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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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