, and utilise our expertise and innovation for the benefit of the nation and the world. For too long, the rhetoric has not been matched with actions; so often the policy settings have been in total conflict with the professed position. This must stop and under this government it will stop.

We must also allow individuals and businesses to follow through on their ideas and inventions, and embrace new technologies and the benefits that they bring. The Abbott government will encourage modernisation and the development of world-class education and research capabilities in Australia and support the use of new technologies, particularly digital and information technology. We will also expand our education sector with a focus on our neighbours in Asia. The services sector has much potential for growth and export, again with a focus in Asia. We need to cut the red tape which stifles this sector and allow our world-class expertise in finance, health, engineering, agriculture and education to meet this potential. A good example is the Abbott government's commitment to give priority to the Johnson report on Australia as a financial centre, to enhance the financial services industry's ability to export its expertise to the world.

Manufacturing innovation is another important pillar of our economy, although one could be forgiven for perceiving manufacturing as a sector in considerable difficulty. The closure of Australian based manufacturing operations is always wrenching—particularly for those who find themselves suddenly without a job, and their families and communities. The closure of such an operation is particularly devastating when it happens in a regional area. One such closure recently announced in South Australia was McCain's closure of a potato-processing factory in the south-eastern town of Penola, leaving about 60 people without work just before Christmas and the local potato farmers with a very uncertain future. However, we cannot expect companies to maintain manufacturing operations in Australia unless we foster the conditions which make it desirable for them to be here. That means we must cut business costs and red tape, ensure business has the incentive to invest and innovate, and do what a government can do to level the playing field to make Australia competitive. These measures are a priority for the Abbott government.

Agricultural exports have been the foundation of the Australian economy for two centuries and they remain equally important today. Australia has the capacity to sustainably and significantly increase agricultural production. However, for the sector to achieve this potential we must get out of its way and instead play the role for which government is best suited. In this respect, I am a strong supporter of public investment in research and development and I know farmers and agricultural industries wholly welcome the Abbott government's commitment to spend an additional $100 million per year in this area. This research effort will be absolutely critical to maintaining Australia's edge in quality, ensuring that Australian food is an aspirational product for overseas consumers and enabling productivity growth while sustainably managing our natural resources.

The Abbott government has also committed an additional $20 million per year to enhance Australia's biosecurity, including the establishment of a biosecurity flying squad to immediately respond to pest and disease incursions. Our relative freedom from the pests and diseases that plague agriculture across the world is another strong competitive advantage which we must protect. This government will also prioritise free trade agreements with China, South Korea, Indonesia, India and Japan and help bring down the barriers to these massive markets for our Australian farmers. The government will also provide $15 million in support for small and emerging horticultural exporters seeking to establish or maintain a foothold in lucrative overseas markets. Improving overseas market access in a way that does not place onerous compliance burdens on our farmers will be crucial to increasing our exports, building a sustainable farming sector and providing a long-term future for our rural and regional communities.

Those same communities will have a stronger voice on an issue of great importance to eastern Australia and particularly to the state which I am privileged to represent here: the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. If policymakers had listened more to those voices, they would not have been so surprised at the resilience the basin showed with the return of high river flows in 2010. The Abbott government is committed to a more balanced approach to water reform in the basin. We will ensure the recovery of water necessary to restore the system to health. We will not compromise the rural industries and regional communities that rely directly upon it. Our goal is a working river system, a healthy river environment and sustainable river communities.

Let me conclude with an example of what a government should not do—that is, interfere with free speech, one of the foundations of modern democracy. Since Federation, except in extreme emergencies such as the last world war, the citizens of Australia have been free to speak their minds on any subject and to express their opinions regardless of how many might disagree. This is a right for which Australians have fought and died—if not in this country, then certainly overseas. They did not fight to prevent people from being offended or insulted. That is not a right, if one could call it that, which is compatible with freedom of speech. In a healthy democracy there should be no institution, organisation, individual or government that is free from criticism or accountability.

The Abbott government trust the Australian people to inform themselves as they choose and to hold us to account for our conduct and policies. We trust the Australian people to exercise their right to freedom of speech without fear or favour and to do so responsibly. Unlike the previous government we will not make any attempt to interfere with this important freedom through regulation or legislation. We will not attempt to prevent the commercial media from taking any editorial position or make them accountable to government through legislation or regulation. This government was not elected because or in spite of headlines and editorials; it was elected by the Australian people. As this government trusts Australians, so they have entrusted us with a mandate for change.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

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

This government has barely begun and yet today it has already proved to be a sad, shallow disappointment. It is certainly not a reforming government. It has no clear policy agenda for improving our nation for the benefit of all Australians. It does not seek to drastically improve education funding or provide appropriate care and support for those with disability, like the previous Labor government strove to do. It is not a government with a clear vision—just hollow, three-word sound bites which are increasingly becoming meaningless. Its most disappointing feature, though, so far is its utter lack of transparency.

Just a couple of months after being trusted by the Australian people to form a new government, those opposite do not trust the Australian people enough to tell them what they are doing. Its ministers are in hiding, its members are in hiding, the Prime Minister is in hiding and the minister for immigration is in hiding. Sorry, I should say the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection is in hiding. The new title is meant to show, I presume, how tough he is, like some form of poorly dubbed animated superhero. Mr Morrison is reduced to making a once-a-week appearance to the media to ignore questions and spin the latest diplomatic disaster with Indonesia. If the government truly thought that talking about boats that arrived increased the number of arrivals, why did they constantly talk about that when they were in opposition? Day after day after day in this place when those over there were in opposition they constantly talked about boats arriving. Why didn't they suggest then that the Labor government only hold weekly press conferences, and should we have tried that, what would their response have been?

The weekly press conferences are designed to hide the issues from the Australian people. They are designed to hide what we saw earlier in the week where Tony Abbott's 'turn back the boats' policy failed miserably and Indonesia refused to accept 65 asylum seekers Mr Abbott wanted to force on them. They are designed to hide the embarrassing gaffes, where Mr Morrison criticised senior Indonesian officials by saying about their policy, 'There is no real rhyme or reason to it.' They are designed to hide the bizarre 'buy back the boats' policy that Indonesia objected to so strongly and that has now fallen off the radar. And they are designed to hide the fact that Tony Abbott spent much of his time on his first trip to Indonesia apologising for things he said during the election campaign and came back empty-handed on both his 'turn back the boats' policy and his 'buy back the boats' policy.

The government does not trust the Australian people and certainly did not trust them enough before the election to explain the government's plan to privatise HECS-HELP debt for university students, creating American style student loans to keep people indebted for decades. Sorry, it isn't a plan. To quote education minister Christopher Pyne:

It's been floated as an idea …

And:

It wouldn't be insensible for us to do so. Why would you rule anything like that out?

Well, a good reason to rule it out, Mr Pyne, is that Australia's $23 billion worth of HECS-HELP debt would only fetch between $11 billion and $16 billion, as reported, if it were to be privatised, meaning a handy profit for the government's mates in whatever banking organisation picks it up at the loss to the Australian taxpayer. It would also mean that commercial rates or above commercial rates of interest would apply to HECS-HELP debt rather than the current indexation at the rate of inflation as occurs at the moment. This would leave students with more debt and higher interest payments. It would increase the overall costs and of course it would take longer to pay off. It is a bad idea, because these changes will obviously make it more difficult for people from low-income families who cannot afford to pay full fees up-front to afford to go to university. It is a bad idea because it acts as a massive deterrent for students to study for professions that are vitally important for Australian society but may not pay graduates terribly well. The latest Graduates careers Australia report released in July revealed that pharmacy graduates are the lowest paid of all university leavers, with an average salary of just $37,000 a year. I think we would all be in great trouble if all the people studying pharmacy decided it was now no longer feasible for them to do so and moved into a career with a better graduate salary.

Australia needs to encourage higher education to make us a smarter country capable of providing high-level services and products of the 21st century. Privatising higher education debts would do the reverse, and it is disturbing we have not heard of these plans until recently. It is something that many of the around four million university graduates should be terrified of.

The Abbott government is also being less than forthcoming on what it plans to do on infrastructure grants allocated to local communities under the Regional Development Australia Fund, or RDAF, round 5. In my home state of Tasmania that is 34 projects with almost $3 million worth of allocated federal funding for total project expenditure over $5 million at risk. These include projects like the tourist information bays in the Central Highlands, erosion control measures at the New Norfolk esplanade, outdoor gym equipment at Scottsdale and Bridport, redevelopment at the Northern Tasmanian Cricket Association facilities at Launceston and the Wynyard waterfront, and the Cam River reserve recreation facilities project, just to name a few.

What I have not heard from the new federal Liberal members for Bass, Braddon and Lyons has been them out there pushing to get these projects underway. In fact, they have been remarkably quiet on the future of all these projects and the others that make up the 34 projects I mentioned. Of course, these projects that Labor promised would drive jobs and growth in regional Tasmania. They would provide new facilities to increase the health and wellbeing of Tasmanians and they will improve facilities for tourism and regional communities. Communities in regional Tasmania need to know with certainty that these projects will go ahead rather than them being left in limbo while the government decides behind closed doors what they are going to cut. Mr Abbott himself has said that Tasmania is a special case—that Tasmania needs jobs and development. That is a statement that Labor agrees with. That is why Labor agreed to fund those positions. So why hasn't the funding for the RDAF 5 projects been guaranteed? This funding will create jobs in regional Tasmania, as I said.

And while we talk about projects in regional Tasmania, there are tens of thousands of Tasmanian premises that will no longer receive fibre to the premises, despite the contracts having been previously signed. The government promised that they would honour all contracts signed. Now, looking at the NBN Co. interactive rollout maps, I find large swathes of Tasmania that were set to receive fibre to the premises no longer there. There is no detail about when or if these suburbs will get fibre to the premises, or even when they will get the government's outdated, inefficient and ineffective fibre-to-the-node fraudband alternative. We will end up with two classes of Tasmanians, with many Tasmanian suburbs and towns missing out. Those Tasmanians in the Hobart suburbs of New Town, North Hobart, Mount Stuart, Lenah Valley, Risdon, Geilston Bay, Rose Bay, Lindisfarne, Claremont, Granton, Austins Ferry, Montrose, Rosetta, Glenorchy, Chigwell and Berriedale, who were all expecting to receive NBN fibre to the premises within the next year or so, now have no idea what their future internet connections will be. Tasmanians in the Launceston suburbs of Prospect, South Launceston, Summerhill, Kings Meadows, Prospect Vale, West Launceston, Norwood, Punchbowl, Kings Meadows, Mowbray, Newnham, Mayfield, Riverside and Rocherlea are also being kept in the dark about what the government plans for their suburbs. Many towns across regional Tasmania, including Legana, Rosevears, Grindelwald, South Arm, Opossum Bay, Bell Bay and Low Head, will no longer receive fibretothepremises. They will be looking at a two-tiered system, where neighbours on the even-numbered side—for example, of Elphinstone Road in North Hobart—will have NBN fibre, while the odd-numbered side will have the government's fraudband. Neighbours in one part of Cambridge street in West Launceston will receive NBN fibre, while next door will have fraudband.

The government did announce that they would scrap the low-income superannuation tax offset linked to the mining tax, which shows they were honest in that regard. However, it is extremely disappointing that generous tax breaks for around 16,000 wealthier Australians are maintained while at the same time concessions of $500 per year for 3.6 million workers on lower incomes are cut. The removal of the low-income superannuation contribution hits women particularly hard, with 2.1 million women affected. A significant percentage of these are mothers working part-time, and they are also looking after young children. This is exactly the part of a woman's career where an additional $500 a year going into superannuation will be of most benefit for building savings for their retirement. It is short sighted to cut superannuation contributions for those on the lowest wages, as these are the people who will be most likely to require support in their aged life. Every dollar invested into the superannuation funds of these people now will reduce by several times their need for the age pension.

Before the election, Mr Abbott told us he was committed to the NDIS. Since then, we have seen reports in The Australian that the government is looking to overhaul the independent National Disability Insurance Agency. I am very concerned that the government is preparing to do what many in the community have feared. Many spoke to me about this before the election—they were concerned that, if an Abbott government came to power, it would make savage financial cuts and delay the full rollout of the NDIS. The National Disability Insurance Scheme is, for the first time in our country's history, providing people with disability with the care and support they need to live a better life. Labor will fight any attempt by this government to make savage cuts to the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

Mr Abbott and the senators opposite must rule out any cuts to the NDIS and give people with disability, their carers and families the certainty that it will be delivered in full and on time, as they promised. They must immediately reaffirm their commitment to the National Disability Insurance Scheme, including the financial commitment and schedule for the full rollout developed by the Labor government. Overwhelmingly, people with disability need certainty—certainty that the scheme they have been tirelessly campaigning for will not face cuts or delays; certainty that the financial commitment that was made by federal Labor will be maintained; and certainty that they will be allowed the support to live life with equality and with dignity. Any cuts or delays will be a betrayal of people with disability and a broken promise to the Australian people.

I note already that this government is following a pattern. The government does not explicitly state what it plans to do. It uses weasel phrases like 'it's been floated as an idea' and 'we won't rule anything out' to prevent it from actually owning up to these nasty, petty little policies and to these nasty, petty little cuts. It uses inflated language and rhetoric without shame. Before the election, Mr Abbott said there was a budget emergency. An emergency? A crisis? Then why has it taken 10 weeks for us to return to this place to discuss remedies to this so-called emergency? Why has there not been a minibudget to rectify this so called emergency? Why have we not seen his MYEFO? Is it because there was never an emergency? Is it because we in fact have a AAA rated economy, six years of unbroken economic growth, low rates of inflation, increases in per capita GDP and one of the lowest debts as a percentage of GDP in the developed world? Guess what. We got all those under a Labor government.

Why has Mr Hockey given almost $9 billion dollars to the Reserve Bank that it does not need? Is it merely to make the 2013-14 budget bottom line look worse than it actually is and blame Labor for the blowout? Of course it is. On this side, we know that game. We know what those opposite are up to, and the people of Australia know as well. At the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars of extra interest repayments, they are just trying to score a political point. How pathetic is that? The government constantly shouts, 'Debt is bad, debt is bad'. Then why does the government want to lift the debt ceiling to a ridiculous $500 billion? That is an increase of $200 billion on the current limit; an extraordinary $200 billion, or 66 per cent, increase in the current amount. It is an utterly ridiculous policy that they wish to rush through this place and the other place by Thursday.

While the coalition announced before the election—two days before the election to be precise—that they would cut the foreign aid budget by $4.5 billion, they did not tell the Australian people that they would close down the entire AusAID agency. It was announced by Mr Abbott a few hours after he was sworn in as Prime Minister. Would it not have been appropriate to tell Australians before the election that he planned to destroy an agency that had existed almost 40 years, through Labor and Liberal governments—an agency that had served the nation with distinction over its history? It is insulting to the people that have worked there over the decades that their work no longer warrants an agency—that it can be thrown away on a petty, nasty whim.

Another agency that has been axed that the Australian people were not informed of before the election is the Climate Commission. Just one day into the new Abbott government the agency was razed to the ground—a body designed to make clear the science and economics of climate change. I would just like to take a moment to mention two of the recommendations from the Climate Commission's report The critical decade that those in government now may have found inconvenient. These are:

We are already seeing the social, economic and environmental consequences of a changing climate. Many of the risks scientists warned us about in the past are now happening—

and—

Three years into the Critical Decade it is clear: substantial progress is being made globally to reduce emissions. However, far more will need to be done to stabilise the climate.

This decision demonstrates to the Australian public that the government is not interested in talking to them about climate change science or climate change action. It is not serious about getting frank and fearless advice from its agencies—only advice that fits its ideological world view. I guess it is not surprising from a Prime Minister that believes climate change is 'absolute crap'. If you actually allow an independent body to explain the science and economics of climate change to the Australian people, they might decide that Tony Abbott's 'direct action' policy is 'absolute crap' as well.

Unfortunately, the Climate Commission is not the only victim of the Abbott government's antiscience agenda. For the first time since the science portfolio was created in 1931, it has been abolished. Mr Abbott certainly did not announce to the Australian people before the election that he would cut the science portfolio. He did not tell the Australian people that Australia would be a nation that no longer cared about science and no longer had a vision of Australia as a major player in the scientific world. He did not say that his cuts to 'public servants' would include sacking hundreds of scientists from CSIRO, an organisation whose achievements Australians are so proud of.

This government has indicated a trend to hide things from the Australian people and the Australian media that it would find politically uncomfortable. It has a reluctance to be free and open with its future plans. But this chamber will hold it to account, as it is designed to do. This chamber will not simply be a rubber stamp for whatever thought-bubble idea the government comes up with to help its mates in the banking sector, the mining sector or the business sector to increase their profits. It will not be bullied or threatened. It will not roll over and accept policy that discards scientific wisdom. It will not roll over and accept policy that was written by right-wing think tanks and that helps the rich at the expense of the poor. Australia is a nation that has always helped those less fortunate. The new Abbott government may have forgotten that, but the Labor Party and this chamber will constantly remind it.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to respond to the Governor-General's speech outlining the Abbott government's agenda for this term of parliament. Usually such a speech sets out a vision for the nation. Yesterday there was no vision in the Abbott government agenda for Australia except to confirm that, during this period of government, Australia will be on track to be regarded as a small, selfish, inward-looking, isolationist, 'back to the future' quarry Australia. That is where we are going. It is right back to mid-last-century, when Australia saw itself as separate from the rest of the world and thought that brawn was better than brains and that digging up, cutting down and shipping away was all we had to do to essentially make ourselves prosperous. There was no futuristic thinking, and that is exactly where we are now.

The agenda of the Abbott government, set out in yesterday's speech, can be summarised with the repeal of the carbon tax; the bringing in of a commission of audit to signal smaller government; massive deregulation, allowing business to do whatever it wants; and the higher productivity agenda, which is likely to be an attack on workers receiving the minimum wage and on workplace relations. We had talk of strengthening border protection, and that is code for isolationism and being seen internationally as a global pariah. Finally, 'building the roads of the 21st century' really says it all. The infrastructure vision of quarry Australia is to just build more roads. Yet here we are in 2013. A vision for the nation should be about our people and our future. In the second decade of this century, we should be looking out for the next 100 years.

As we do that, we are beginning to reflect on the last 100 years, because we are coming into, of course, the anniversary of the beginning of the First World War. People will be looking back over the last 100 years and thinking about, as former Prime Minister Keating said in his address at the War Memorial earlier this week, how the First World War was a war without virtue. He also indicated that it was a war that heralded one of the most appalling centuries in terms of the level of violence brought upon people because of the technological revolutions that allowed disaster on a scale that had not before that been possible. He also talked about the inscription which will now be on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier: 'He is all of them and one of us.' And that is the way Australians are going to be thinking about the last 100 years and thinking about those young Australians who gave their lives at that time so that the rest of us could benefit from a better life, from freedom, from democracy. There was great hope and optimism that the sacrifice was worth it. That is the perspective in which we have all looked back over the last 100 years.

In thinking about that, I wonder what people in 100 years are going to say looking back on those of us now facing the challenges of this century as we asked our youth to face in 1913. When we look forward from here in terms of intergenerational equity and what people will say in 100 years, I do not think they will be able to look back on 2013 and say that we were honest with ourselves, bold, courageous or thoughtful in terms of facing up to what we know the world is going to have to deal with.

The first thing you would ask yourself now if you were looking forward for the next 100 years is: where are we as a nation right now globally and domestically? How are we placed as a nation? Domestically we are a rich country. It is extraordinary when we hear the level of critique in terms of what it is like in Australia. We have never been so well off. Of course that is not to say there are not serious issues of poverty, homelessness, disadvantage and intergenerational inequity; but, nevertheless, compared with the overwhelming majority of the world's population, we are an extremely rich country. Globally we are a country that is capable of leading because we are a rich and developed country capable of facing the challenges that are in store. And the greatest challenge in store is that of global warming. That is what we are not facing up to as a parliament.

I want to draw the attention of the Senate to the meeting that is taking place right now in Warsaw at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change conference of the parties. It is the 19th conference of the parties, where the world has come together to face the realities of the challenge of actually making sure that people can live through this century and centuries to come. I draw to the attention of the Senate the speech that was given this week—and which has had very little publicity in Australia—from Yeb Sano, who is the spokesperson from the Philippines. He made a very powerful speech, especially since his speech coincided with the shocking disaster that is Typhoon Haiyan, which has hit the Philippines and left at least 10,000 people dead.

In that speech he said:

This will have profound implications on many of our communities, especially who struggle against the twin challenges of the development crisis and the climate change crisis. Typhoons such as Yolanda (Haiyan) and its impacts represent a sobering reminder to the international community that we cannot afford to procrastinate on climate action. Warsaw must deliver on enhancing ambition and should muster the political will to address climate change. In Doha, we asked "If not us then who? If not now, then when? If not here, then where?" (borrowed from Philippine student leader Ditto Sarmiento during Martial Law).

He went on to say that we should be asking exactly the same questions in Warsaw:

What my country is going through as a result of this extreme climate event is madness. The climate crisis is madness.

…   …   …

By failing to meet the objective the Convention—

that is, to keep global warming to less than two degrees—

we may have ratified the doom of vulnerable countries.

He spoke about the fact that 'we have entered a new era that demands global solidarity in order to fight climate change and ensure that pursuit of sustainable human development remains at the fore of the global community's efforts.' He goes on to say:

We must stop calling events like these as natural disasters. It is not natural when people continue to struggle to eradicate poverty and pursue development and gets battered by the onslaught of a monster storm now considered as the strongest storm ever to hit land. It is not natural when science already tells us that global warming will induce more intense storms. It is not natural when the human species has already profoundly changed the climate.

He finished his speech by calling for concrete pledges to ensure mobilisation of resources for the Green Climate Fund and, in particular, the pledge for $100 billion that has to be made to help developing countries. That is the context in which we are now speaking about the next 100 years from 2013, and I would say that we in Australia need to ask ourselves: if not us, then who? If not now, then when? And, if not here in the federal parliament, then where? Where are people going to face up on behalf of current and future generations of Australians, everyone else we share the planet with and every other species on this planet? When are we going to stand up, accept the science and act?

Today is historic because today is the day that the Abbott government introduced legislation to tear down the only framework of action on global warming that is reducing emissions in Australia, and that is our clean energy package. That is why responsibility has to be taken for this. By doing that, you are acknowledging that climate change is driving extreme weather events which are killing people and sending species to extinction, and you do not care, because you do not accept the science. It is as simple as that. That is the challenge that is facing this parliament. That is the challenge that is facing Australia, and the Australian Greens are up to that challenge because we are prepared to stand up and say, as leading economists around the world are saying, 'Economic growth must be decoupled from environmental degradation and resource extraction.'

Equally, climate change is having a massive impact on food security around the world and it is why we are now seeing countries going around grabbing land and water—they know they are going to have to feed their own people. That completely undermines the whole so-called free trade agenda, and yet in the Abbott government's back-to-the-future 1950s outlook it is all about free trade. It is no longer about free trade; it is about fair trade and maintaining ownership and control of your own land and water so that you can not only provide for your own food security but also enable other people to do so as well.

Australia is situated in the right place at the right time for this challenge. As we see this profound development in the Asian region, this is the first time in our history that we have been located, in a physical sense, in the right place in the world. I ask: will we lead or will we undermine progress in the world on critical issues such as human rights? On human rights in Sri Lanka we have already abandoned the page, with the Prime Minister saying that it is not for us to lecture other countries—even though we know that people are disappearing in white vans in Sri Lanka as we speak and that there is no press freedom. We know that, and yet this government is prepared to turn its back. On democracy in Cambodia, it is exactly the same. We should have been calling for the international community to investigate the election abuses in Cambodia, but we did not; we turned our back. On sustainability, we have had the International Energy Agency come out overnight and say that Australia is going to be the biggest coal exporter in the world by 2035 and that we will be contributing not to green growth in Asia but to black growth. The International Energy Agency has been damning by saying that a golden age for Australia will set the world on a path of dangerous climate change as fossil fuel sourced emissions soar. That is Australia's contribution to the Asian century.

I go on: how could we have an address from the Abbott government without mentioning the G20? In a couple of weeks, we take the presidency of the G20. What are we going to do with it? What is the Abbott government's vision for the G20 and for our leadership of the G20? We heard from Greg Hunt, the minister, before the election that he was going to put climate change on the G20 agenda. How interesting is that going to be, with world leaders flying into Brisbane being told that Australia is abandoning any kind of global responsibility and is only going to stick with a miserly five per cent, which is an insult to the rest of the world, and will not contribute a cent to the Green Climate Fund. So, is climate change going to be on the G20 agenda or not? If not, what is? The G20 is in a precarious position. It came together through the global financial crisis. It is struggling to know what its purpose is. If its purpose, as the leader of the global economy, is to address the major trends in the global economy then climate change has to be front and centre of that. If it is not, Australia stands to actually undermine the whole future of the G20.

What about the Security Council? We heard nothing in the speech about the Security Council. What is Australia's agenda on the Security Council? Do we accept that security in this century is about securing our borders, as the Prime Minister said? Actually, it is about securing our planet. Every other defence force around the world is looking at the impacts of extreme weather events and the insecurity and conflicts that are going to arise because of that. Australia's whole agenda on security seems to be trying to demonise refugees rather than face up to the fact that this is going to be a century of people being dislocated for a range of reasons in countries around the world. We have to come to a way of accommodating the fact that people are going to be moving. We have to do our fair share and play a role in dealing with that humanitarian crisis.

I go beyond that to the environment. All we heard on the environment in the speech yesterday was about green tape and deregulation. All that is code for is give Australia to big business, give Australia to quarries, and give the Institute of Public Affairs and the old agendas the green light. Let them go and trash the environment as much as they like. A one-stop shop for the states means disaster and no more so than in Tasmania. This whole notion of a new economic package for Tasmania, which has a one-stop shop to enable major development approvals, spells community conflict and environmental destruction in Tasmania. It will not work. It sounded just like Robin Gray at the end of the 1980s. That is exactly what is agenda was, and now we are having Tony Abbott deliver it.

Far from being a careful, consultative and straightforward agenda, this government's agenda is radical and ideologically-driven. It is going to be secretive and implemented by stealth. We are already seeing it. As I indicated, this is isolationism in how we are treating the rest of the world on climate change. It flows through to AusAID, as we have heard. Abandoning AusAID is abandoning one of the main tools we have for peace, engagement and building sustainability. You either help people and build friendships or you build up the defence forces and expect to fight. I think it is a ludicrous proposition that we want to pour money into the defence forces, ignore global warming, ignore those global people movement shifts and global emergencies and instead rip out the money from AusAID, which is our main diplomatic tool for being a good global citizen and building strengths and friendships that will stand by us in difficult times. It is a backward and foolish move. It is handing the puppet master role over to the Institute of Public Affairs and to big business in Australia.

I end on infrastructure. Unless you live in a quarry, the government's imagining that the infrastructure of this century is roads just shows the limitation of their thinking. The resource of this century is imagination. The infrastructure of this century has to be building human potential and capacity. That means massive investment in education and research and development—building capacity so that what we export is not what we dig up and cut down but capacity and capacity building.

We export through the arts as well. There was not a mention in the speech of creative culture as a transformative influence. If you accept the trends of this century, that we need to change, you have to understand that investing in the brain rather than the brawn is what Australia needs to do. We need to invest in creativity, in imagination, because that is the resource of this century. Words in a speech that say that your aim is to see cranes over cities and bulldozers on the ground say that you are right back in the 1950s. If you were serious about infrastructure what you would be envisaging is fast broadband and the fantastic education infrastructure in this country which is reaching out to share capacity with our neighbours and around the world. That is the infrastructure: building the health, education and capacity of our community to be able to deal with and assist people around us—not only in our own communities but in our regional community—and that is where we need to be going.

I return where I began. We have no vision but an ideologically driven agenda for quarry Australia: small, selfish, inward looking, isolationist and back to the future. It is a missed opportunity for Australia and we will pay heavily for it in years to come not only because of the impacts of global warming but because the rest of the world is going to see us for what we are. (Time expired)

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is an honour for me to second the motion supporting the address of the Queen's representative in Australia, the Governor-General, outlining the government's agenda for the 44th Parliament. It is a key part of our democracy. I would like to refer to our founding document, the Constitution, which says:

The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives, and which is hereinafter called The Parliament …

In looking back in preparation for this speech, I had a look at the first address-in-reply speech, made in 1903. The senators, to a man, all stood up and argued with several aspects of the Governor-General's speech that was presented to the Senate at that time. I think there were some issues around the High Court. But I will not be doing that today, because I am very, very proud to be a member of the Abbott-Truss government for the 44th parliament that will be delivering on the Governor-General's address, which was given yesterday in this place.

I note that the Governor-General grew up in regional Queensland and has spoken often about the importance of Australia's connection to the land and how important it is for our cultural heritage to pass on that love of the land to future generations—particularly for her, her children and her grandchildren. So I second this motion as a National Party senator representing the interests of regional Victoria. As a party we recognise that great connection that the Governor-General has spoken about. The Nationals are the second-oldest political party, celebrating 93 unbroken years of representation of rural and regional Australia in the federal parliament. We are proud partners in the new Liberal-National government, as we have been in so many successful Liberal-National governments in the past. We help to bring to government and to parliament the voice, concerns and aspirations of the one-third of Australians who live outside our capital cities. Within the new Abbott-Truss ministry the range of portfolios reflect the diversity of regional Australia, concerning health, employment, Indigenous affairs, finance, defence, agriculture, infrastructure and regional development.

I know that the Governor-General and, indeed, the Prime Minister have made several references to the importance of stable government since coming to government. As we begin this 44th Parliament, it is worth reflecting on our history and the importance of developing the strong and stable government that we have today. Our Constitution was drafted in a spirit of fairness, balancing bigger states with smaller ones. It was simple and pragmatic. We held constitutional conventions right around Australia, bringing the people to the document and ensuring that citizens were at the heart of the government of this new nation, drawing on the British and American experiences. And they got it right. I think the government that we have today for this 44th Parliament will completely reflect the intentions that the drafters of that original document had in bringing the people to the parliament, reflecting the people's desire. We look forward to delivering on the mandate that they have given us.

Our Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, has indicated that the 44th Parliament will be a respectful parliament, a parliament focused on the real concerns and aspirations of the people of Australia. Much of the work of government is already underway, as we parliamentarians have traversed the regions talking about the challenges and opportunities that we face as a government and as a nation. The new government wants a parliament which is less about political point-scoring and more focused on raising the issues of the people we represent. I support the comments of Senator Ruston in welcoming the return of majority government. The coalition will provide strong, stable government and we have a clear mandate for our legislative priorities.

Our regions urgently need good government that delivers competent, efficient and predictable administration. Regional Australia needs a government with the same characteristics that have helped it survive and thrive: independence, resilience, creativity, an entrepreneurial spirit and an outward focus. That is what has driven success for regional Australia and I know those are the characteristics that will underpin an Abbott-Truss government. The role of government should be to support and develop a nation, not to bury it in restrictions, regulations and pointless paperwork. This is precisely where Labor went so wrong, as it shackled Australia with tax upon regulation upon further tax: 21,000 new regulations in such a short space of time.

In the regions we are not looking for welfare but simply for a fair go, and that means a government that works to provide opportunities for people and businesses in the regions as well as the cities, and I know that, unlike the last six years, the Abbott-Truss government will have regional Australia right at its heart. It is a government that will deliver on transport and better communications to our regions, a government that will deliver education, health services and infrastructure. It is a government willing to unlock the potential that lies within regional Australia, the potential for rural Australia to prosper and help maximise Australia's standing as a global partner.

And there are significant opportunities for growth in regional Australia—agriculture, agribusiness, tourism and energy to name a few—in coming decades. This government is ready, willing and able to ensure that regional Australia is able to capitalise on those opportunities in coming decades. In agriculture, we can then help meet the needs of global food demand, expected to grow by 60 million people a year over the next 20 years. We already boast the cleanest, most efficient and least subsidised agriculture sector in the world. We need to ensure that that continues and that we capitalise on that aspect of our economy.

International tourism is growing at four per cent per year and will double over the next two decades, providing employment for more than half a million Australians and accounting for $107 billion of economic activity and $25 billion of export earnings. A lower Australian dollar is making Australia attractive again, especially to the growing middle class in Asia, which is both close and in a similar time zone. Tourists want to see the Opera House and the MCG, but I think we all know that they love our magnificent natural heritage. They can experience that within the regions, whether it is along the Great Ocean Road, up in Senator Scullion's country in the Northern Territory or, indeed, Mr Acting Deputy President Smith, in your own beautiful WA. The natural heritage and environment of Australia has so much to offer, but I think we can actually do more to ensure that our cultural heritage is similarly promoted to the international tourism market, and there may be some opportunities for us there.

There is growing demand, similarly, for energy worldwide, providing significant opportunity to regional Australia—not only to lower our CO2 emissions as we look towards other sources of energy but also for jobs in the regions. We just need to ensure we do this in an environmentally responsible way, and one that is in the national interest.

The government's agenda will support the growth in regional Australia right across tax reform, small business policy and deregulation, the Commission of Audit, trade with Asia, communications, education, defence and environment—the list goes on. We have taken a very holistic approach, as the Governor-General outlined yesterday. And I am only going to touch on a few of those aspects.

Tax reform is essential, as I mentioned earlier. Today we start the work: we begin the agenda that Her Excellency outlined for us yesterday by, as we speak, the carbon tax being repealed in the House of Representatives. This fulfils the mandate given to us by the Australian people in such a resounding electoral result. We will also cut the company tax rate from 30 per cent to 28.5 per cent. We are also repealing the minerals resource rent tax, another significant election promise. Axing these taxes, if we are to do this responsibly, requires very difficult decisions to be made because some spending must also be cut to balance the books. But it is the right thing to do, it is the grown-up thing to do and it is the responsible thing for the government to do, to ensure that we are not keeping the goodies while we are taking with the other hand.

Much of Labor's spending promises relied on phantom revenue from the mining tax, whereas initiatives like our $1 billion National Stronger Regions Fund are fully funded. I think that is going to be of great benefit to those regional areas that require significant support from government. It is a practical measure that is fully costed, unlike the previous government's support.

Labor claimed that agriculture was exempt from the world's biggest carbon tax; but for those of you who are interested I know that Devondale-Murray Goulburn has actually upped the bid for Warrnambool Cheese & Butter down in western Victoria, showing that domestic and international investors are realising the potential that Australian agricultural industry provides. Dairy farmers, particularly down in my state—we are the heart of dairy farming—were slugged under the carbon tax, upwards of $10,000 per farm in electricity costs. This was totally not factored into the carbon tax, despite the rhetoric that agriculture would not be affected.

Similarly, the coalition government's white paper on tax reform will review the efficiency and effectiveness of all taxes. We actually recognise the interconnectedness of the tax system and that you need to take a holistic look at the system, rather than cherry picking what you can look at and then cherry picking the recommendations you choose to adopt. Already the government has dealt with 93 tax measures that were left unlegislated and unresolved—getting the house in order. We have scrapped 63 other new tax measures because we want to encourage and reward people who work hard and get ahead.

As a daughter of a small-business owner I know that when you grow small businesses you grow Australia. I am very passionate about small business and I am extremely excited about the Minister for Small Business's pursuit of this issue. While he was the shadow minister and since he has been the minister he has been promoting small business and getting on with the business of assisting small business from day one. It is about time that government got off the backs and out of the pockets of small business, and the new government is making its first root-and-branch review of the Competition and Consumer Act in 20 years. A lot has changed in 20 years in competition across our economy. Relationships between processors, producers, retailers and consumers have changed because of the uniqueness of our market. We need to take a look at that and assess whether the regime and the legislative framework we have in place are actually delivering on the policy outcomes that we need. So that is going to be a fabulous initiative of this government.

Deregulation is desperately needed. We must dismantle the regulations that are smothering everything from small business to universities. Education providers have also been complaining about the former government's regulation and the impact it was having on educating the next generation of young Australians. I think it is always useful to bear in mind that it is not just business that is affected.

As Thomas Jefferson said:

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.

I agree! So we are taking active steps as a government to reduce the impact of government in our lives and on our industries.

Our National Commission of Audit is already underway. It is an essential step in addressing Labor's record of waste and mismanagement, dealing with a century of regulation and legislation that has built up over time and actually having a really detailed look at it. The government has three principles at its heart that I think encapsulate our philosophy as a coalition government: firstly, that we respect taxpayers by ensuring every dollar of their money is spent wisely; secondly, that we should live within our means—not much to ask; and, thirdly, that the government should only do for the people what the people cannot do for themselves as free, independent beings. That is exactly a government's role. This aspiration actually is not new for the Nationals in a coalition government. John 'Black Jack' McEwen, a Victorian member of parliament, the member for Murray—the food bowl of Australia, I would argue, with the Goulburn Valley, SPCA et cetera, right in the centre of my state of Victoria—who went on to be Prime Minister, said in his maiden speech in parliament in 1937 that it was the task of government 'to discover the basic facts upon which our national economy is founded, and search there for the root causes' of problems. That is exactly what the National Commission of Audit will do, receiving submissions.

Jobs are much more than just a pay packet. They are about independence, dignity, social interaction and family. So one very important role of government is to ensure that all our citizenry have fair access to the workplace: young people—we have seen the issues in Spain; older people; Indigenous Australians; and women, through increasing their workforce participation. Every young Australian who moves from unemployment to work represents a building block towards Australia's future. Indigenous Australians for the first time have a Prime Minister who is passionate about their plight and a minister, in Senator Scullion, who genuinely understands their issues and is committed to ensuring they reach their maximum potential and contribute to the building of a strong Australian future. I support the government's workforce participation initiatives, which will particularly benefit women, including a Productivity Commission inquiry into child care and a real paid parental leave scheme. Access to child care has been a real challenge for many families in regional Australia who do not have the same choice available as parents in the cities, without the benefit of economies of scale.

International trade has been part of the Nationals' DNA since well before the previous government suddenly discovered the Asian century and it has been at the heart of coalition governments. Trade has always been essential to regional Australia, which has always had to look offshore to sell its goods and to build a nation. Regional Australia will benefit greatly from the Abbott-Truss government's determination to seize the opportunity presented by the economic growth in Asia, not just in China. We will progress trade arrangements with Korea, China, Japan, Indonesia and India—great opportunities for Australian agribusiness, farmers and our food processors. It is worth mentioning here that the food-processing industry represents the largest part of our manufacturing industry, employing more than 300,000 Australians, more than half of them in regional Australia, and value adding to the fabulously clean, green Australian produce before we ship it offshore. So it is surely in our national interest for this to continue. We will end the delays and confusion that agribusiness has had to struggle with under previous governments.

Technology means that the world is also now in our lounge room and holds untold opportunities, particularly for those of us in regional Australia. The coalition's broadband plan to deliver communication services to regional Australia—much, much faster, Senator Polley, and at a much more reasonable cost—provides untold economic potential gains for those of us that live in the regions. Similarly, it is not so fabulous delivering gold-plated broadband in Kew whilst people in Wycheproof cannot make a phone call, so our commitment to improving technology for those of us out in the regions means a $200 million investment to improve mobile coverage in regional Australia, particularly in smaller communities, along major transport routes and where black spots exist. Acting Deputy President Senator Smith will agree that those senators who travel the highways and byways of regional Australia know very well where the black spots are—not that we are the ones on the phone! This is going to be the hallmark of this government: dealing with the everyday concerns of people in a practical, efficient manner.

I am passionate about education and the opportunities for young people. For too long they have had to move away from home without the support of government. This coalition government will be determined to ensure that education is something that all Australians can participate in. We also will address cyberbullying. Senator Bilyk, I know you have been a part of that, but it was a great privilege for me to be part of the coalition's committee that examined cyberbullying right across the nation and we will be making some significant announcements about that. We are also going to ensure that parents and communities are much more engaged with local schools.

I briefly want to touch on defence because, as we withdraw from Afghanistan, there is no greater responsibility for the Commonwealth government than the defence of a nation. Regional Australia makes a significant contribution to the defence industry through our small and medium enterprises. We are also going to continue the strong tradition of past Liberal-National governments of ensuring a practical response to environmental leadership—and I do not say that lightly. What I am looking forward to is having a leadership team in Tony Abbott and Warren Truss that is committed to the service of the Australian people, and I think that is unique. I think that character, if you like, will be a good role model for all of us senators and members who are part of their government to actually remember why we are here and what we are about. We live in a dynamic and changing world and I think we now have the government that will allow our nation to participate fully. (Time expired)

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to make a contribution in this debate on the Address-in-reply. It will come as no surprise that I was honoured to be appointed as shadow parliamentary secretary for aged care. Anyone who has followed me in public life knows that I have had a long-held passion for aged-care policy and making sure that older Australians receive the care and support they need. I will be working alongside the new shadow aged-care minister, the member for Blair, and I am really enjoying the prospect of meeting lots of people in the sector and sinking my teeth into this new challenge.

I have spoken on numerous occasions in this chamber on another issue of great importance to me, the National Disability Insurance Scheme. It is of course designed to afford those with intellectual and physical disabilities autonomy and dignity in how they live their lives. That that new role gives me the opportunity to improve the lives of older Australians in a similar fashion. It is a sad reality that unless we work diligently many older people will not live their lives in a way that is beneficial to their long-term physical and mental health. We must never be complacent and we must never assume that older Australians will automatically be able to live independently and comfortably just because they are blessed to live in a First World country.

It may surprise some to learn that my home state of Tasmania not only has the highest percentage among the states and territories of people with disabilities but also a higher percentage of older people. In fact our population is the oldest in the country and ageing faster than any other state or territory. It presents enormous challenges, but also opportunities. It is just one of the many reasons I have developed a strong interest in aged care.

Aged-care organisations in Tasmania are generally not as consolidated or as big as those interstate, and Tasmanian aged-care homes rely on their community connections and on dedicated volunteers. Older Tasmanians are still able to live in aged-care homes in the community where they have lived and contributed all their lives. Many leaders in the local industry are striving to maintain this model because it is seen to be the best model for those residents.

I was also thrilled to discover several days ago that Smithton's aged-care facility Emmerton Park won the prestigious aged-care organisation of the year award at this year's National Aged Care Awards just this past weekend. The chief executive, Rob Barden, believed the award was recognition for the commitment and tireless work achieved by the organisation's team and its implementation of programs and initiatives that provide a fun, inclusive and caring environment for residents. Once again, I congratulate the whole team down there. Yesterday I had the opportunity to speak to Chris, the deputy CEO, and relay how delighted I was and how beneficial it was to once again show that Tasmania can lead the way, and what better place than in aged care. It shows just what can be achieved when aged-care facilities across the country continue to strive for excellence to ensure that residents are provided the best care possible, while also pushing new and exciting initiatives to ensure residents are active and involved within their community more broadly.

I want to help shine a spotlight on numerous issues that I believe receive insufficient attention in the media. Aged care may not always appear exciting or newsworthy to mainstream media outlets, but what could be more important than making sure that some of the nation's most vulnerable people are looked after properly? Last year I was thrilled when Labor delivered on yet another promise and passed historic reforms to aged care, the $3.7 billion Living Longer Living Better program. Labor delivered what the coalition, when they were previously in government, was unable to achieve.

Sadly, this package of reforms did not receive the attention it sorely deserved. It creates a flexible and seamless system that provides older Australians with more choice, control and easier access to a full range of services, where they want it and when they need it. It also positions Australia to meet the social and economic challenges of the nation's ageing population. It is vital to our future and it is something that Labor should be incredibly proud of. In particular, we can attribute this achievement to the tireless efforts of former ageing minister, the Member for Port Adelaide. We are the ones with a positive plan to ensure the best possible care for older Australians, to substantially increase aged-care places and to build a stronger aged-care system.

One aspect of aged care that I intend to take a particularly strong interest in is dementia. For Australia, like many other advanced countries around the world,    dementia is a tidal wave on the horizon. The numbers are sobering. An ageing population means that there are over 320,000 Australians living with dementia right now and in the absence of a major medical breakthrough the number of people with dementia is expected to be almost 900,000 by 2050.

It is also vital that we consider those whose lives are affected by people with dementia, not least the estimated 1.2 million Australians who are caring for their loved ones with dementia. It is also the single greatest cause of disability in older Australians aged 65 years or older. It is the third leading cause of death in Australia. There is no cure. Fortunately for Australia, the Living Longer Living Better reforms deliver key outcomes for the future of assisting Australians with dementia. The package expands the Dementia Behaviour Management Advisory Services into acute and primary care settings. It also focuses on achieving a timelier dementia diagnosis with GPs and practice nurses receiving much-needed training and education. There is also a new dementia supplement to provide extra financial assistance for dementia care.

It is vital that the coalition takes dementia, and indeed aged care, seriously and there are troubling signs that this may not be the case. Tony Abbott has decided not only that his government does not require a minister with specific responsibilities for aged care but also he has decided to lump aged care and ageing into the social services portfolio. This certainly shows that wherever the priorities of his government lie they certainly do not lie with improving the lives of older Australians. As things currently stand, aged care and ageing will be jostling for attention amongst a range of other broad social issues including families, housing, social services and disability services. It is certainly a step backwards for confronting key challenges in aged care that we must not shy away from.

We also know that the Prime Minister plans to abolish Labor's $1.2 billion scheme to deliver pay rises to the nation's 350,000 aged-care workers. These are people who work extraordinarily hard to care for older Australians and the coalition does not believe they deserve a boost in their pay. When the coalition released their aged-care policy—and I use that term very loosely because it was a pamphlet of a few pages—just before the election we also discovered that they propose to relax vital aged-care regulations including accreditation periods. As was pointed out by the Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association, this shows a poor understanding of the problems of abuse, neglect and premature death in Australian nursing homes. We need to do everything we can to protect those in aged care, yet the coalition appears to be willing to relax the strong standards that are in place.

In addition to this, there is more recent and troubling news: the coalition government is abolishing the panel on positive ageing, a key council set up to ensure that the needs of older Australians were promptly considered in the formation of government policy. The rationale offered was that the Prime Minister wanted to streamline government where 'activities are no longer needed or can be managed within existing departmental resources'. The chair of this panel, Mr Everald Compton, has understandably spoken out on how short-sighted and reckless this decision was. The panel was just six months away from finishing a blueprint on how Australia can turn an ageing population into an asset. Those who are older and ageing were developing a blueprint for the future. Two years of solid work went into this blueprint. Two years of work for nothing. If that isn't short-sighted, I don't know what is.

I can assure you that Labor will hold the coalition to account. I also think that this new role as shadow parliamentary secretary will provide me with the opportunity to look closely at the options for further improving palliative care in Australia. Older Australians deserve to spend their last days living comfortably and with dignity, and there is absolutely no reason Australia should not aspire to have the most efficient, well-funded palliative care system in the world.

When it comes to aged care more generally, I think that we should never shy away from big ideas; we should never be afraid of thinking outside the box. During the first of the Labor leadership head-to-head debates, both candidates backed the idea of higher superannuation payments to build a sovereign wealth fund to help pay for the care of the increasing numbers of Australians living into their 80s and 90s. Referring to a plan floated by the former Prime Minister Paul Keating, our now opposition leader said Labor should consider 'big' new ideas, like 'encouraging people to save for a sovereign wealth fund that enables people to draw down on that resource when they need it'. It is certainly something that should be considered, because the cost of caring for older Australians is only going to rise.

I think it is also vital that we consider how a range of policy areas overlap with aged care; we must never view issues relating to the care of older Australians in isolation. For example, it is not surprising that many older Australians living in rural, regional or remote communities suffer from a distinct lack of access to medical specialists to assist in making a timely diagnosis of dementia. This is particularly concerning, because experts agree that an early diagnosis is crucial to treating dementia. However, one area where we can really hope for improvement in this regard is by encouraging innovative approaches to dementia diagnosis and care, including telehealth initiatives. Of course telehealth can only really benefit those who can connect to reliable, fast broadband that is available under, for example, fibre-to-the-premises NBN. Now that is of course under threat because the coalition wants to create a digital divide that will only allow some to access 21st century internet speeds.

Over the weekend, the sorely missed Tony Windsor was speaking at the Victorian Women's Trust event honouring Julia Gillard—the Prime Minister who of course presided over the passage of Living Longer, Living Better. When considering cost-benefit implications of the two opposing broadband plans, he had this to say about the real costs of not embracing fibre-to-the-home broadband:

We have a significant problem—Peter Costello recognised this some years ago—in terms of the ageing of the population; we are going to have a big bump of older people … coming through the system. If five per cent of those people could stay in their homes for one or two years additionally … what impact would that have on the capital costs of this bump coming through the system? What impact would it have on the operational costs of supplying those beds? What impact would it have on the psyche of the people and their families? That one issue—and we've done the numbers on this—pays for the scheme. It pays for the scheme on its own.

Fibre to the premises is a network which provides a medical-grade, reliable connection to each home and a complete standardisation of equipment. It is as simple as that. We need to consider just what the digital divide could mean for older Australians, in particular those who are at risk of dementia, and how many may not be afforded an early diagnosis if using inferior broadband alternatives.

Even though I now have new responsibilities as a shadow parliamentary secretary, I will of course continue to work diligently for the people of Tasmania. I think it is fair to suggest that the electorate of my home state sent us a strong message and one that we should listen closely to. There are of course many, many people in the state still committed to Labor, but it is also fair to suggest that some have, at least for the time being, issued a protest vote in key electorates that swung away from us. I prefer to see this as an opportunity: an opportunity to rethink our approach and an opportunity to reconsider the future of Tasmania and how we can improve the state's prospects.

During the recent federal election campaign it was clear that the chief concern for many Tasmanians was jobs and growth. The challenge lies in identifying precisely where Tasmania can exploit competitive advantages and in the process find new, innovative ways of boosting the economy. One such area where I think Tasmania can get ahead and achieve positive change is the renewable energy sector, an important component of the modern economy that is no doubt bracing for the worst now that the Abbott government is in power. Unfortunately Mr Abbott and the coalition do not understand that encouraging developments in renewable energy has the capacity to transform the economy and lower total carbon emissions.

As I noted in the Senate chamber earlier this year, in recent times the policies delivered by Labor have ensured that the renewable energy industry has gone from strength to strength. To take just one example, wind capacity in Australia rose from just over 1,100 megawatts to over 3,000 megawatts during Labor's time in power. In fact, last year wind farms in this country produced enough electricity to power over one million homes, a target that seemed impossible not that long ago.

Tasmania was the recipient of several grants under the Clean Technology Investment Program and the Clean Technology Innovation Program, which allowed numerous local outfits in northern Tasmania and indeed across the state to upgrade equipment and reduce emissions intensity. There is much planned for the future of Tasmania's renewable energy sector as well, including a 200-turbine wind farm development on King Island.

Now is the time for Tasmania to embrace the renewable energy sector and make sure that the Abbott government does not hinder progress. If approached intelligently, renewable energy will allow the state to take advantage of new innovations in the coming decades that promise to revolutionise how energy is produced. It is not good enough to stick our heads in the sand. If we do not jump on board and do everything possible to encourage renewable energies then the accompanying jobs and growth opportunities will flow elsewhere and overseas.

Renewable energy represents a potential goldmine that will benefit all Tasmanians but only if we work to make it happen. Proactively fostering developments in the renewable energy sector, including putting a price on carbon, is about long-term vision. It is about considering what sort of planet we want to leave behind and new jobs and opportunities that have the potential to    enhance Tasmania's economic prospects for generations to come

I certainly hope that the member for Bass and his coalition colleagues do not continue to exploit outdated views to suit their own political objectives. The Prime Minister has on numerous occasions channelled the incredible Rick Perry and said that 'Australia is back open for business'. I can tell you that the businesses of the future will not be the same as the businesses of today, and if we want to position ourselves to take advantage of future areas of growth, including renewable energies, we need to act now.

Tasmania is also a state that can prosper by focusing on new innovations and new technologies. In order for Tasmanian businesses to innovate and thrive, particularly those in remote and regional areas, we need world-class broadband. Once again I am talking fibre-to-the-premises superior broadband, not the tin-can-and-string approach favoured by the current government. Earlier I spoke about how superior broadband outcomes could benefit those Australians with dementia or at risk of dementia, yet that is just one facet of how Labor's version of the NBN will benefit us all.

If we create a digital divide, we are also effectively closing the door on opportunities for many businesses which were not lucky enough to get in first. As I said in this chamber several months ago, the people of Tasmania, along with Australians everywhere, are eager to take advantage of fibre-to-the-premises broadband. When it comes to our internet speeds, we can afford to be bold. We have to be because if we are not the opportunities that come from fibre-optic cables delivering world-class internet speeds will be enjoyed elsewhere. It is as simple as that.

This highlights why this coalition government will be such a predictably disappointing and uninspiring government. They have this view that if left alone with minimal government intrusion that any economy can thrive. But what they do not understand is that any playing field is never perfectly level and it is not acceptable that one household can afford a computer for their child while another cannot. It is not acceptable that one business can enjoy superior broadband speeds whilst another cannot.

But it is more than that: it is not just about what is fair; it is also about what is smart. If Australia invests in its people, in its infrastructure, in new innovations and in ensuring that we do not suffer from a dual-track economy, I promise you we will thrive in ways that would not have been imaginable a generation or two ago. We are the lucky country, and we all like to say it and remind ourselves of it but it is true. But we are only the lucky country because we have not allowed complacency and complicity with vested interests, greed and selfishness to dominate our public policymaking. We need to always be looking ahead to the next opportunity rather than just enjoying what we have now. Our future depends on this. We have to change our mindset, and I call on this government to show some initiative and innovation so we can move forward.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, isn't it nice to be back? I rise to respond to the Governor-General's speech and I want to open with some observations about the ritual that we are presently engaged in. I want to draw on the former Clerk of this place, Harry Evans, when he made some observations in 2004 at a conference of presiding officers about the address-in-reply and the degree to which the ritual that we are presently engaged in of making an observation in reply to Her Excellency's speech yesterday is or is not in accord with our own Constitution.

Mr Evans observes in his essay of 2004 that:

The Governor-General’s opening speech, which sets out the government’s program, involves the Governor-General, who is otherwise supposed to be a politically neutral head of state, in speaking as if he or she were the actual head of government and in making contentious and partisan political statements.

I certainly in no way want my remarks to be construed as criticism of the Governor-General. In the Boyer Lecture we had the pleasure and the benefit of her considered views, and I think yesterday we would all agree that Her Excellency acquitted her responsibilities with dignity and managed to make her way through the entire speech with a straight face.

There were only two moments where the decorum that is expected of this chamber broke down during the speech. As I recall, the first was the proposal that the new government's foreign policy priorities are Jakarta not Geneva—and I think you could forgive this side of the chamber a moment of dark humour as we reflect on the diplomatic omnishambles that have unfolded as the government has blundered from one disastrous engagement with our counterparts in Jakarta to the next—and, on the other occasion, where Her Excellency was forced to commend the new government's priorities for fast broadband for all Australians while presiding over the deliberate destruction of an entity that was poised to provide just that.

Those observations aside, we listened carefully, as we do to all addresses, because they set out the agenda of the forthcoming government. I congratulate my colleagues on the other side of the chamber for the new responsibilities which they have assumed. Senator Johnston, who has joined us, is taking on one of the greatest of all responsibilities: the oversight of the Australian Defence Force while we are still deployed in a theatre of war. It is an enormous responsibility that settles on all of us as we contemplate the challenges before us.

As a republican, I want to close these observations with the sense that I look forward to the day when we do not persist with the ritual of Her Majesty the Queen's representative in this place, summoning parliament—summoning the members of the House of Representatives into this chamber to advise the Crown. I would put that, as one of the world's oldest democracies, we have probably outgrown this ritual that we are presently providing a reply to. The Daily Telegraph states—so we know that it must be true; we also know that it is one of our Prime Minister's favourite news sources, but this is not an actual quote so if members of the government want to contradict me I am happy to correct the record—that our new Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, is saying that opposition is 90 per cent theatre and 10 per cent hard policy grind, and government is the reverse. If our Prime Minister has been correctly quoted in that regard, in many ways that is actually quite instructive. It is quite an illuminating observation: opposition being 90 per cent theatre and 10 per cent hard policy grind explains for me the policy vacuum that was described to the chamber yesterday on behalf of the new government.

It also describes and, for me, very well illuminates the degree of dissembling and deception that the now Prime Minister and his shadow frontbench of the time engaged in from opposition in order to win government, using this precept that it does not really matter what you say, it is 90 per cent theatre: 'The carbon tax will wipe Whyalla off the map; the mining tax will catastrophically damage an important export industry; border protection will protect people in Western Sydney from people fleeing war and genocide in other parts of the region because they are making you unsafe and making Parramatta road busy.' This 90 per cent theatre idea is transformed when you actually win government, through that Murdoch enabled process of mass deception over a period of years, and you wind up holding the Treasury benches and frontbenches in this place without much of an idea of what it is you want to do. The 10 per cent policy grind then has to unfold into a program for actually governing a nation in a deeply uncertain time. What we see on display, and what has been commented on already in the press and in this place, is effectively government by stealth—an agenda that unfolds behind closed doors and under cover of military operations and bland euphemisms. The theatre starts to fall away.

What I did last time we were given an address-in-reply by the Governor General—and it is no slight on her—is observe what was not in the speech. What was not in there? What is occurring in the background that was not forwarded for our contemplation and consideration today? That, I suppose, is the great flaw in the ritual, and it is not something that I particularly hold the Liberal Party to because the Labor Party did the same thing when they were in government. You foreground the things you are proud of and want the country to talk about and you background, or you hide and bury, the things that are going on that you are not so proud of.

For me, the most critical thing that did not exist in the speech and so, presumably, does not exist on the government's agenda is the fact that this is the age of dangerous climate change. Global warming is not some mid- or late-21st century phenomenon that our grandkids had better get geared up for; it is real. It is flattening cities, aggravating and enhancing the severity of bushfires and causing more violent weather around the world now. That policy blind spot, if you could call it that, on this government's agenda is probably the most dangerous thing about the present government and its policy stance.

There was no mention of resource depletion. There was no mention whatsoever of the fragile global economic climate. It appears that the lessons of the global financial crisis of 2008 have been swept into an untidy pile under the carpet and we are proposing to simply continue to make the same mistakes. The budget emergency: if anything fits the template of political theatre in order to win government at any cost it is the budget emergency. I have not seen it. Anybody who wants to jump up and make a contribution from the government side as to where their missing budget emergency has gone would set a lot of minds at rest.

There was nothing at all about homelessness or the housing affordability crisis. The 100,000 Australians who are homeless, and the roughly 10,000 of that number who are sleeping rough and have absolutely nowhere to go, were completely missing from the speech. The broader housing affordability crisis as it impacts on nearly everybody—particularly the entire generation of Australians who have been priced, probably forever, out of owning their own home and who will rent for life—was also airbrushed out of the speech.

Paralysing traffic congestion in nearly all of Australia's major cities did not make its way onto the agenda but, as we compared our notes after the Governor-General's address yesterday, we noted that everybody is getting a brand new freeway. There will be bulldozers down the end of everybody's street, but no attempt to engage with the traffic congestion—the vast traffic jams that now paralyse our great cities—because of decades of underinvestment and the abandonment of the cities agenda by the coalition when they had government for 13 years during the Howard era. We saw, in recent years, the beginnings of an attempt to turn that around and now we are back to the age of the bulldozer and the freeway.

There was nothing spoken of, so presumably nothing the government wants to draw attention to, its ongoing proposals to dump radioactive waste in the Northern Territory, which were pursued with great dishonour by the Labor Party when they were in government but which, we must remember, were initiated by the Howard government. There was nothing at all about the prospects of the uranium sector. We discovered yesterday that the honeymoon is over in South Australia: yet another uranium operation has hit the wall. There was nothing there at all about that most toxic of mining sectors.

There is nothing whatsoever about the unfolding surveillance scandal enveloping countries around the world and that our great and powerful ally the United States has been embroiled in surveillance overreach of the highest order. This has led to remarkable soul searching in the United States, including from those who drafted the Patriot Act, inquiries in the UK, inquiries and huge diplomatic uproar in Europe, and proposals originating in Brazil for an entirely new governance structure for the internet. There is nothing at all from the Governor-General on behalf of the new Prime Minister about these issues which affect us all.

What we hear instead is the agenda that the Australian government is 'open for business'. This manifests very strongly in the way that Prime Minister Abbott frames the debate around Australia being opened for business, as though we can just run this ancient continent as if it was a giant corporation. There is the election of the coal billionaire from Queensland, Mr Clive Palmer, to the other place, who seems to believe that commercial experience is the only prerequisite you require for running something as complex as the continent and Commonwealth of Australia. There is Mr Maurice Newman, who perhaps gives us the essence, if you like—the free base economic theory that says markets in the unrestrained form will run everything to the benefit of all, the minimum wage is about twice as high as it needs to be and if only we simply let big business have its way all would be well.

This is a government backing into the 21st century with its eyes fixed on a past that no longer exists. These are dangerous times to be governed by an executive with its back turned to the century and to the circumstances in which we find ourselves. It is a government of stealth that proposes to be run by corporations for corporations. It is going to take all the resources this parliament can bring to bear to hold you to account. That is a responsibility that we in the Australian Greens and on the crossbenches take enormously seriously. When you come to government proclaiming a new age and a new era of transparency, this chamber will be testing those claims. The budget estimates committees will test those claims of a new transparency and openness next week.

As this parliament unfolds, make absolutely no mistake that a government with its back turned to the challenges that confront us is going to end in tears. As we have with the last government and the one that came before, the Australian Greens are open to negotiation and collaboration with this government. We are open to working with the crossbenches and to members of all sides and all parties on the deep challenges that confront us. But the first thing that the Abbott government will need to do is turn around and actually open its eyes to the challenges that are bearing down upon us.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I start my address-in-reply to the Governor-General's speech by expressing my loyalty to her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia. Although I am a minimalist republican myself, I have great admiration for Queen Elizabeth and the work that she does. Long may she reign in Great Britain and long may we be part of the Commonwealth of Nations.

I was interested in all aspects of the Governor-General's speech, but I want to concentrate my address-in-reply on two particular parts of it:

Northern Australia is Australia's growth frontier.

If we prepare ourselves well, our cities and industries in the North will be well placed to capitalise on the expected growth from the Asia and Pacific regions.

Unlocking Northern Australia's potential with more investment, more exports and more jobs will not only benefit the region but the entire country.

I emphasise this last point about the entire country. Just prior to that the Governor-General spoke about Asia and the region and said:

As the Asian middle class grows and demographics shift, there will be new demand for Australian education and research, expertise in advanced services, manufacturing and agricultural products.

To make sure this moment is not missed, my government will fast-track free trade agreements with South Korea, Japan, China, Indonesia and India.

I think those are two of the most important parts of the Governor-General's speech, particularly to that part of Australia that I represent, the state of Queensland, and particularly to that part of Australia where I live and have worked all of my parliamentary life, indeed all of my life generally—that is, in the north of our country. Prior to the election the coalition did release what I humbly consider was a very, very good Northern Australia policy paper, which detailed a future coalition government's aims and ambitions and aspirations for the north, and I am pleased to see in the Governor-General's speech reference was made to that.

The potential of Northern Australia has long been recognised. As you know, Acting Deputy President Ruston, over 60 per cent of Australia's water falls above the Tropic of Capricorn in an area containing, according to the CSIRO, anywhere between five and 17 million hectares of arable soil. We currently use only about two per cent of the water that falls above the Tropic of Capricorn. The north covers almost three million square kilometres, more than half of the Australian land mass, but accounts for only one million people and less than five per cent of the population. Regrettably, only eight lower house members and four senators represent that area out of a parliament of over 200. Regrettably, particularly on a personal basis, there are no ministers north of the Tropic of Capricorn in that huge area—apart from Senator Scullion, who is there in his capacity as Leader of the Nationals in the Senate. Whilst those of us in the North have little influence on what happens in the more populous parts of Australia, I guarantee on behalf of those of us who are from there that this parliament will do everything possible to make sure Northern Australia is never again forgotten, as it has been in the last six years.

Some years ago I was the minister for regional services, and we embarked upon a northern Australia forums process which resulted in some very good work. Regrettably, at the end of the process, I moved from that ministry to another ministry and my successor as minister for regional Australia did not have the same interest in the North—coming from Tasmania, that is probably quite understandable. There is this feeling in the North that the rest of Australia does not really understand us and does not really care. Lip service is paid to the north of Australia, but, when it comes to votes and money, governments of all persuasions naturally enough look to where the most votes, the most people and the most things needing assistance are. I know those of us who do represent the North, regardless of our political allegiances, will be vocal in ensuring that the great policy of the coalition and the future mapped out by the Governor-General in her speech are adopted, because there is such potential and wealth in the north of Australia that will—and I repeat the Governor-General's words—not only benefit the North but will benefit Australia as a whole.

Asia is very much a part of northern Australia. In fact, prior to European settlement, the peoples who then inhabited the north of Australia and the south of South-East Asia made up the one trading bloc. Clearly the climate, attitudes, wealth and natural facilities of northern Australia and the nearby Asian islands and mainland are all one and the same. That is why it is so important that we are able to use the wealth and the opportunities we have in northern Australia to build upon our relationships with Asia.

As the Governor-General mentioned—she did not mention these figures in detail, but she alluded to them—by 2030 there will be 3.3 billion middle-class Asians. Just to put that in perspective, there are 23 million people in the whole of Australia. Those middle-class Asians will want good food—clean and green food—they will want good education and they will want good medical facilities. That is where northern Australia can contribute so much. We already have world-class universities—and I particularly mention James Cook University of Townsville and Cairns, which is a world-leading university in several areas but particularly in marine science. It has a focus that is directed to the North rather than to the bulk of the Australian population in the south. We have medical expertise up there that is unique in the world. Australia is a developed country. We are one of the few developed countries in the tropic zone—that is, the part of the world which contains over 60 per cent of the world's population, between the Tropic of Capricorn and the Tropic of Cancer—with expertise in tropical health and medicine, in tropical education and in tropical sciences. They are the sorts of things that Australia has to focus on.

I was delighted to see, prior to the election, the coalition promise the contribution of $40 million to the Institute of Tropical Health and Medicine. That is something we promised in the 2010 election, subject to the Queensland government matching it. I am delighted to say that the Newman LNP government in Queensland have already put their $40 million in, and now, after the election, the coalition will also be contributing. The Institute of Tropical Health and Medicine is essential not just to human health but also to plant and animal health, and we are in a position to help the 60 per cent plus of the world's population who live between the Tropic of Capricorn and the Tropic of Cancer. There are real dangers there. Some of the bugs that proliferate in the tropical north of Australia could destroy Australian crops, animals and, indeed, people. We have all heard of the untreatable strains of tuberculosis coming from PNG into the Torres Strait Islands and into Cairns. These things have to be addressed, and it is essential that we focus on those areas.

It is essential that our defence forces are put where they need to be. I have often said that, unless we are expecting an attack from the penguins in Antarctica or the New Zealanders, the reason we have the major part of our naval fleet in Sydney harbour escapes me. It should be up where it is needed, either for defence purposes or—more reasonably, one would think—for humanitarian purposes. Our ships are often used to help our friends in Asia and the Pacific with natural calamities, and why we would then have to steam two days from Sydney to get up into the North when those capital ships should be based in Townsville, Cairns, Darwin, Broome or Port Hedland again escapes me. HMAS Cairns is the second biggest naval base on the east coast of Australia. It should be upgraded and more of our ships should be put there. I am delighted that in our northern Australian policy we indicated that, subject to strategic considerations, we would be seriously looking at moving our defence forces further north, where they are more likely to be needed than living in the luxury of southern capitals adjacent to some of the best entertainment areas of Australia. So that is something that needs to be pursued and it is certainly something I will be pursuing in my next six years in this chamber.

Zone tax was mentioned in our northern Australian development paper, and that is something that must be addressed. We do have a zone tax system and, for those politicians who say it is unconstitutional, we have had this zone tax system since the early 1950s and it has not been found to be unconstitutional yet. It was introduced in the 1950s to give some compensation to those people who lived remote from the capital cities, and not just from the economic aspects there. Madam Acting Deputy President, do you realise that, if you live in, say, Cloncurry in north-west Queensland and you want to see an orthopaedic surgeon, you have to jump in a plane, spend $3,000 and be away from your family for a week? If you happen to live in Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane, you get on a tram or a train at the bottom of the street and you are at the hospital and the orthopaedic surgeon within a couple of minutes. Similarly, if you want to go to a major sporting or cultural event or to the best schools in Australia, you just catch a taxi at the front of your house and you are there in 10 minutes. People in the south have to understand that living in the areas that produce most of Australia's wealth is a cost. It is costly. Sure, those living there might get a bit extra in pay, but people in the south do not understand all of the additional costs—health, education and merely living, with the cost of petrol and food—that happen. That is why years ago our forefathers in the parliament brought in a zone tax system which, if it had kept pace with inflation, would today be worth in the vicinity of $15,000 to $20,000. What is it these days? It is in the order of $300. When it was introduced, I repeat, it was worth about $20,000 in today's currency.

Northern Australia has a number of industries besides the mineral industries. I repeat that about 60 per cent of Australia's export earnings come from northern Australia. In addition to mining and metals processing, we have some very good agricultural industries. The northern beef cattle industry sustained a lot of the North, and in one of the most criminally stupid decisions of any government at any time the previous government banned the live cattle trade from northern Australia, thereby destroying what had been a very significant Australian industry. Do I see any of those who clamoured about animal welfare in those days up there now trying to help feed cattle that are dropping before their owners' eyes because they cannot get feed or water? Where are all these animal liberationists now? The animal welfare issues alone—forget about the human welfare issue and all the families that will be without a home, an income or an education because of this criminally stupid decision—are right up there.

If there is one thing this government does, it will be to provide compensation for those that the previous government decision destroyed. Farmers everywhere will take their chances with drought, bushfires and floods, which have happened in the North. Farmers up there do not expect anything more in relation to those natural calamities that will occur, but they cannot be expected to deal with, and cannot ever deal with, capricious decisions of governments, made without consultation or any warning, overnight. Cattle were on the back of trucks ready to go to the ports for export to Indonesia. The previous government criminally decided to stop that trade there, and as a result of that most of the pastoral properties in northern Queensland—indeed, northern Australia generally—are in dire financial straits and something needs to be done by this government to make up for the criminal stupidity of the previous government in relation to live cattle.

The wealth of Australia is in the North, but to get the wealth out you need good transport infrastructure, and you need good health and education infrastructure as well for the families of those who go to gain and export that wealth that makes Australia the great place it is. So I am delighted to see, for example, that the current government has given $33 million to the Outback Way, a visionary road that will run from Laverton in Western Australia to Winton in Queensland, or effectively from Cairns to Perth. That $33 million is great—and I am delighted to see that, and it continues long-term support by the coalition for that road—but there are many other roads up there that need to be fixed. I know you need six-lane highways in Sydney and eight-lane highways in Melbourne, but you do need—and you will not get votes for this, because there are only eight members of the lower house there—a decent, workable road network and rail network across the north of Australia.

There are many other issues in the north, and the commitment to getting those free trade agreements going, particularly with Japan and Korea, as I mentioned, is great for Australia and particularly good for Northern Australia. I could—and will—spend a lot of time over the next six years talking about these things. I am delighted that the Governor-General in her speech did highlight that important connection with Asia and the importance of Northern Australia. I congratulate the government on the commitment. I and, I am sure, everyone in this chamber will be there making sure that those commitments are actually honoured, as we expect of a coalition government.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to this address-in-reply. Firstly I want to begin by acknowledging the result of the federal election on 7 September and to recognise the efforts of the Australian Electoral Commission, which is and remains, I believe, one of the world's best electoral agencies and a model for both developed and fledgling democracies. Obviously, though, some of the results have not yet been finalised, and I acknowledge the extraordinary—if not bizarre—circumstances in Western Australia and the challenging situation in which my colleague Senator Ludlam and my colleague and good friend Senator Pratt find themselves. It is my hope that that situation is resolved in a way which gives Western Australians the faith in their electoral institutions that they rightly deserve and have come to expect. It is also, of course, my hope that Senator Pratt is returned as a senator in this place.

It is also incumbent upon me to reflect on the result of the election in my home state of Tasmania and to pay tribute to those outgoing members of the other place. I shall not eulogise their time as members of parliament too much, because I am sure that their contribution to public life, whether it is as legislators or in some other roles, is not yet over, but I would like to pay tribute to my good friend Sid Sidebottom, to Dick Adams and to Geoff Lyons. I want to say thank you to them for their service to their communities and for their commitment to our state and our nation in their time as members of parliament. Also, Julie Collins, the member for Franklin in the other place, deserves congratulations for once again being recognised by the people of Franklin for the work that she does representing them in parliament, fighting for the rights and interests of people who are most in need of help in our community.

Finally, I must also make note of the dedication of our Labor candidate for the division of Denison, Jane Austen, who drew on a depth of experience as a teacher and as someone who has worked in mental health to run a campaign that very much connected with people. While her efforts over more than a year did not result in the return of Denison to Labor, Jane helped to ensure support for community organisations, responded to literally hundreds of constituent matters and brought together employers and jobseekers in Denison. Jane was, of course, assisted by many volunteers and supporters from Labor and from the community, all of whom give their time and energy out of a belief in the values and potential of the Labor Party and our candidate.

But there is no doubt that around the country there was a certain ambivalence at the last election, leading to some unexpected results in both a number of lower house divisions and in the Senate contests. Unfortunately, there were a high number of informal votes in some places as well. But our democracy is an ever-changing system, and we should welcome new voices. We should also, however, remain alert to the capacity of our system to cater for new electoral trends and adjust our system to ensure the most democratic outcome. This, along with the question of tracking and securing ballots to avoid a repeat of the situation in Western Australia, will no doubt be a matter of some consideration by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and a matter of serious public interest in the next three years.

Ultimately, the votes of the people of Australia have delivered government to the Liberal and National parties joined in coalition, however unstable or uncertain that coalition can sometimes be, particularly on matters of foreign ownership, farming or issues affecting rural communities, to name a few. Yesterday we heard the Prime Minister speaking, by that antiquated quirk of the monarchy system, through the Governor-General, who delivered an address on the government's agenda. I must say I hope that one day we can rid ourselves of that curious and quaint convention and speak as a democracy ought to speak: directly and with a sense of our own national identity.

But what was most striking about that address was the lack of ideas contained within it. The fact is the government, almost uniquely in the history of Australian governments, has been elected not with an agenda of its own, not with any ideas of its own but instead with a handful of slogans and with a pledge to repeal the vital reforms introduced by the previous, Labor government. With characteristic negativity, the coalition has failed to make that transition from opposition to government, instead outlining a plan to undermine existing plans in the national interest.

The government has begun to tear up those plans and the maps for the National Broadband Network, dividing this country into digital haves and have-nots. It has reduced the potential for future growth in our economy in doing so. The government has pledged to repeal the carbon price, the emissions trading scheme that almost all economists and scientists believe is the best and most efficient way to achieve carbon emissions reduction. The government has pledged to repeal the minerals resource rent tax and tried at the same time to perpetuate the fiction that, if the MRRT goes, it will also need to repeal the low-income superannuation contribution and the schoolkids bonus, presumably just because it is on a roll.

One of the government's first acts following the devastating bushfires in New South Wales was to take the extraordinary decision to repeal important payments to families affected by those bushfires, including people who were shut out of their homes for more than 24 hours. Despite the plea from the opposition and members of the community to not cut off a payment that was so rightly provided by the last Labor government, Minister Keenan has not reintroduced payments to those families affected by the bushfires in New South Wales.

This government, which yesterday tried to spell out its agenda, has revealed a hollow negativity unbecoming of any Australian government. In fact, on Sunday evening, two days before the opening of this parliament, the Prime Minister used his office and his website to release a social media message which claimed that 'as far as the Government is concerned the adults are back in charge.' This is coming from someone who, when he was Leader of the Opposition, allowed and encouraged dismissive, insulting and misogynistic language to be the principal tool of his political attack. This social media message was particularly insulting. It confirms the Liberal born-to-rule mentality and demonstrates the approach the coalition has to government in general—that is, to treat the Australian people like children.

In the eyes of the Abbott government, the people of Australia are not old enough, are not wise enough and are not Liberal or National enough to understand the business of government, so they ought not to be told. The people of Australia do not need to hear about on-water matters, the state of the economy or how the government is dealing with the budget emergency it spoke so much about in opposition. The people of Australia do not need ministers to front the media and explain themselves or even have ministers face up to parliament to explain matters in their own portfolio. As far as the government is concerned, the adults will deal with that—Abbott's adults will deal with that and the people of Australia should be seen and not heard. That is the way this new government is treating the people of Australia—like they are children who should be seen and not heard while the adults are back in charge. How insulting to the people of Australia, who have every right to know what this government has in its agenda.

Over on this side of the Senate we believe in quite the opposite: that the people of Australia deserve to be furnished with all the information so that they can make decisions about the need for effectiveness of policies for themselves. We believe in transparency in our government and openness in our government. For all the Prime Minister's and the Attorney-General's talk about freedom—and they are clutching onto motherhood statements—they have very little faith in the Australian people and even less regard for the intellectual freedom of the electorate.

The government's other early distinction is its exercise of astounding vindictiveness against those it perceives to be enemies, threats or outside of its old school tie network. Only days after the election the coalition announced that it would, for no reason other than spite, rescind the worthy appointment of former Victorian Premier Steve Bracks as consul-general in New York. Shortly after, the Attorney-General made a point of requiring Barrie Cassidy, the respected ABC journalist and stalwart of the press gallery, to step down from the volunteer position of chair of the Old Parliament House Advisory Council despite his manifest qualifications to continue in that position. The heads of departments who had, according to the tinted perceptions of the coalition, been altogether too compliant in executing their duty to the government of the day under Labor were also rolled.

Such vindictiveness goes more to personal prejudice and private vendetta than to any sort of public interest. The public interest is and always has been best served by having the brightest and the best around the table. It should be said that the brightest and the best tend to also be a diverse group of people. It is not served by lining up yes-men to close ranks around unprepared and incapable ministers or by executing the enemies of the club. The victims of the coalition's vindictiveness of which I have spoken are eminent and capable people. Although the country will be poorer without their service, I hope they will be able to forge ahead and contribute in other ways to Australian society.

There are many more victims of the coalition's petty spite who will suffer more lasting damage from the government's actions. These are the families who will no longer receive the schoolkids bonus and the low-income earners who will have less super on which to retire. The coalition has demonstrated a willingness to risk community safety and sacrifice the lives of young Australians in their quest to send a political message and a threat. I am talking, of course, about the government's decision to review funding for successful applicants under the National Crime Prevention Fund. The National Crime Prevention Fund is a $40 million component of the Australian government's package of measures to address gang violence and street crime in our community. The NCPF is designed to support those who address the cause of street crime, particularly the cause of street crime amongst young Australians. Diversionary activities, particularly training and employment opportunities, are known to not only reduce the risk of crime in communities but also give young people the tool to build more meaningful, law-abiding lives. It is there to ensure that our young people stay out of the criminal justice system. Those programs support crime prevention for young people.

The NCPF is funded through the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, under which proceeds of crime that break foreign or state laws can be confiscated and redirected to good use in preventing crime. That is, money from criminals goes into crime prevention—fairly simple. Applications for this year's program closed in May. In August this year, after an anxious wait, organisations across the country were informed of their success by the then Minister for Justice. The names of some of the successful organisations will be familiar to all senators; they include Father Chris Riley's Youth Off the Streets charity and programs run by the Police Citizens Youth Clubs. Some successful applicants were local government organisations doing local crime prevention work but others were small organisations doing important grassroots work. The funding delivered under the NCPF would either sustain these organisations or allow them to expand into areas where they would be able to make a very substantial contribution and a difference to the lives of young people at risk of coming into contact with the justice system. They were going to really make a difference to those young people's lives, to ensure that they live a life free of crime—exactly what the National Crime Prevention Fund is designed to achieve.

One such important program in my home state of Tasmania is run by an organisation called Training Opportunities and Options for Learning—TOOL—which applied to run a program called the Youth Employment Challenge to connect disadvantaged young people to after-school work, employment and traineeships. It is difficult to imagine anybody opposing such a worthwhile program which has such a groundswell of community support and such potential to encourage young people to invest in their own wellbeing and behaviour and to live their lives free of crime. This particular program cost $190,000 to run and it certainly saves the government and the community a lot of money in the long term. That is perhaps why this program has bipartisan support in Tasmania. Both the Tasmanian Liberals and the state government support this program, and it has also received great acclaim throughout the community. Therefore, it is difficult to understand why, in mid-October—more than two months following notification to TOOL that they had been successful in receiving funding from the National Crime Prevention Fund—the Attorney-General's Department got back in touch with TOOL, as it did with many successful recipients under this grants program, to tell them to stop what they were doing because the new government was reviewing that very program in light of its election commitments. Here was a very worthwhile program, in fact there were eight similar programs in Tasmania, and many more across the country, who had been notified that they were successful—only to find out after a change of government that that notification was not worth the paper it was printed on, because this new government had basically torn it up.

TOOL have sensibly gone about retaining staff, ready to commence their project, and now, in the face of this government decision, they must consider retrenching people. Other organisations are at risk of closing down, given that they have incurred expenses to prepare for various initiatives that they were told they would receive funding for. Why? Because the new government have decided that they are reviewing the program in light of their election commitments. Let us remember: they are reviewing a program that comes from the National Crime Prevention Fund. The National Crime Prevention Fund has nothing to do with consolidated revenue. As I outlined earlier, this is proceeds of crime funding. This is funding from criminals that is going into crime prevention. Why on earth would any government want to take money away, put a halt on such a program, when these organisations are doing such an effective job in the community to ensure that our young people live a life free of crime? These organisations have been stonewalled by this government and, I understand, have been reminded by my Tasmanian colleague, Senator Eric Abetz, that the process of review 'may take some time.' These organisations do not have time. Organisations like the PCYC are, every day, ensuring that our young people get the best opportunity to live a life free of crime. They need this funding to ensure that our jails, our criminal justice system, do not end up with these young people in there through the support of such organisations. (Time expired)

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

I rise to give my contribution to the address-in-reply. I point out that this is clearly a government that does not understand complex policy issues. It has been so used to three-word slogans to undermine the previous government and to get itself elected that it actually does not understand that Australia is facing many complex policy issues that need a set of well-thought-through policy initiatives. There was no understanding and no mention of the poverty that faces many, many Australians or the fact that our income support system is broken, that people are living in poverty or are being condemned to living in poverty.

It is clear that the government have no grasp of the fact that these are complex issues that need addressing, because they started their term by getting rid of the Social Inclusion Board. This is the very board that was put in place to look at the issues around the most disadvantaged and the most vulnerable people in this country and to looking at the policy levers needed in order to address this very complex program. From the rhetoric that we heard throughout the electorate, we know this government will push more and more social service delivery responsibilities onto the not-for-profit sector.

But it has in fact ended the not-for-profit reform agenda. It has wound up the body that was working on this reform to enable us to have a strong not-for-profit sector and a strong civil society. And, of course, we all know that it is turning its sights on unwinding the most recent reforms in the not-for-profit space, including getting rid of the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profit Commission.

Our social services are already struggling to keep up. I undertook a survey of just some of the community service delivery organisations in my home state of Western Australia and found that the burden on those organisations was increasing almost exponentially. There is clearly an expectation on the sector that it is to do more and more but without adequate support and adequate funding, and with more and more people in quite desperate situations. More children are living in poverty.

The Greens understand that poverty is a complex problem, and we understand that barriers to work are not simply a lack of motivation or being geographically removed from where those jobs are. The big items that the government outlined yesterday were, in fact, just recycling their policies from previous terms in government: Work for the Dole, relocation funds and review of child care. Three governments have relied on these solutions and three governments will have failed to address the structural and personal barriers that people who are looking for work continue to face. These are complex barriers that real-life people face in real life.

New information that we got from estimates in May demonstrate that the number of people on Newstart is up 55 per cent from 2007. We know this is partially due to the decade of policies that aimed to push more and more people onto Newstart from parenting payment single and from the disability support pension. The fact is that these numbers are growing —the number of long-term unemployed is growing—and the policies that we have in place to date have not been working.

Despite the punitive regimes of welfare to work, people are still being kept out of the system. Children are being denied the basic support they need and being condemned to live in poverty. Newstart is now so low that it is impossible to live on for any length of time. It is ridiculous to maintain this old approach that it is for the short term when we know people are on it for many years—and that number has gone up sharply as well. Even coalition senators conceded during the inquiry into the adequacy of Newstart last year that it was too low.

Then the coalition seemed at least committed to tackling these barriers to work through better jobs services, training and support and better support for employers. But yesterday what we heard was more of the same: about the dignity of work and the intention of government to get those who are not in work to work on the dole—that is, back to digging ditches and pulling out weeds.

The government's agenda is very shallow here. Again, they have not addressed the complexity of the issues that need to be addressed. It is a great irony of this failure to understand the complexity of this social exclusion in that the government will ensure that more and more people remain in the poverty trap, too poor to afford to maintain their home and their health and living in constant insecurity, literally having to choose between eating and some more personal expenses—say, for example, as people have frequently pointed out to me, getting health addressed and even getting a haircut. These are the true barriers to work.

These are also, of course, barriers to our next generation. One in six children in Australia is living in poverty—strange this was not mentioned yesterday! I would have thought this would have been a priority. In some cases they do not have enough to eat and they are living in cramped one-bedroom flats. Many more are living in families that are only just getting by. This is an insidious form of poverty, where children do not have the ability to participate fully in their schools, they are excluded from extracurricular activities, they are not eating enough and, if they are eating enough, it is often of a poor quality because that is all that can be afforded. They have clothes and shoes that do not fit.

I have told people's accounts in this place on many occasions. Just to quote one mother who was affected by the cuts to single parent payments, when they were dumped onto Newstart, she said, 'I don't buy anything anymore. My son even had shoes that were a size too small and he refused to tell me as he knew I had no money to buy new shoes.' These parents are struggling to care for their families and trying hard to find suitable, stable work under sensible conditions where they can still be able to look after their children. This was not contained in the government's speech about their so-called vision for this country.

Another group that is facing significant pressure is those who find themselves out of work after the age of 45. As I have discussed with a number of people, when it comes to employment 45 is the new 65 if you happen to find yourself out of work. Most of the complaints that the Age Discrimination Commissioner receives are around the area of employment—68 per cent of the complaints in 2011-2012. It is clear that age discrimination is affecting those over the age of 45, and there is a rapidly increasing cohort of those who are unemployed; one-third of the people on Newstart are over the age of 45. This is going to grow.

Older people who are currently unemployed need an opportunity to improve their income and in doing so enable them to live more fulfilling, independent and dignified lives in retirement. These are people who are being condemned to live on Newstart, which we know makes them live in poverty, to the age of 65, and in the future of course it will be 67. And then they retire with nothing. It is urgent that we address this age discrimination and help them overcome their barriers. Offering only subsidised places in employment is not enough. We need to address their barriers to employment and to help them retrain and reskill, and to tackle head-on this issue of age discrimination in our workplace.

Clearly, at the heart of this, our job services and barriers to work need to be addressed, not just for older Australians and those with a disability but for everybody across the board. Our job services are not addressing the complex barriers to unemployment, particularly for the long-term unemployed. I have had so many stories shared with me over the last two years by people who are being pushed into despair and condemned to live in poverty without adequate support so they can overcome those barriers to work. Just telling people they are bludgers, just putting people on Work for the Dole programs will not deliver the outcomes. We are condemning a generation of people who fall into unemployment after the age of 45 to permanent poverty. We are condemning one in six children to live in poverty. We need to ensure that we are taking a caring approach to our society, and that needs to be part of the DNA of our society. It is clearly not in the DNA of the coalition and the new government, if the opening address to the parliament is anything to go by.

Similarly, I am deeply concerned that the government has failed to grasp the challenge of aged care. This is a serious and growing challenge. We know Australia is ageing and that our aged-care system is simply not up to the challenge at this stage. I welcome the commitment to dementia funding. This is something that the Greens identified as a priority and we have spoken at length to the sector about it, but Alzheimer's Australia has identified other key areas as well as an increase in funding for research. We need better home care, better residential care and better respite care. We also need to address the quality of that care. Just yesterday Alzheimer's Australia drew attention to the need to address the quality of residential care and to ensure that that is the norm. This means that we need to be doing more than just investing in research; that is great, but we need to be doing more. In particular, we need to be training our aged-care workers to address the issues around dementia.

That brings me to a great disappointment. After the very significant debate we had on the aged-care agenda last June, when we managed to agree to increase the payments for aged-care workers, who will be needed in significant number into the future, this government is now intent on unwinding that. That will mean that aged-care workers will go backwards. They will not get the wages they are due and we are not going to attract the numbers of workers with the skills that we need in the aged-care sector. That is another cut that is not part of a caring society.

One of the key commitments by the Greens has always been to constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. We have participated in the cross-parliamentary approach to this issue. I participated in the expert panel report, as did members of political parties and the Independents in the last government. We welcome the government's commitment to constitutional recognition. We think that the 12-month deadline may be hard to meet, but we hope we can meet it and we are committed to doing that. But I must emphasise the need for genuine consultation. The expert panel undertook extensive consultation and came up with a set of recommendations that we are confident have support as a result of that consultation process. Any move from these recommendations or substantive changes to them will require more consultation with the community. The Greens will not be supporting any question put that is not supported by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community. As we know, any question needs the support of the broader community, but we need the support of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community first. We will be working hard to ensure that we come up with an effective process and that a question we put to the community is one we are confident they will support. We cannot afford to put a question and get a no vote.

I want to turn to some other areas in my portfolio responsibilities touching on agriculture and the marine environments. It is vital that we have a strong and sustainable agricultural system in this country. We were extremely disappointed to hear just last week that the government has gouged out money from Landcare and natural resource management in order to address the ongoing drought. What the government does not get, while it is busy getting rid of the very effective carbon legislation by repealing it, is the link between sustainable agriculture and the need to address climate change. Our climate is changing. One of the first industries that impacts on is agriculture—sustainable agriculture. Agriculture in this country is already being affected by climate change, and I need look no further than out the back door in my state of Western Australia, where we have been coping with the impacts of climate change, a decrease in rainfall and seasonal variation for a significant period of time. Not only has the government raided Landcare, it has raided drought money out of my home state of Western Australia to transfer to the east, completely ignoring the fact that we are trying to address drought, which is affected by climate change.

If we do not have good land care and natural resource management practices we will not be able to deal with drought; we will not be able to put in place a system to ensure that our agriculture system is drought resilient and to actually drought proof our agriculture. It is such short-sighted thinking. And I must say also that it comes after the government's promise that they would not take any money out of Landcare and natural resource management. Not only have they taken money out, they cannot commit that they will not take more. It is robbing Peter to pay Paul. It also misses the point that, by being climate deniers, you are actually doing-in agriculture in this country.

You are also doing-in our fisheries industry by being climate deniers. Our ocean ecosystems are already changing as a result of climate change. We already have global warming. We already have ocean acidification. We already have our currents being affected. We already have our marine species being dislocated. There is now a website called Redmap that you can go on to and log where you catch marine species out of location. Go on it and have a look—it is really educational. There are lots of species there, I can tell you, that have already been dislocated. Fishers know this because they are seeing these species now when they go fishing. It is really interesting to see the map, again, particularly for my home state of Western Australia. The oceans are changing, our ecosystems are changing, and it means that we need to have good fisheries practices and management that adapts to and addresses these changes. It means that we need a strong and effective system of marine protected areas.

And what is this government doing? I notice this was not mentioned yesterday: they are trying to undermine and wind back the world-leading marine park protected system in this country that many people have worked so long to put in place. Not only does it protect our marine ecosystems, it also protects our fisheries and puts in place a management system, it ensures we do have sustainable fisheries and a marine environment in the face of climate change. But of course we should not be taking action on climate change—I forgot that!

Another area of sustainable agriculture is of course biosecurity. I would probably run out of time into tomorrow if I were speaking on my feet and repeating everything I had heard a coalition senator say about biosecurity in the last eight years. Yet what is one of the first acts of this government and of the agriculture minister? It is to cut funding to biosecurity, to cut funding on border compliance. Again, biosecurity is fundamental to sustainable agriculture. Where is the vision? We have seen a cutting of 220 jobs that are absolutely critical for our agriculture and to provide protection from invasive plant and animal species.

Then of course we get to GrainCorp. This is one area where I agree with the Nationals. I am very concerned about the takeover by ADM of GrainCorp and I agree with the Nationals: it does present problems for our farmers. We should restart the inquiry into this takeover. We are concerned that it will be anticompetitive, that it will have a negative impact on our farmers, and we urge the Nationals to continue their opposition to this takeover.

Then we come to the government's agenda for Northern Australia: the pipedream that Northern Australia will save the rest of Australia. Again, it is a complex environment with complex issues but they are going back to the dream that there is plenty of rainfall up in there and we will just build a few dams and put agriculture in. Australia needs a very different approach in the way we manage Northern Australia and not repeat the mistakes we have made in southern Australia. No. 1 out of that is that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities need to be at the heart of that process. We cannot repeat in the north the mistakes that we have made in the south. We do not agree with the government's vision for this country. We believe we have a much better vision for this country and we will be seeking to implement that whenever we can, and that will be at the heart of our decision-making.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great honour to rise and speak on the address-in-reply debate marking the commencement of the new parliament and, importantly, the beginning of a term of a new government, a government determined that we will get Australia back on track. The cornerstone of the mandate that we took to the Australian people at the election was to create a stronger economy and to deliver that stronger economy by reducing the tax and regulatory burdens that Australians face especially the carbon tax imposed by the previous government. Our new Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, and our new coalition government were elected with an unambiguous policy to abolish the carbon tax, fixed or floating, lock, stock and barrel. As promised, legislation to repeal the carbon tax was the first parliamentary act of our government introduced to the House of Representatives earlier today. We as the new government are getting on with the job of building a stronger economy so that all Australians have an opportunity to get ahead. We are abolishing the carbon tax, ending Labor's wasteful spending, securing our borders, and building the roads of the 21st century just as Her Excellency outlined as the government's agenda yesterday.

Labor's legacy from their six chaotic years of government was: 200,000 more unemployed Australians, gross debt skyrocketing towards $400 billion and beyond, the five biggest deficits in our history, more than 50,000 illegal arrivals by boat, and the world's biggest carbon tax as one of many new tax and regulatory imposts. Pleasingly, our government has been elected with a significant majority and holds some 90 seats in the 150-seat House of Representatives. At least 1.4 million more Australians voted for the coalition than voted for the Labor Party with Labor's share of the national vote dropping to its lowest level in one hundred years. The punters across Australia spoke overwhelmingly. The mandate for the new government and our agenda is extraordinarily clear.

In our home state of South Australia, Mr Acting Deputy President Fawcett, we recorded a 5.5 per cent swing to the Liberal Party and secured a majority of 52.4 per cent of the two party preferred vote. At a personal level I am incredibly pleased and proud of Matt Williams' win in Hindmarsh, which ensures we once again hold a majority of House of Representatives seats in South Australia. Having been our candidate for Hindmarsh in 2004—and having helped to manage the campaigns through the 2007, 2010 and 2013 campaigns—I know how hard so many people have worked over such a long period of time to return that electorate to the Liberal fold. In Hindmarsh, we secured a swing to us of 8.1 per cent, well above both the South Australian and the national averages, and the largest swing to the Liberal Party in any of the mainland seats won off Labor. I have known Matt for close to 20 years and am confident that he will make an outstanding representative of the people of Hindmarsh and of the Liberal Party.

I pay tribute also to Tom Zorich, Carmen Garcia, Sue Lawrie, Damien Mills, Nigel McKenna, Cathie Webb and Gary Burgess, who deserve gratitude from all members of the Liberal Party for their hard work as candidates at the recent election. I congratulate Christopher Pyne, Andrew Southcott, Rowan Ramsey and Jamie Briggs for increasing their margins. I know how hard they all worked to ensure a successful victory in South Australia. Tony Pasin, the new member for Barker, also deserves congratulation and welcome to this parliament. I thank former member Patrick Secker for his loyal service to the Liberal Party and I wish Patrick and Sharon every success in the future. I also thank those Senate colleagues who worked so hard with their campaigning efforts—grassroots campaigning and mobilising volunteers across electorates—specifically Sean Edwards in Wakefield, Anne Ruston in Adelaide and David Fawcett in Kingston.

Our local Senate result was, however, disappointing. The failure to secure two quotas in our own right is unprecedented. I would like to make special mention of Senator Nick Xenophon. I congratulate him on his extraordinary result. Nick increased his vote to a record 24.9 per cent. I congratulate all senators-elect as well. I had the pleasure of meeting them just a couple of hours ago. I appreciate the diversity of Australian interests that will be represented in the Senate and I look forward to us working together.

However, it is important that our electors retain confidence in this chamber. It is safe to say that the gaming of the electoral system, by those who call themselves 'preference harvesters' or the like, played a role in creating some surprise outcomes, especially in some other states. This gaming must be addressed through appropriate consideration of electoral reforms so that we have ongoing public confidence in the way senators are elected in the future. In the interim, between now and 1 July next year, the challenge to Labor and the Greens is to behave as decent legislators who respect this place, proper process and most importantly the will of the Australian people. That will was incredibly clear at the last election. The challenges for our government are great due to the mismanagement of the last six years, but we are determined to get Australia back on track.

In my home state, we have viewed the successful federal election result as the first stage of getting South Australia back on track. Pleasingly, the federal results show that our state team has much to be positive about. Through hard work, discipline and fresh ideas, stage 2 of ensuring South Australia is moving forward again can be achieved. On 15 March next year, South Australian voters will have the opportunity to change their state government. Currently, the state Labor government is focused on more spending, higher deficits, more debt, slower growth and encouraging our young South Australians to move interstate or abroad.

Earlier this year Steven Marshall—and it sounds like a familiar story to the government we just saw depart at the federal level—was elected leader of the state Liberal Party. Steven Marshall is an outstanding businessman who brings great acumen, great drive and great vision to our state, and I have the confidence that he will outline a plan of action to get South Australia back on track; to deliver the growth for our economy and the investment in our next generation.

Distressingly, in South Australia we have seen almost 28,000 full-time jobs lost in the past five months. There were almost 10,000 full-time South Australian jobs lost in October alone, which equates to one full-time job lost every five minutes. South Australia lost the most jobs of all states in Australia, with 5,500 South Australians joining unemployment queues.

From 2016-17, South Australians will be paying $952 million each year in interest payments on debt. That is a staggering $2.6 million in interest payments each day for a state of our size. It is clear that South Australia is at a crossroads. We need to attract more investment, prioritise better and build the infrastructure our state so desperately needs to get the economic opportunities we need in the future.

Regardless of decisions taken by multinationals, like Holden, in the coming weeks or months, far greater priority in terms of the economic development of South Australia needs to be given to new industries and new opportunities that can sustain new jobs into the future. We cannot continue to rely solely on industries that are at the whim of international decisions and that rely so heavily on government support.

As well as representing the people of South Australia in the federal parliament and having the honour of having been re-elected in the recent election, I have been honoured to be appointed as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment. In my portfolio area, the coalition has provided bipartisan support for the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, and I have recommitted our government to ensure the Basin Plan is implemented on time and in full.

We understand the need to ensure that the environment, communities and economies are all considered under the Basin Plan. We need to have a healthy environment and healthy towns, businesses and farms. The water reforms of the Howard government were not about decimating the productive capacity of towns in the basin, but about striking a balance between environmental needs and the social and productive aspects of the basin. Unfortunately, the previous government went seriously off track in that regard. Our government has made a commitment to communities of the basin that we will ensure that this balance is again the focus for implementation of the Basin Plan. Our government will implement a 1,500 gigalitres cap on buybacks and, consistent with this, we will give priority to infrastructure programs to bridge the gap necessary to fully implement the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. This commitment will be articulated shortly in a new water recovery strategy. As most members of the Senate would be aware, I have championed effective management of the basin for a very long period—essentially, my entire 6½ years in this place. The opportunity to ensure the basin plan is implemented in a sound way that is reflective of community concerns is one that I relish and I am delighted to have this role in government.

Our approach will provide certainty to people living in the basin that our government will honour our commitments to deliver the basin plan and do so in a way that reflects the triple-bottom-line approach of environmental, economic and social management decisions being taken in harmony.

In line with this, the government has committed to rephasing some of the budgeting in the water portfolio so that we give effect to higher priority around infrastructure spending, and environmental works and measures activities over the next few years, so that buybacks to bridge the gap are taken as a last resort in strategic cases, not a first action in terms of the implementation of the plan. By doing this we can and will deliver the environmental outcomes sought by the plan while minimising the impact on basin communities. It is our commitment to all of those people living throughout the Murray-Darling.

Our approach is a significant point of difference from the modus operandi of the former government who waged a destructive and non-strategic buyback campaign since 2007, and which has had significant and far-reaching impacts on basin communities—not just economic impacts but social impacts and impacts, importantly and significantly, that have undermined their confidence in the reform process.

I want to see a situation where communities throughout the Murray-Darling Basin embrace the reforms underway, see them managed in a positive way and see positive benefits for the environment, for their productive capacity and for the future of those townships.

As a government we will work with the states to ensure that implementation of the basin plan does not undermine the social and economic foundations of those communities by delivering on these commitments to infrastructure and environmental works and measures targets.

I have already met, and discussed implementation arrangements with, all of the state water ministers and am pleased with the cooperative approach each of them is taking with regard to the implementation of the basin plan and look forward very much to chairing my first meeting of the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council on Friday of this week.

Addressing the issue of inefficient infrastructure through on-farm efficiency programs and infrastructure modernisation is the best way to return water to the environment in a win-win circumstance that gets those entitlements for the Commonwealth water holder whilst maintaining the productive and agricultural capacity of basin communities, thereby minimising the impact on those communities of this important reform.

While the water portfolio is dominated by the Murray-Darling Basin matters and implementation of the basin plan, there are also numerous other matters of considerable importance that I am pleased to be playing a role in the management of—particularly elsewhere in water management, the ongoing management of the Great Artesian Basin where great work is again being done as a result of initiatives of the previous coalition government to cap bores and improve the sustainability of the Great Artesian Basin and the Lake Eyre Basin, where new challenges continue to arise to ensure sustainable management of that unique and amazing asset that Australia holds.

Effective management of all these important water systems is vital to the future of our environmental health and economic opportunities in Australia. We have placed great priority as a government on supporting the key pillars of economic development and activity, especially in the space of agricultural exports. The Murray-Darling Basin is Australia's largest food bowl, and I am determined that it will remain Australia's largest food bowl with the right infrastructure and the right approach to utilising water such that in years to come, it continues to see maximum levels of food, fibre and produce grown here in Australia by Australians for Australians and for export to the rest of the world.

I am also privileged to have responsibility for a range of other agencies: the Bureau of Meteorology, Parks Australia and the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust. The bureau provides regular forecasts, warnings, monitoring and advice spanning Australian and Antarctic territory. It is one of the most fundamental and widely used services of government. It is one of our key agencies in terms of providing warning systems and effective advice in relation to events of natural disaster and risk to Australians and providing important information to sustain economic activities, be they agricultural, aviation, transport or otherwise. I pay tribute to the great work the people of the bureau have already done in the short time of our government in providing effective assistance to people concerning the New South Wales bushfires and ensuring timely advice to help with the management in fighting those bushfires.

Commonwealth National Parks protect some of the country's most stunning natural areas and Indigenous heritage. The unique Australian biodiversity is protected and conserved from the coastal Booderee National Park to the world heritage listed terrestrial park of Kakadu. I take this opportunity to congratulate Peter Cochrane, the long-serving director of National Parks who was appointed by former coalition environment minister, Mr Robert Hill and will shortly retire, for the great work he has done.

I am also pleased to have responsibility for the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust which has an important role to ensure that world-renowned Sydney Harbour is protected and integrated into the life of the city while preserving a range and extraordinary mix of historic buildings, pristine natural landscapes and Defence heritage.

Beyond my direct responsibilities, I look forward to continuing to work across the broader environment portfolio with our new Minister for the Environment Greg Hunt.

We have a range of priorities that are core to the government's overall objective of getting our country back on track with a stronger economy. At the centre of those are one-stop-shop reforms to ensure we minimise the level of green tape that applies across the Australian economy, such that environmental standards are held at the highest level but undertaken and ensured in the most efficient of ways. I also look forward to working again on the repeal of the carbon tax and on ensuring that our agenda is fully implemented, and I trust this Senate will work with us in that way.

Debate interrupted.