Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I use this opportunity of the address-in-reply to highlight some important issues that my area of Redlands has fought for over the last decade, in particular, the acknowledgement that our unique geography and ecology shapes the issues that have focused my population's attention. Over the last three elections, being on the Queensland coast, having Moreton Bay islands off the coast and of course having all the challenges of an outer metropolitan area, you can imagine that the concerns will be primarily around balancing the need for infrastructure and opportunity with preserving our fabulous bayside environment, which is globally unique.

Moreton Bay is a standout area of Ramsar significance with populations of sea turtles, dugongs and migratory birds, not to mention the fishing opportunities. For the last three elections what has been top of the agenda for locals there has been the desire for better health and education services—that is not unfamiliar—and wanting better roads and public transport—that is not unfamiliar either. But, we have had some unique concerns from those who live on our islands—the 7,000 Australians who live on Moreton Bay's islands—including their transport needs to get on and off the islands to work and, of course the right that every South-East Queenslander if not Australian cherishes, the right to be able to wet a line and go fishing without undue government interference. These are the issues that have characterised the last three elections.

We have seen attempts by the previous state Labor government to zone large areas of Moreton Bay on very flimsy evidence. It is a mess that has only now been unpicked by the current LNP government. If there is anyone in this community who cares about the sustainability of fishing areas it is a fisherman, I can assure you. Fishermen know what is going on and see what others are doing. There is a certain support and even peer group pressure around the boat ramps right up and down the Queensland coast. Fishermen have had their rights taken away with the imposition of what are expansive and arbitrary green zones. To highlight just one story, there was a green zone placed down in the southern Moreton Bay area and nobody knew why it was there until we looked at Google Maps. The bureaucrats had obviously seen where the fishing boats were on those maps and they drew little lines around wherever they saw a fishing boat, just in case it was somewhere that might have been a good green zone. We saw investment from the Howard government and now, as a result of this flimsy evidence, future commitments have been made at the state level to garner better evidence about what is sustainable in the biomass of the very delicate ecology in a place like Moreton Bay.

Of course, you cannot live in an area without opportunity and without jobs. You do not want to live in a community where everyone has to leave for work. As is the case with many electorates, nearly half my population has a member of the family jumping in a vehicle or into public transport and leaving the area purely for employment. Providing opportunities in your local area—through employment, promoting population growth and giving people the opportunity to have an education—so that people do not have to leave for substantial periods of their careers is something that everyone who serves in an outer metropolitan seats will have to fight for.

We want to know that we have the best health services in an era when services are centralising to larger tertiary facilities. Increasingly we are seeing a centripetal pressure to bring services at the highest level into just one or two hospitals in cities, and that simply undercuts the political power of local superintendents to keep their staff, and to keep their hospitals well supplied and able to deliver the top-class, world-class care that we know can be achieved but so often is not. Lastly, we have the issue of people movement. We had the impact of the carbon tax and the removal of the diesel rebate. As result of the carbon tax, a full 10 per cent more is being paid by people travelling on and off the islands. The issue was not adequately ventilated but it is a cause of great concern because thousands of people in my electorate live on islands for a variety of reasons but still want to maintain a connection to the real economy. They want to be able to get off those islands when they need to find a job and they want to know that emergency services can get out onto the islands when they are needed as well.

Every one of my six populated islands has a unique characteristic. Of course, North Stradbroke is the most obvious one that comes to mind. I also want to mention Karragarra, Lamb, Macleay, Russell, and Coochiemudlo islands, each of which has their own unique character. History has dealt them a cruel hand, because of what happened in the seventies when these islands were subdivided. It has been joked that we simply dropped a flyscreen on these islands and sold off the blocks with no regard to what was above or below the high tide level, the high watermark. Now we have large populations and relatively low rents, and it is very difficult to sell property. In many cases, the people who most need the services are least able to get them. That will be a long-term challenge for those representing these parts of Moreton Bay. The infrastructure deficit—for instance, none of these islands, which are 8 to 10 kilometres long, are sewered and none of them have adequate public transport facilities on them—creates enormous pressures on these communities and on people who simply want to get to a boat ramp to be able to go and see a doctor or avail themselves of other services that they cannot get on the island.

Lastly, we have the issue of providing a future tertiary facility for this part of South-East Queensland. There is no doubt that we want our universities to be top-class facilities, but we also know increasingly that young families do not want to see their kids drive to the other side of Brisbane just to get basic qualifications on how to service an automobile or how to get a basic trade. If we could keep some sort of critical mass in communities like mine, where young people could finish their grade 10 or their senior qualification without being asked to take three buses and a 1½ hour trip, then surely there must be a public good in that.

Of course, fighting for these priorities is not limited to one side of politics. Both sides of this chamber are going to share these objectives, though they will probably come at them in a different way. Bowman, having been one of those changing-hands seats, has seen some enormous election campaigns over the last three federal elections. In that time, in particular, we have seen huge numbers of volunteers coming out to fight for whatever they believe in. Today I want to acknowledge people who have supported any of the political parties in my area, because they are fighting for what they think is right for the community. Specifically, I want to mention that on our side of politics we rely completely on volunteers—there are no bussed in crowds and there is no-one on union salaries; these are people who give their own time for free because they want better country. To that end, what can you do? All you can do is look after your volunteers as well as you can. I would like to mention a few of them today and then talk about some of their unique contributions during those campaigns.

Bowman was arguably Australia's first electorate to apply an expansive use of highways and byways to run political campaigning even outside of the election cycle. It did not matter whether it was after an election or before an election, people were on the sides of the roads holding signs. This was something that was usually only done by an MP after they had won a seat and they held a little thankyou sign for one morning and then went and had brunch somewhere. In Bowman, what happened three elections ago was that key geographic areas in the electorate became areas where there were rallies—people with signs and handmade messages campaigning for both sides of the political fence. Once one side started doing it, the other was compelled to reciprocate. This drew out people, part of the massive commuter movement into Brisbane every day, to have their political say. That was a major victory in getting people mobilised. People like Peter Read, Judy Ann Zacka, Denis Bowman, Barry and Shay Murphy, Troy Brown, Fred and Gloria Olssen, Mike and Pam Sammut, Judie Hallisee and Maddi Arthurs all who got out and got involved in that kind of activity.

On one side you have the grunt and the brawn, and on the other side you have the technology. We have had to keep up with the increasing use of social media and various forms of telecommunications to reach out to people who normally do not read flyers. One of the ways that this has been done, as we will all remember, was the 2004 'robocalls', where messages were pushed through to thousands of homes around my electorate as one of two or three areas piloted in that election. It caused enormous surprise at the time but has now become routine and commonplace and, if anything, is now being superseded by other technologies, all of which have been pioneered in my seat. Moving from 'robocalls' were 'spidercalls' where, within hours, a voice can be recorded for about 30 seconds and then transmitted to the community, to nominated phone numbers, the following day. This made campaigns much more responsive than had been dreamed of before, when we were predominantly printing off flyers and hoping people plucked them out of their letterboxes and read them. We know that people do not do that and we know that is not a great way to reach locals.

More recently, SMS technology has allowed 'ninja calls' to actually divert from a person's handset and go straight to voicemail. This allows people to listen to a pre-recorded message without being interrupted at the time of that phone call coming in. This new technology is also likely to see more widespread use. Then, pioneered in Bowman also, was the use of a small device that allows us to SMS mobile phone numbers in aggregate and be able to target information according to age, geography and the issue that people care about. So, for the first time, we can see genuinely tailored efforts to reach out to young people with a particular concern, to mothers of a particular age or a particular geography and to older people, who care about different issues entirely, without bothering the rest of the population. A good example of this has been the fishing issue, where a large amount of information has been transmitted using social and SMS communication.

Obviously, Facebook is occupying more and more of the time of everyone in here. I see Facebook being used more widely. I see it sitting on people's screens during question time. I am glad it is still within the standing orders to have a peek at what your constituents are saying while you are in this chamber. We now have a budget set aside to specifically reach out to our constituents using social media. Bowman is the only seat in this place that absolutely rigorously focuses its social media time line on locals. You cannot be on that page unless we verify you as coming from the community. I think that really generates a local conversation. When you feel you can talk with locals, when it is your neighbour or the people down the street or in the neighbouring suburb who are going to be engaging you, it is far different to having a fan page that pulls in the entire nation, where you have trolls coming from all over the place who will often flame your point of view for no good reason other than that that is what they do almost as a full-time profession. So I think keeping it local has made a massive difference. Finally, we have tried to utilise billboard technology more. Again, that is commonplace now but was not five or 10 years ago. For the first time this year, we are actually using solar powered illumination of billboards where billboards were not illuminated.

I also recognise those who worked outside and campaigned: Paul Field, who has been a long-term campaigner and previously a councillor for the Redland area, Leena Brooks, Shaun Edwards, Mark Neville, Paul Branagan, Suzi Foster, Gordon Somes, Peter Johnson, Rod MacDonald, Jess Holzworth and the tireless Ed Barclay, who would pull up in his company ute on his way to work and spend half an hour on the side of the road on those long, four-hour sessions, effectively just standing on a busy, stinking-hot corner, waving to constituents and hoping that one or two of them would pull over and have a chat to you about what they care most about. The other great push was taking a few people into licensed facilities at 10 o'clock at night, doing some non-profit work and having a chance to meet people under the age of 21, who almost never get to meet a politician. Reaching out to those people is absolutely critical if you are going to improve your net preference above zero with an age group that is typically quite sceptical, if not hostile, towards politicians.

I also recognise Luke and Jack Hughes, Ian Stephens, Adrienne Verco, John Colvin, Alan Mikkelsen, Kirsty Heigan, Ed O'Driscoll, Thomas Neville, Matt Herbert, Chris and Cam Leafe—it was Cameron who pioneered the SMS Arduino device, as it is called, imported from the US, that allows high-speed SMS communication to large numbers of people and provides logs of their responses—Peter Lapp, Dan Jarvis, James Jiminez, Bill Dingli, and of course Louise Peters. To them I say: it does not really matter which party you support, but in this great and thriving democracy it is great that Australians can still come out in a seat that matters, fight for what they believe in, and be part of a peaceful democratic process which Australia is proud of.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in the address-in-reply debate to talk about the privilege of once again representing the people of Moncrieff. It is indeed an absolute honour for me, as it is for each of us in this parliament to have the opportunity to represent our respective electorates. Among the 150 parts of the country that are represented in this chamber, it will be no surprise that I happen to think that mine is the best. The reason I think mine is the best is that, if you were to take a survey of the 23 million Australians, I would predict that most of them would say that the Gold Coast and, in particular, some of the iconic parts of my electorate such as Surfers Paradise rank up there as being some the most quintessentially Aussie and beautiful parts of the country. So it is an absolute privilege and honour for me, coming through my fifth election, to stand here at this dispatch box in this parliament and to represent the hundred thousand or so people in the seat of Moncrieff.

The story of the Gold Coast is an interesting and evolving story. My seat, only created in 1984 and previously served by the Hon. Kathy Sullivan, has been a place of intense change over the past several decades. It is certainly one of the fastest growing regions in the country. The Gold Coast is now Australia's sixth largest city, as it has been for some time, and it continues to be a city that faces a number of unique challenges. Yes, the high pace of population growth presents a number of challenges for us in terms of our critical infrastructure—things like our roads, public transport and education. Each of these issues is of course important in the eyes of each of each of my constituents and they are important issues to me. Likewise, the health sector: a big part of the Gold Coast population is our very broadscale population demographic, but there is a particular bias in some aspects towards those aged 65 and over, and their focus on health is a key area of priority for them and therefore a key area of priority for me. The last federal election campaign provided real hope for me and for many of them, as they embraced in large numbers the coalition's plans on how to take our nation forward.

The Gold Coast, in particular Moncrieff, represents a focal point for so much of the change that we see happening across our community. Not that many years ago there was a continued focus on what was called the 'sea change', as people moved away from regional parts of the country or crowded urban areas to embrace the lifestyle that they thought went along with being someone who lived by the sea. Perhaps Bernard Salt, the famous demographer from KPMG, encapsulated best in his numerous writings over the years what it is that people are looking for and the values represented in part of that quest.

For me, in representing a seat like Moncrieff, it is the very recognition that Aussies across this wide brown land embrace a number of core values: the chance to have a go, the relaxed approach that we have to life, the view that each of us is equal and that we should basically be left alone to go about our business. I see those values played out in a city like the Gold Coast. For so many years it was Australia's holiday playground. It was our premier tourist destination and it continues to be, but there has been a stark contrast painted over the past several years between the Gold Coast that so many Australians knew and the Gold Coast that has existed over the last four or five years.

The catalyst that drove that change was the global financial crisis. We saw in my city—a small business town which has, on a per capita basis, the highest concentration of small businesses in the country—a very significant and strong headwind that continues to last today. The good news is that it is dissipating, but it is a headwind that has been there solidly and consistently throughout the past four or five years. In that respect, the message that I heard from my constituents was, 'Steve, please affect change in Canberra that can help get this nation back on its feet.' People would talk to me about their concerns, the legacy of the past six years and how the failed policies of the previous government did not set up the Gold Coast or the nation to be 'fighting fit' for the challenges we as a nation and my own city had to face.

Gold Coasters, like many Australians, did not like the fact that under Labor we saw reckless spending to an extreme not previously seen in this nation. The consequence of that spending was that we saw predictions of $123 billion worth of budget deficits over the forward estimates in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. We saw that the debt trajectory of this nation would have an end point of some $667 billion unless changes were made. They were the consequences of six years of poor economic stewardship by the Australian Labor Party. Although we can talk about broad aggregate numbers—$123 billion worth of deficits, $667 billion worth of debt, 200,000 extra Australians unemployed—how that actually played out in my seat of Moncrieff and on the Gold Coast was in seeing people struggling.

Australians in my seat have, in some respects, a fairly novel approach to life. Historically, that has seen them relaxed and comfortable about their lives, embracing the life that goes with living alongside what is a magnificent stretch of beach and having an approach to entrepreneurialism that is played out through the highest concentration of small businesses in what is Australia's small business capital, the Gold Coast. The consequences of poor economic stewardship from here in Canberra meant that small businesses were collapsing and folding at a rate we had not previously seen. The unemployment rate in my city skyrocketed. We saw investment grind to a halt, whether it was investment in new products or new services, or investment by those abroad, from places outside the Gold Coast into property on the Gold Coast. Commercial investment ground to a halt. Unfortunately, we saw commercial vacancies ran as high as 50 or 60 per cent in parts of my city. That was the legacy of six years of Labor.

The last federal election campaign was, in many respects, an opportunity for me to campaign on hope and to campaign to my Gold Coast constituents on the basis of saying, 'Let's put aside the failed policies of the Australian Labor Party, which have run up unemployment and debt, and let's embrace policies that say we must live within our means and must make astute investments that are sure to provide a dividend yield, not in a literal sense but in a figurative sense, for the people of the Gold Coast for decades to come.' That is what they wanted.

They did not like the approach of the Australian Labor Party that saw our single biggest industry—the tourism industry—shackled with billions of dollars of new taxes. They did not like the approach of the Australian Labor Party that saw our biggest single industry—the tourism industry, which is, incidentally, also our single largest employer—having to compete with other nations for Aussie holiday dollars. If people travelled to other nations, they did not have to pay a carbon tax, but if they travelled to the Gold Coast to have their holiday they did pay a carbon tax..

That was the kind of crazy policy approach that we saw from the Labor Party. It said, 'If you take a holiday abroad, you do not pay carbon tax, but, if you choose to go to the Gold Coast for your vacation, you do pay carbon tax.' It was a rejection of that kind of approach that my constituents made very clear to me, and that is what the government—and I am very honoured to be part of this government—is focused on delivering.

I hope that with the passage of time we will be able to undo a lot of damage that was done by the Australian Labor Party, but it will take time. We saw, in large numbers, support for the coalition in the Gold Coast, and I am pleased to say that that was reflected across the length and breadth of the nation. That is what led to the change of government so that now, as the Prime Minister has said on so many occasions, Australia is under new management and open for business. Even in the six months since the election, the feeling of change in the approach of the community, the attitude of its people and its general tempo is pronounced.

The Gold Coast today is already starting to emerge from the shadows of Labor and of the GFC. The Gold Coast today is seeing investment in a raft of areas, including having the Commonwealth Games in 2018. We are now only a matter of weeks or months away from the 2014 games, but there is a build up of excitement for the Commonwealth Games and for what it means for our city. We have seen consumer confidence become so much stronger than it was under the Australian Labor Party. We have seen property prices start to spur again. That is because Australians have more confidence that tomorrow is going to be a better day than today, and that is what was missing for the last six years.

In other crucial matters for my constituency we saw the ramifications—in the negative sense, unfortunately—of poor Labor Party policy decisions. Labor closed down the immigration office on the Gold Coast. The export of education was a big industry in my city, and Labor made things tougher for it by closing down the immigration office. The consequence of that is that if you are an international student studying English, for example, or undertaking vocational studies on the Gold Coast, you now have to travel to Brisbane in order to visit the department of immigration, which many are required to do on a regular and ongoing basis. I am committed to reopening that office. The challenge that we as the new government have is that we have been left with a multitude of debt, with the last budget deficit being $47 billion, for example. So I say to the Gold Coast and to my constituents: we will reopen that service, but it is going to take time. I cannot look my constituents in the eye and promise them that we are going to open up all of these government services that Labor shut down, because we cannot afford it. The $47 billion worth of debt in the last budget alone means that we have to make some tough decisions to get debt under control. But once it is under control—once we have got the reckless spending stopped, which this government has been focused on doing right from day one—then we will again have money and capital available to reopen services that we know are crucial to providing the support that crucial industries, like the education export industry, in my electorate need and deserve in order to continue making money, driving employment and driving exports of Australian services.

Likewise, we saw the crazy decision of the Australian Labor Party to shut down the Australian Federal Police office on the Gold Coast. We saw, perhaps at its zenith, about 12 months ago, the reputation of the Gold Coast getting trashed and tarnished almost daily in the media. Labor's solution was to close down the Federal Police office on the Gold Coast and to rip 40 per cent out of the budget of the Australian Federal Police, because they had had their ridiculous spending sprees, handing out $900 checks to all and sundry, they had spent money to install pink batts and then spent more money to rip them back out and they had spent money on failed schemes. There were massive cost blow-outs in their so-called border protection policies, which cost some $11½ billion, I think. I make this solemn pledge to the people of the Gold Coast: we will get an AFP office back on the Gold Coast. I promise them that it will come back, but it is going to take time, because we have to stop that reckless spending and we have to restore our nation's finances. By doing so, we will have the money available to invest in delivering the safety and security that Australians and, in particular, my constituency of Moncrieff want and deserve.

The state government stepped up to the plate and did an outstanding job through the so-called VLAD laws. We have seen bikies pushed out of our city and pushed out of our state, and with that a lot of the crime—assaults and burglaries—that is associated with them. From memory, there has been a decline of something like 40 per cent in a number of areas, such as breaking and entering, and assaults, since those laws came into effect.

Apart from those positive plans to restore our city, the only reason I have the privilege of standing in this chamber is that so many people worked hard in my campaign, whether it was all the booth captains that did an outstanding job getting up, many of them at 3 am and 4 am, to go and work the booths or those who are what we call our roving booth captains that made sure they filled any holes that existed in terms of the booth network. We had some 300 or 400 volunteers out on polling day playing their part not only to get me re-elected but also to make sure that we saw Tony Abbott installed as the new Prime Minister of Australia. It was a success.

I want to particularly mention a few of people—it is always dangerous to do this. Peter Barlow did an outstanding job for me and has done so on numerous occasions as, let us call him, a special campaigner. He would stand on roundabouts, set up signage and do those types of things for me for literally hours on end and for weeks on end. I thank my campaign manager, Karen Embrey, and the balance of my staff: Karly Abbott, Ben Dillaway, Gloria Vicario, Jack Piggott and Jake Durrington. All of them did an outstanding job in helping to steer my campaign and to make sure that all aspects of my campaign—from the prepolls through to the polling booths, the postal votes and the mail-out campaign—ran relatively smoothly. There were a couple of hiccups with the mail campaign, but it all ran relatively smoothly. I thank them in particular not only for the outstanding work that they did during the campaign but also for the work that they do on a day-to-day basis to make sure that, when I am away at places like Canberra or I am travelling interstate, there is always a presence in my office and an open ear to the needs of my constituency, and that there is someone to deliver upon them.

I want to thank my family—my wife, Astra, and my two boys, Asher and Tennyson—who, sometimes through gritted teeth, bear the frequent absences of their father and husband doing this job down here in Canberra. It is not an easy life, political life. The demands on your time are constant and consistent and it is always family, unfortunately, that loses out in that battle. I do what I can to maintain that balance, but I want to acknowledge and honour and love my family for the privilege that they provide me in letting me do this role in this chamber. So to my family, to my staff, to my friends and to all of the party members: I thank you all for your support over so many elections, and I am grateful we were able to deliver a terrific outcome in Moncrieff, and even more importantly, to deliver a change of government here in Canberra.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak to the Address-in-Reply. It is indeed an honour to be re-elected into this, the 44th Parliament. This is a new coalition government with a new direction and new challenges that need to be addressed. This is a coalition government that will empower people rather than stand in their way. The coalition government has very different ideas from the former Labor government on what Australia can, and should, be. We believe that anyone can succeed with opportunity, enterprise and ambition. In fact, we want all Australians, whether young or old, to achieve their maximum potential. When people realise their potential there are no limits to what they can achieve or to the benefits that are provided to us as a great nation.

It is disappointing that, in their time in government, Labor created a culture of people stepping down rather than stepping up, and of accepting handouts rather than a helping hand. I want to see people putting their hands up and getting involved, and using the ambition, enterprise and opportunities available to them to get ahead. I want to develop a stronger community with less reliance on government and more individual enterprise. I admire people who take an idea and run with it. They are driven by ambition, and they create the opportunities to build their own success—for example, companies like the Varley group in our region, which is developing high-tech electronic vehicles. Last year when I toured the Daintree National Park with local member Warren Entsch, we visited Mossman Gorge Tourist Information Centre, and I saw an environmentally friendly electric tourist bus that impressed me no end. While talking to the operators I asked where they got the bus from, quite expecting the answer to be, 'from overseas'. I was absolutely floored when the reply was, 'from the Varley Group near Newcastle'—as I said, that is in my region.

I now understand what Varley have been up to. I knew they had developed a unique monocoque frame that was integral to the very successful Varley Fire Commander, and that they were testing prototype electronic cars, but I was not aware that they had developed electronic tourist buses. Jeff Phillips and his team never cease to amaze me with their innovation and approach to niche market problem-solving. It is great to see fellow Australians take innovation and opportunity to the next level to find their own niche market. This creates jobs and is great for our economy.

There are challenges ahead. Now in government, the coalition can see that there are many challenges ahead of us. We have had a good look at the books and can see that the Labor government has left us with more than a massive debt—they have created a dependency culture. In 2014 the new coalition government has been left with the challenge of guiding Australia out of this massive debt—which, according to Treasury, will peak at somewhere around $667 billion if rapid action is not taken to address Labor's fiscally irresponsible policies.

Let us be very clear. This is not a coalition-amassed debt. This is a Labor debt. It is all of their own doing, built from complete incompetence and a lack of understanding of what drives a successful economy and, therefore, a prosperous nation. It is reminiscent of the position that Labor left in 1996, but this time with a debt on steroids. In 1996 we were faced with what seemed an impossible task to guide this country out of a $96 billion debt towards a surplus, again due to the incompetent Labor government. And yet it appears they learned absolutely nothing about economic management from their 11 years in opposition. This time, in 2014, they have left Australia with an even bigger debt—a $260 billion debt that, by next month, we expect will explode out to $300 billion. And that debt is not slowing—we anticipate it will spiral upwards to between $400 billion and $500 billion until we are able to slow the debt and begin reducing it.

It is imperative that we, the coalition, arrest the debt. We, the coalition, have again accepted that challenge. It is we, the coalition, that have begun the process of balancing the books. It is we, the coalition, that have begun bringing some sanity and responsibility back to spending. It is we, the coalition, that have begun cutting bureaucratic red tape. And it is we, the coalition, who are determined once again to put Australian businesses in a position where they are able to thrive and invest and therefore to create new jobs with confidence. It is abundantly clear that it is we, the coalition, who have declared that Australia is once again open for business. It is not going to be easy. Unlike in 1996, we no longer have any large-scale assets we can privatise to help balance the books, and the debt is even higher than anyone could have dreamed of. The reality is that there is no magic pudding. And there is no sugar coating the solution. I will repeat that: there is no magic pudding; there is no sugar coating the solution.

When we lost government in 2007 we left this country in great economic shape. We delivered a $70 billion future fund; we invested $6 billion in higher education endowment funds; we put aside $2 billion for regional communication funds—which, by the way, could have assisted my electorate with the digital television debacle left by Labor. And, more importantly, we delivered a $22 billion cash surplus. Now our economy is in a dire position; our debt levels are high and unsustainable; and we, the coalition, have an enormous task ahead of us. It honestly angers me that the six years of Labor have put our country into such a terrible fiscal position.

In the 43rd Parliament I had the honour to serve as the shadow minister for tourism, and I would like to sincerely thank all those in the tourism industry who generously gave their time to mentor me, who worked with me as a team to develop strong policy driven by those with skin in the game. This policy of the coalition is a policy that this government will implement in full. We will implement it because we listened to the industry, and because it was developed hand in hand with the industry, understanding what they needed.

In the very first speech I gave to the tourism industry, at the ATEC conference, I said that the industry needed to speak with one voice and tell the government and the opposition what they really wanted. The tourism industry came together as one, and I appreciated working with them. I congratulate them, and I encourage them to maintain this united approach. It was this approach that saw the former Labor government back down on the proposed consumer price index increases to the Passenger Movement Charge. It was a key driver in our policy to freeze the Passenger Movement Charge for the first term of government.

We listen intently to the tourism industry. The tourism industry laid out its policy to place tourism in the Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio. This is a natural fit, as the primary responsibility for Tourism Australia is to attract and grow international visitors to our shores. I believe it not only provides a more focused approach in attracting more international visitors to our shores, but investment as well. The tourism industry demanded ministerial representation in cabinet for tourism, and I believe that Andrew Robb as the Minister for Trade and Investment will serve them well in that role.

While there were many who took the time to engage, I particularly thank John Hart, chair of the National Tourism Alliance, and chief executive officer of Restaurant and Catering Australia. I also want to thank David Sheldon, and the Australian Regional Tourism Network, for their guidance and unfettered access in hosting policy discussions and development. I thank Jason Westbury of the Australian Federation of Travel Agents, and John Lee the then chief executive officer of the Tourism and Transport Forum—and their members—for driving the Passenger Movement Charge reforms with one industry voice. I particularly thank Gary Crockett, the global executive chairman of China Ready & Accredited, and president of the Accommodation Association of Australia, for his work with the Chinese National Tourism Administration which helped drive our understanding of the need for policy to increase the lucrative Chinese free independent traveller market, by moving to multi-entry and extended time frame visas.

We have done this because we took the time to listen and to understand the needs of the whole of the tourism industry, whether it includes aviation, accommodation, or individual tourism providers. I would like to thank Scott Leach, the president of the Australian Hotels Association (NSW), for his work in providing access to his team, from accommodation providers through to hoteliers, so as to better understand their needs as a major employer group. In particular I thank a person who has become more than a mentor and a sounding board: he is a valued friend. That person is Andrew Burnes, from the AOT corporation, a former deputy chairman of Tourism Australia, and a person whose business has grown to what is perhaps the largest privately owned tourism business in Australia. There is nothing like testing an idea on someone with skin in the game, to get an accurate and economically sensible response. This is by no means an exhaustive list. There are so many more to thank that time prevents me. I have thanked many individually, as I have met up with them in my travels.

The election has come and gone, and I now serve in a new role as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry—my friend Ian Macfarlane. There are new challenges to address and opportunities to play in my part in making Australia great again. As I said in my maiden speech when I came to this House, I want to be a part of a team that turns the ship around to navigate a new direction towards prosperity.

Listening to your constituents in politics is critically important. So, it is beyond doubt that Labor's poor policies, and the carbon tax, have massively increased the cost of living for families—they said so at the last election. The removal of the carbon tax will reduce cost of living pressures on households and businesses. Some examples of the benefits that families will see are that they will be around $550 per annum better off; that household electricity bills will be around $200 lower than they otherwise would be in 2014-15 with a $25.40 carbon tax; and that the average household gas bill will be around $70 lower in 2014-15 than it would otherwise have been with the $25.40 carbon tax. Business compliance costs are expected to fall by around $87.6 million per annum as a consequence of repealing the carbon tax.

The legislation to repeal the carbon tax is already through this House. It only needs to get through the Senate, and there is only one person standing in the way, and that is the Leader of the Opposition, 'Electricity Bill' Shorten, and the Labor members, because they have refused to listen to what the Australian public have said.

The electorate of Paterson is such a special electorate, filled with very special people. I sincerely thank all of my constituents for having continued faith in me to work in their best interests. I would like to make special mention of the team of friends and volunteers, and my staff, for helping me win my seat in the federal election of Paterson—with an increased margin yet again. The victory was a real team effort, not mine.

In 2013 we increased our vote from 55.37 per cent to 59.8 per cent on a two-party preferred basis. This is a massive increase from 1996, when we were in the marginal position of only 50.4 per cent on a two-party preferred vote. The seat has gone from being the most marginal seat in 1996, not just in the Hunter Valley but in all of Australia, to being the seat with one of the largest margins in the Hunter Valley. This has been despite redistributions that have gone against us. Again, I thank the constituents of Paterson who have invested their trust in me. I never forget where we started, and I always treat my constituents with the utmost respect they deserve. I will never take the people of Paterson for granted, and I will always maintain the attitude that Paterson is a very marginal seat.

There is a long, hard road ahead. There are issues I am working very hard on, like digital television, and mobile phone black spots. Most importantly, what we need to do is ensure people can stay in jobs in our local areas. Downturns in jobs through the mining industry, which then flow through the whole of our community, are really starting to come home, and we need to stop that. That is why it is important to get rid of the carbon tax, get rid of the mining tax, and repeal unnecessary legislation, to restore confidence to the business community.

It is very clear to me I would not be the member for Paterson if it were not for the support of my electorate, but in particular my wife, Cynthia, and my children David, Robbie and Samantha. To them I say thank you. I apologise for the times and the hours I have not been there, and I appreciate their generosity. I thank my staff, Adam Olsen, Simon Ryan, Jarrad Hamilton and Brooke Vitnell, my former staffer Brett Sundell and my tourism policy adviser, Alistair Mitchell, who put in the long, hard hours on the road to success.

I have learnt through the journey of life that nothing happens by chance, and I appreciate the massive efforts put in by my army of volunteers, in particular Doreen Bradley—and, of course, her companion dog, Lady—Steve and Ros Mudd, Dennis and Elizabeth Martin, Rob and Meg Olsen, Bill Garret, Howard Grigor, Sonny Morris and many, many more.

The organising of polling booths is a difficult and time-consuming job, and I wish to thank my zone captains Michael O'Halloran and Gary Hoson in the Great Lakes region, Chris Bowen down through Stroud and Dungog, Jarrad Hamilton and Doreen Bradley from Raymond Terrace-Tilligerry, Drew and Di Gibbs through the Port Stephens area and my federal electorate conference president, campaign director and long-time friend Bob Geoghegan in the East Maitland area. And, of course, I thank the nearly 1,000 volunteers who helped out during the campaign and on election day. I am honoured to have their support.

To those who helped at the shopping centres and the market days with our mobile office, I say thank you. You turned up whether it was hot or cold, wet or dry, windy or wonderful. You can now rest knowing that you have made a big difference. But the work starts again soon.

The long, hard road back to prosperity for our nation has begun. I accept the challenge and I will do all in my power to contribute to make a difference so that we can restore hope, reward and opportunity for all Australians.

Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have enormous respect for the Governor-General. I think many Australians, hopefully all Australians, would agree that Her Excellency has done a very good job. I particularly enjoyed her outspokenness on some controversial issues of late. I also have great respect for the office of the Governor-General and, in fact, in 1989 I was the Army aide-de-camp to, first of all, His Excellency Sir Ninian Stephen for a short while, and then Bill Hayden in his first year. So I understand how Government House works. I understand the important work that Government House does. I make the point again that I have great respect for Her Excellency.

But I think there does need to be a greater public discussion about why, in mid-November last year, we again had the Australian representative of a foreign head of state open this parliament. It strikes me as an anachronism that the Queen of England is also the Queen of Australia and that our parliament is opened by her representative in this country. Surely we have grown up and moved on. I have fond feelings towards our mother country and what England did to settle us, help us grow and become a great nation. But, surely, now, 226 years after the First Fleet sailed into Port Jackson, it is beyond time that we had an Australian head of state and an Australian open this parliament. Moreover, I am referring not to someone who opens this parliament by reading a speech prepared by or, at least, approved by the Australian government but to someone who reads his or her own speech—a speech in which he or she is independent enough and free to say what he or she thinks that the parliament should achieve over its three years and what the government should achieve during its three years in power. Surely, it is beyond time that we have someone who when opening the parliament can stand up and tackle controversy, and lay out what is needed and what is expected during these challenging times.

Personally, I would have liked to have seen an Australian head of state open the 44th Parliament—and open the 45th Parliament—by making it clear that he or she expects the government of the day to tackle the tough issues. Let's face it, moving money around is relatively easy. Tackling policy and the tough policy challenges facing us is difficult. Wouldn't it be great if at the opening of the parliament our head of state said, 'I expect this government and this parliament to deal with the issue of problem gambling in this country.' Considering the fact that 95,000 Australian problem gamblers lose between them something like $5,000 million each year on the poker machines, wouldn't it be great for an Australian head of state to say that he or she expects the government to do something about that; that the government needs to be mindful of the fact that, for every one of those 95,000 problem gamblers, there are between five and 10 people adversely affected in some way; and that as a result of that $5,000 million lost, people are losing their jobs, they are going hungry, their kids are going hungry, they are living in houses without electricity and they are at a higher likelihood of taking their own lives.

Wouldn't it be great if an Australian head of state stood up and said at the opening of parliament, 'I expect this parliament and this government to tackle the big issues like the live animal export industry, which accounts for only eight per cent of the beef production in this country.' Wouldn't it be great if they were someone who stood up and said, 'I expect people to understand that that trade is not in Australia's economic self-interest, that it is systemically cruel and that it is not popular.' We need someone to drill down a bit and say, 'One of the reasons that beef producers are relying so much on the live animal export trade is the monopoly of Woolies and Coles.' That is why Australian beef producers are being paid no more now than they were being paid 15 years ago. Wouldn't it be good if at the opening of parliament an Australian head of state stood up and said, 'I expect the parliament and the next government to be a compassionate parliament and a compassionate government.' Wouldn't it be good if it was someone who stood up and said that the cuts to foreign aid which have now been announced—cuts of more than $100 million—are simply not acceptable; that cutting foreign aid is not the right thing to do and that it is also not in Australia's self-interest; that the way to enhance Australia's security is to build capacity in our nation and to help countries around us to be stable and to have the capacity to deal with challenges such as our changing climate? Wouldn't it be good if it was someone who stood up and said that 14 years ago the Howard government committed Australia to the millennium goal of 0.7 per cent of gross national income going to foreign aid, that we are still only at about half that or less, and that not only is our gross level of foreign aid inadequate but there are also some glaring deficiencies about where we are paying aid.

Deputy Speaker, did you know that in this financial year we are only going to give Iraq $11.3 million out of our foreign development aid budget of about $5 billion? Surely there is something wrong with that. This is a country that is anarchic, and we helped create the circumstances in which that anarchy is happening. Surely we have a moral obligation to give more than $11.3 million to that country out of a foreign aid budget of $5 billion. This financial year we will give $76.1 million to Pakistan even though Pakistan is host to 1.6 million Afghan refugees. There is something out of whack here, I suggest. We are demonising Afghan asylum seekers who are trying to come to Australia when they flee Afghanistan, another country that is an anarchic and where the central government has little or no authority outside the capital, and they are transiting through Pakistan, a developing country itself, with very limited resources and capacity. Yet not only do we demonise the Afghan asylum seekers; we only give Pakistan $76.1 million which would in part help to improve the circumstances of those Afghan refugees that are resident in that country.

I come back to my point about an independent Australian head of state tackling the tough issues and, instead of reading out a speech prepared by the government or at least approved by the government, being able to sit in the President's chair in the Senate and actually lay out what her expectations are of the new parliament and the new government, to actually say what she hopes will be achieved, to actually point out the areas which are deficient and which she expects a competent parliament and a competent government to address. I reckon he or she in those circumstances would sound a warning that Australia needs to start acting like a rich and civilised country, to start acting like a signatory to the refugee convention and to start treating people who try and make it to Australia with more compassion. As a signatory to the refugee convention, we have a legal obligation to give people protection, to hear their claims and to give them refuge if their claims are found to be accurate. Instead, what do we do? We have offshore processing. We have Manus Island and Nauru. We have basically all of Australia excised from Australia, from our migration zone—as bizarre as that would appear to be. I make the point again: what we should be doing instead of our current regime, which is supported in large part by the Labor opposition, I would add, is acting like a rich and civilised country, acting like a signatory to the refugee convention and showing a bit more compassion to those who come to our shore.

Do you know what I would imagine might also be in that speech, Deputy Speaker? A call to this parliament and to this government to have a more compassionate response to disadvantaged Australians. In this financial year, federal government outlays will be approximately $400 billion—that is, four hundred thousand million dollars. That is an enormous amount of money, and more than enough to look after those people in our community genuinely in need. But it is not happening, whether it be the person who is waiting years for a hip replacement in my own state or someone who is on Newstart.

A single person with no dependants receives $501 a fortnight on Newstart. In other words, an unemployed person in Australia, single man or woman, no children, over the early 20s, gets $250.50 a week to live on. This is in a country where just about anywhere in the country you are going to have to pay a couple of hundred dollars a week to rent a basic flat or unit or a modest house. Then we expect that person to have enough money to buy a smart set of clothes, to have a computer and an internet connection so they can research the job market and apply for jobs online, to be well fed and healthy and to be able to front up and do a good job at a job interview. It does not work. In fact, even industry groups are saying that if you want job seekers to have better prospects you have got to pay them more than $250.50 a week.

If I was writing the speech for the opening of parliament I would probably say to the parliament and to the new government: get a copy of the ACOSS Budget Priorities Statement for 2014-15 and have a read of it because it is an excellent blueprint for this parliament and for any government to follow. Do you know what I would also do, Deputy Speaker? I would refer them to a paragraph on page 3 of that statement—and excuse me if I read it, it is a longish paragraph, but I think I have time. It is very telling and I would ask in particular that members of the government who are now sitting here pay attention to this. It says:

Despite the current debates about increased social security spending, Australia's spending remains comparatively low. The real Budget problems lie elsewhere. Expenditures on social security payments in 2013 were 8.6% of … (GDP) compared with an … OECD average of 13%. Of the $28 billion of growth in social security between 2002 and 2012 (after inflation), $13 billion comprised increases in Age Pension … and $9 billion came from increases in family payment expenses (due to increases in payment rates, easing of income tests, and the introduction of the Baby Bonus and the Schoolkids Bonus).

It goes on—and this is the part I would particularly like to emphasise and bring to the attention of the government:

Expenditure on Newstart Allowance and Parenting Payment declined by $4 billion over that period—

that is between 2002 and 2012—

despite a rise (with higher unemployment) during the … (GFC). A sharp increase in the number of Newstart Allowance recipients in 2013 was mainly due to the transfer of approximately 80,000 sole parents in that year from the higher Parenting Payment to the lower Newstart Allowance. Despite claims of an inexorable rise in reliance on the Disability Support Pension, the number of recipients peaked in the mid 2000s—

That is the mid-2000 years. I could go on, but I think the point is clear that at the moment we in fact have a beat-up about what is going on with Centrelink benefits.

I am talking about what a speech at the opening of a parliament might sound like. What might it sound like if we had an Australian head of state, an independent head of state—reading a speech that was not written by the government nor approved by the government but, instead—standing up as an independent strong leadership figure in our community, telling the new parliament, telling the government, about some of the problems in our community and about where he, or she, expects the new parliament and the new government to focus their attention. I suspect in that speech the Australian head of state would also urge the new government to stand up to foreign governments. He, or she, would probably lament the fact that it took so many decades for Australia to finally take action over East Timor; and give credit, where it is due, to the Howard government that it did finally act. But why did it take so long? Why did it take so long for Australia to do the right thing?

I am sure the speech at the opening of parliament would address current problems—for example, the silence of successive Australian governments to the Indonesian occupation of West Papua. When is the last time an Australian government—or, for that matter, many people in this place—stood up and made the point that the Indonesian behaviour in West Papua has been, and continues to be, completely and utterly unacceptable and that it is no better than what they did in East Timor. Eventually we grew up; we grew a spine and we took action over East Timor. But there is a deafening silence over what the Indonesians are doing in West Papua. Since 1962, it is estimated that 100,000 West Papuans have been killed or have disappeared under the brutal military regime in place there.

The Indonesians, and maybe the Australian government, say, 'Well, there was an act of self-determination in 1969', when the Indonesians progressed their so-called 'Act of Free Choice'. But do you know how many West Papuans were allowed to vote at that referendum in 1969? One thousand and twenty-five. Only 1,025 West Papuans were allowed to vote about their future. No wonder it went down. In other words, the Indonesian presence there clearly continues to be without the support of the West Papuans and should be condemned by the Australian government.

So too with Tibet. I give credit where it is due to former Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd. He did take a stronger position than any other prime minister, before or since, about the Chinese occupation of Tibet. But if I was writing a speech at the opening of parliament, I would urge the new parliament and the new government to take a stronger position on Tibet and to say to the Chinese that what is going on there is unacceptable, that what they must do is preserve Tibet's unique religious, cultural and linguistic traditions, safeguard its fragile environment, and protect the human rights of the Tibetan people, including the rights of the nomads to maintain their traditional way of life.

I could go on, but I am sure by now that everyone gets the point I am trying to drive home. Not only am I saying that, 226 years after the First Fleet sailed into Port Jackson, surely enough time has passed and we should move to become a republic; I am also saying that there should be an Australian head of state who sits in the president's chair at the opening of a future parliament. He, or she, should speak for all Australians as a strong leadership figure and say to the new parliament and government, at that point in the future, that this is what he, or she, expects that parliament and that government to do. He, or she, should not read out a speech written by the Prime Minister's department or office, or approved by it. He, or she, should be a strong independent leadership figure.

In fact, I would go further and say that it would be in this country's best interests to eventually have a strong independent Australian head of state who balances the head of government, each being a check on each other—neither would have a monopoly on power. That would be a better arrangement than what we have currently. I qualify that by acknowledging that we are fortunate enough to live in one of the oldest and most successful democracies on the planet—and a great nation. Even though we still have the Union Jack at the top of the flag, we are a great independent nation. But we could be so much more. We could be so much more if we take that step toward being an independent nation with an Australia head of state.

Let's change the flag and, when we have the discussion, let us not cloud the issue with misinformation and untruths. This line that we cannot change the flag because so many Australian soldiers fought and died under the current flag is actually untrue. The fact is the blue ensign was only legislated as the official flag in the 1950s. Most Australians who have fought and died for this country have done so under the Union Jack and under the red ensign—a flag that now is not in widespread use except by the merchant navy. We need to have an honest and open discussion about this, and we need people in this place to be leadership figures to drive that debate into the future.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the address-in-reply debate in this 44th Parliament. It is an opportunity, as the member for Denison mentioned, to talk broadly about issues in your electorate, particularly across the country. I am the last speaker in the chamber to speak on this address-in-reply, and this afternoon copies of the speeches will be delivered to Her Excellency, the Governor-General. I am looking forward to making that visit to Yarralumla as I am sure the Speaker is and the committee that we appointed at the beginning of the parliament.

I should say too that, unusually, in this parliament the government allowed the entire address-in-reply debate to occur in this chamber. I made that decision as Leader of the House because I have always believed—and this is my eighth parliament—the address-in-reply is a really important part of the parliamentary process. As members would know, the Governor-General comes to the Senate chamber—and we all go to the Senate chamber to listen to the speech of the Governor-General—and outlines the new government's program, or the re-elected government's program and, therefore, people will find in that speech the priorities of the government and the values of the government. I think it helps if the members of parliament who respond during the address-in-reply debate can do so in a respectful way. The House of Representatives is the premier chamber of the parliament. I think it shows respect to the Crown and to the Governor-General himself or herself and a genuine belief in the government's program, or the opposition's counter to that program, to hold this debate in the House of Representatives, so I made the decision that we would conduct this debate here.

We are finishing this address-in-reply debate today. I am pleased to be doing so before the Governor-General retires and is replaced with a new Governor-General. We will deliver this to her this afternoon and it will, if you like, finish her period in office as Governor-General, which has been excellent. This will finish the debate we have held here in the chamber on the Governor-General's speech.

Today this is an opportunity to talk generally about the government getting on with the job. I would also like to comment a bit about some of the local issues, some of the promises I made to my electorate of Sturt before the election in 2013 and how we are progressing with that. As members would know, I was elected first in 1993 and I have been elected seven times since then, so I, along with only a handful of members, including the Speaker, have seen much come and go in those 21 years. In fact, I had my anniversary last Friday, on 13 March.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hear, hear!

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister. We are getting on with the job of addressing each of the issues upon which the election turned. We promised we would abolish the carbon tax. We have introduced and passed legislation in this place to do just that. It now behoves the opposition to pass that legislation to abolish the carbon tax if they genuinely believe in reducing the cost of living for Australian families and businesses. If they genuinely want to relieve the pressure on Australian families—and energy prices have such an impact on the prices people pay in the supermarket or at the petrol bowser—and the cost to business of doing business, the opposition would pass the carbon tax repeal legislation that sits in the Senate, especially given that there was no doubt at all before the election that we would abolish the carbon tax should we be elected. From December 2009 when the coalition adopted a position on the emissions trading scheme right through to the previous government's broken promise on the carbon tax to today we have been consistent about having a direct action approach to climate change rather than a taxation and regulatory approach to climate change. So there is no doubt that, if the Labor Party were being faithful to the mandate of the Australian people at the election, they would pass the carbon tax abolition bills. The same pertains to the mining tax. Again we promised to repeal this tax and a bill sits in the Senate waiting for the Labor Party to respect the mandate of the Australian people. So we are getting on with the job of keeping our election promises of abolishing the carbon tax and abolishing the mining tax.

We have spectacularly succeeded in keeping our election promise in relation to people smugglers. We said we would reinstitute the policies of the Howard government that protected our borders and stop the people smugglers' trade in its tracks. I think we are up to almost 90 days where there has been no successful arrival of an unauthorised boat carrying unauthorised passengers. That is a remarkable achievement. Full credit goes to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, who has brought together under Operation Sovereign Borders the manifestation of our election commitment to stop the boats and to break the people smugglers' business model.

It is remarkable inasmuch as many people said it could not be done. The now opposition when in government said it was impossible to stop the boats and protect our borders. In the period from August 2008 to the time when they lost office 50,000 unauthorised arrivals came. It was a manifest failure of policy. They said it could not be any different to that. Many of their supporters, friends in the press gallery and the general commentariat agreed that it could not be done, yet within seven months the minister for immigration, because of a courageous and steadfast approach to this issue, has done exactly what we said we would do before the election—and that is get control of our refugee program into Australia and get control of our humanitarian program so that people waiting around the world who have applied through the correct processes, whether it is the Karen in Thailand or the Sudanese in Kenya, would not be pushed aside by those who can pay people smugglers. It is a great achievement and it is a manifestation of us keeping our election promises.

We said we would move the industrial relations regulatory framework back to the sensible centre. I was in the House last month introducing bills that did just that—the Fair Work Amendment Bill. We have done so through trying to re-establish the Australian Building and Construction Commission, a royal commission into union corruption and the Registered Organisations Commission, which will stop dodgy union officials from ripping off hardworking union members. Most of these measures are being opposed by the opposition in the Senate, but I am hopeful that, if the Labor Party has not yet come to its senses, the new Senate in July this year will pass much of this legislation and start the process of reducing the tax burden, reducing the regulatory burden and moving the IR debate back to the sensible centre.

We have also started the process of better budgetary management, ending the waste and mismanagement under the Labor era. We are trying to stop the unnecessary spending in certain areas that has been damaging our budget bottom line, leading us to borrow more and more from overseas—in fact, if no further action is taken to rein in debt there will be $667 billion of government debt—and of course we are trying to address Labor's $127 billion of deficits they accumulated over the period they were in office.

In the budget in May, we will lay down the markers that are necessary to recalibrate the financial management of the Commonwealth government. It is a massive budget, and has an enormous impact on the Australian economy. Unless it is managed prudently, and dare I say it parsimoniously, then we will only continue to see the profligate spending, the ballooning of spending that occurred under Labor for six years. That has left our country in not as good an economic position as we left it in 2007, when against our wishes the keys to the Treasury were handed over to the then Labor opposition.

In my own electorate of Sturt, we made a number of promises before the election, which we intend to keep. One of the promises that I made was that I would do everything I could to keep the Italian Consulate in my electorate of Sturt, in Adelaide. We waged quite a public campaign collecting signatures on the traditional petition and writing to and lobbying the Italian government in Rome. Also, we worked with the local state members of parliament. These are John Gardner, the member for Morialta, in my electorate, who was recently re-elected on Saturday with an increased majority; and Vincent Tarzia who was the then Liberal candidate for Hartley, in my electorate. I am happy to say that on Saturday he was elected to the seat of Hartley with a very substantial swing. Along with John Gardner, he and I worked tirelessly to ensure the Italian Consulate remained open in Adelaide. I am happy to say that after the federal election but before the state election, the Italian government announced that they would be maintaining the Italian Consulate. This means the thousands of my Italian constituents will be able to continue to access the Consulate's electoral and notary services, registrar services, issuing of passports and dealing with social security issues between Italy and Australia.

Before the election, on our rubric of the Safer Streets Safer Communities grants program we also promised that we would install CCTV cameras in the northern part of my electorate, at the Turramurra Recreation Centre in Highbury. This provides added security for about 2½ thousand people who use that centre weekly. It curbs graffiti, vandalism and break-ins that occur in the Turramurra Recreation Centre. That is a $69,000 commitment to CCTV cameras. I am pleased to say that we will be proceeding with that commitment. Also under the Safer Streets Safer Communities grants program, we intend to install improved lighting, particularly car park lighting, at the Balmoral Reserve in Dernancourt. This is also in the northern part of my electorate. Balmoral Reserve was upgraded by the Tea Tree Gully Council. I am pleased to say that we are going to contribute to that upgrading through better lighting and better safety and security for the good residents of Dernancourt.

Also before the election, I made a number of commitments to fund sporting and community operations. The most notable of those of course is the Campbelltown Leisure Centre, a 1970s leisure centre which has been in need of an upgrade for a very long time. I am pleased to say that the now Prime Minister came to my electorate before the election and recommitted to a $7½ million grant to the Campbelltown Leisure Centre. Maybe they can come up with a more modern name now that we are redoing the centre! This upgrade will have a very important impact on recreation, sports and activities in the north-eastern part of my electorate. It already provides for a large number of families and sporting organisations. These include the Norwood Flames Basketball Club, the Campbelltown Futsal Association, squash courts and older leisure organisations or groups. This will mean a massive increase in the number of people who will be able to use the Campbelltown Leisure Centre. From the existing 8,000 people a month who use this centre, upwards of 20,000 people a month will be able to use it. They are going to install a proper sized, eight-lane swimming pool and additional pools for teaching swimming and for toddlers. There will be an enhanced squash court, more basketball courts, futsal courts and an indoor soccer court. The ubiquitous cafe will be installed at the Campbelltown Leisure Centre, along with meeting rooms and administration areas. It will be a very big improvement on sporting facilities in the north-east. I am sure the many of the member for Makin's constituents will use the Campbelltown Leisure Centre, as will mine.

The state government has made a contribution as well. The majority of the money is coming from the federal government, and also the Campbelltown City Council is making a similar contribution. The whole package is about $20 million spent on sport and recreation in my electorate. I have worked very closely with the Campbelltown City Council over the previous few years to deliver that project. I single out Helen Nichols, because she is the Chair of the Campbelltown Leisure Centre Steering Committee. It has been one of the totemic issues in my electorate for many years. Over several elections, the previous federal Labor government refused to fund it, but I am happy to say that we will fund it. The money will flow very soon. The necessary documentation has been put in place, and hopefully that will be up and running in the next year or two.

Under the Community Development Grants Program, we promised that we would help the Burnside Hockey Club, which is in the southern part of my electorate, to build a new hockey pitch costing $400,000. They will also need to add to that amount of money. They will be seeking support from other organisations to do so. Right now, they are looking for the best site in Adelaide's eastern suburbs to build the hockey pitch. The Burnside Hockey Club is one of the biggest and best hockey clubs in South Australia. It has been in need of a permanent hockey pitch home for some time. Many of the families in my electorate are members of the Burnside Hockey Club. I am very glad to be able to take credit for securing that $400,000 for the Burnside Hockey Club. If they read this transcript of Hansard, I remind them that they have to have a new pitch site six months from now. They have been looking for a while. I hope the state government, whether it is Liberal or Labor, will assist them to find that hockey pitch. Any one of the non-government or government schools in my electorate who might have need for an injection of funds for the hockey pitch in their own schools—I am sure they will be able to come to some arrangement with the Burnside Hockey Club. I promised my colleagues that I would not speak for the full 20 minutes, so I will not do so. I should add in passing that I continue my campaign to bring the skull of Pemulwuy, the Aboriginal figure from history, the Aboriginal warrior from the early part of the colony in Sydney, from where you hail Madam Speaker, back to Australia from the Natural History Museum in Britain. It has been a much slower process than I anticipated. I note that His Royal Highness Prince William will be visiting Australia again soon. The last time he was here he went to Redfern and promised that he would help bring back the skull and the remains of Pemulwuy. I have continued that campaign. I hope that Prince William will continue to assist us to do so. The Natural History Museum in London say that they cannot identify the actual remains of Pemulwuy, but we have heard that song before and I think the answer with this campaign is to keep dripping away on the stone and eventually we will succeed.

Pemulwuy is a very important historical figure for Indigenous Australians because much of the story about Indigenous history, from the early part of the colonisation of Australia, was one of disease, very poor treatment and the sense that the Indigenous people were simply badly treated with no resistance. The story of Pemulwuy is one of resistance to the British colonisation. I think we have created the greatest country in the world but we should not bury our stories. The story of Pemulwuy is one that is more inspiring in many respects for young Indigenous Australians because it shows that they had figures of great general ship who succeeded in fighting what they regarded as an unwelcome incursion in Australia. That story is as interesting as all the other stories in our Indigenous past. I hope that we can bring Pemulwuy's remains back to Australia where they belong—they should never have been removed in the first place—and in doing so, perhaps, reinvigorate the interest in his story, which is written by a man called Eric Willmot, who was the Director-General of Education in South Australia and is now retired. I know that there are people who wish to create a movie about Pemulwuy, a digital story of Pemulwuy as part of the curriculum development of Indigenous history. I very much support those efforts and I look forward to continuing that campaign over this 44th Parliament.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the address be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

I have ascertained that Her Excellency the Governor-General will be pleased to receive the address-in-reply at Government House at 4 pm today. The sitting will be suspended at approximately 3.30 pm. I shall be glad if the mover and the seconder, together with other honourable members, will accompany me to present the address.