Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Wide Bay proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The impact of government policies on the physical, social and economic health of rural and regional Australians

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The town of Bourke is one of those few places whose very name resonates in the minds of all Australians. When someone says they are going to the back of Bourke, we know they mean that place of myths and legends—the Australian outback. When Henry Lawson visited in 1893 he said, ‘If you know Bourke, you know Australia.’ I have been to Bourke on a number of occasions and I found its 2,500 people to be resilient, proud and hardworking. They battle through drought, the latest resulting in a loss of about a third of their population. The closure of the railway line some years ago and the decline of the Darling River as a method of transport have both dramatically changed the town. Bourke has survived almost two centuries in one of Australia’s most inhospitable regions, beautiful but harsh, through natural disasters like drought, flooding and changing lifestyles which have seen people move en masse to coastal towns or to larger regional centres.

However, what I see now is the Rudd Labor government, which came to power less than a year ago, trying to outdo all of those natural and demographic calamities and working hard to kill Bourke and so many of the important regional towns and communities around Australia. What this government and its state Labor counterpart are doing to Bourke and other places like it is, frankly, cruel and heartless and uncaring—but it is real. Labor’s decision to change the focus and direction of the coalition’s $10 billion Murray-Darling Basin rehabilitation plan has devastated regional communities. Instead of restoring and modernising the basin’s infrastructure, as we intended to do, so that there would be more water available for the rivers, for the environment and for irrigators, Labor is buying the water entitlements from drought stricken, desperate farmers. It is buying pieces of paper. It is the cheap and lazy way out. It is not delivering water to the environment, but it is hurting, permanently, many rural towns, particularly in New South Wales and Victoria.

There is no account being taken of the long-term social and economic impact on local communities. The promised economic impact assessments before the water purchases have simply not been undertaken. The Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Wong, will not even talk to these people; she will not even meet the very communities that are being decimated by the government’s actions. The government has no concern for these rural communities; it is interested in cheap headlines in the city. But they are just headlines. It is not actually delivering any water. As one of my colleagues said, ‘It is buying air because there is no water there to underpin the water entitlements.’ The decision to purchase the historic Toorale Station at Bourke and effectively turn it into a national park and to channel its water rights back into the Murray-Darling system is a classic example of this action.

We saw on Four Corners just a few weeks ago the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Wong, clearly demonstrating that she had not even been there and that she knew nothing about the property that she had bought. She was prepared to spend $23.75 million of taxpayers’ money without even looking at what she was buying. She said she was going to buy water to restore the river’s environmental health, but she overestimated the amount of water that was available fourfold. She did not know at the time of the purchase that Toorale had virtually no water to send back into the system. She was buying just clear air. She did not know that this vast, once productive property would have to be managed for pests and weeds if it was going to be any kind of useful national park in the future. Senator Wong and her Labor government colleagues did not know or did not care about the hundred direct and indirect jobs that would be lost in Bourke and district. That is 10 per cent of Bourke Shire’s GDP. The minister did not even bother to ask what the impact would be. There was no economic impact assessment and there has been nothing offered from the Labor government for this community to compensate for the water entitlements that have been taken away.

Yesterday, Regional Express airlines—Rex—announced it would be stopping its air services to Bourke. Other services that are to be cut are going to include Dubbo to Cobar, to Coonamble, to Lightning Ridge and to Walgett, and Mudgee to Sydney. I know there is nothing easy about regional aviation, and Rex acknowledged this in its press statement, but it laid the blame for the cancellation of these services clearly at the feet of the government and the government’s decision to axe the en-route subsidy program. The Labor government did not announce this decision in the budget. There was no reference to it in the budget. The Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government quietly wrote to the airlines concerned to tell them that this scheme was going to end and that they should start looking at whether or not any of these services could be maintained.

The reality is that this scheme is going to be phased out by the Rudd government. This scheme, introduced following the collapse of Ansett and the events of September 11, provided help to 40 operators who run services to regional towns that otherwise might be unprofitable. The decision to phase out the rebate was not announced in the budget or even in a press release. The airlines were quietly told by the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government that he was doing this because the routes were now in ‘a significantly stronger position’. Those were the exact words that he used. Tell that to Rex, Minister. Tell the people of Bourke, Dubbo, Coonamble, Lightning Ridge, Walgett and Mudgee that their air services are in better condition.

The rebate is to be phased out over a period of time but, immediately, no new services are eligible for this assistance—no new services. So now that the Bourke services have been cut, no airline that seeks to introduce new services to Walgett or to Bourke will actually be eligible for this support. How, Minister, are these poor regional communities going to manage without air services? How are their children going to get to school? How are people going to do business in the cities without air services? How could a government in the middle of this drought, in the middle of the water buyback, be so cold and heartless as to withdraw support for people’s air services, withdraw support for their connection to the rest of the country? What sort of an uncaring government do we have in these times of difficult economic circumstances in regional communities?

Bourke was originally a port where paddle steamers would ply their trade up and down the Darling. That form of transport was replaced by a more efficient railway until the line was destroyed by flood and never replaced. Now the airlines are going too. The need for good transport links is surely evident to everybody. Surely, it ought to be a priority for a government that cares about people who live outside the capital cities to provide some of these basic services for these small and remote drought stricken, troubled rural communities. It seems it is too much to ask from this government.

This matter of public importance also relates to the government’s policies on the physical, social and economic health of rural and regional Australia. We saw a torrent of taxation in the last budget that will affect all Australians, including people who live in regional areas. They will have to pay these extra taxes. The reintroduction of indexation of diesel excise for truckies and the new car tax are examples of the farcical response that this government is taking to the problems in regional areas. A farmer’s top of the range LandCruiser is now going to be taxed at 25 per cent because a concession was negotiated for farm owners’ vehicles, but if that same vehicle is owned by a shearing contractor he will pay 33 per cent even though he is driving onto the same farm. If he is a doctor visiting remote country patients on dusty or flooded roads, he has to pay the full 33 per cent tax. If the farmer leases the LandCruiser, he has to pay the 33 per cent. He has to pay eight per cent more tax if he leases it than if he buys it direct. What is the logic of this?

What kind of sound financial advice did the Treasury give to the government that concocted this ridiculous scheme? The family Tarago still cops the 33 per cent luxury tax. A large Australian built Holden, which the government is now about to provide $6 billion worth of subsidies for, will attract the 33 per cent tax, but if you go and buy some imported Jaguar, Mercedes, Audi or BMW—the kinds of cars you will see double-parked in Double Bay—you will pay no car tax, none at all. What is the fairness in that, Minister? How do you logically defend that as transport minister? This is an example of the way in which this government cannot see through the impact of its policies and devises a new luxury car tax scheme that subsidises imported cars but taxes Australian produced vehicles.

Talking about the car industry, car buyers and dealers are amongst those who have been critically affected by the government’s mishandling of its support for the banking system and the financial system at the present time. It has been estimated that perhaps half the nation’s car dealers might have to close because of the unavailability of finance for their floor plan and finance for their customers. This issue was simply overlooked by the Rudd government in its rush to guarantee bank deposits and it has done nothing since to repair the damage. How many car dealers, how many car employees, how many workers in the workshop have got to lose their jobs before this government will take the situation seriously?

Let us turn to the shameful situation of our public hospital system. In August last year the opposition leader, Kevin Rudd, was saying that, if he were elected to government, the buck would stop with him. The Greater Western Area Health Service, which administers hospitals in regional New South Wales, is so poorly funded that meat has been pulled from the menus of hospitals because the health service cannot afford to pay the butcher. Suppliers of security, taxis and fresh fruit and vegetables have been threatening to stop doing business because they are not being paid. A baby was born by the side of the road because an expectant mother was told to drive from Cobar hospital to Dubbo hospital. Doctors are paying for patient procedures out of their own pocket. Nurses are being forced to borrow bandages from the veterinary clinic. Surgery is being rescheduled because hospitals have run out of basic items like surgical gloves.

What is the Rudd government’s response to this appalling crisis? The Prime Minister said in parliament in answer to a question from the member for Parkes that he did not know about the situation even though it was in all of the Sydney newspapers that very day. But the government has just changed the rules which encouraged people to take out private health insurance. Treasury says that, as a result, 492,000 people will drop out of private health insurance. Those who remain in private health insurance will see their premiums rise and those who can no longer afford it will drift into the public hospitals, placing enormous new pressures on the already stretched system.

I remind you again that the Prime Minister said that the buck would stop with him. Before the election, the Prime Minister used the phrase 36 times. Thirty-six times he said the buck would stop with him. Since the election, now nearly a year ago, he has used the words only once. The buck stopped with him before the election, but now it is over he has forgotten the commitments and promises he made. The services are not being delivered. The health system is worse than ever.

At the last election we promised to return the management of hospitals to local boards. Local people running their local hospitals would never tolerate the kind of mismanagement that has been evident in so much of country New South Wales. We also said that there would be a fair share of the Commonwealth’s hospital funding dedicated to regional health care as a condition of the next Commonwealth-state health agreement.

We all know about the drought. It is the cruellest we have seen in this country’s history. We all know also of the suffering, how it affects people socially and environmentally. Now Labor want to reform drought aid because they say that exceptional circumstances provisions are not appropriate for assisting those dealing with drought. The theory Labor are trying to promote is that the cause of the present drought is climate change and there is nothing exceptional about it so therefore no-one should get any assistance. They even want to get rid of the word ‘drought’. A government report has suggested it be replaced by the word ‘dryness’. Apparently, Australia will always be dry and it makes people feel bad when the word ‘drought’ is used. This is politically correct nonsense. They are trying to change reality for a political purpose.

The government must continue to be prepared to stand by people in regional communities. They have contributed mightily to our nation’s wealth, our growth and our prosperity over the years and still do today. Do not kill off the communities that mean so much to our country. Give them a fair go. (Time expired)

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to contribute to this debate on the MPI. It is quite extraordinary how weak the Leader of the National Party was—or is it the Liberal-National Party? They are not quite sure what political party they belong to, so it is not surprising that they do not know where they are going. It is clear that following last year’s election I inherited a portfolio which for 12 long years had been overseen by a string of National Party ministers who were consistent in some things. They were consistent in their inaction, in their drift, in their nepotism and in the corrupt way they handled the Regional Partnerships program. They were consistent in that all of them failed to have any policy of reform and failed to deliver for regional Australia. The National Party ministers viewed regional programs as nothing more than barrels of pork for doling out to mates and business associates. That was the way that they saw regional administration.

I have informed the House before about what went on under this program. We know about the ethanol plant at Gunnedah that was never built. There was $1.1 million of taxpayers’ money funded for that project. The proponent of that project said in a Sunday newspaper many months ago that they would pay the money back to the Australian taxpayers. I took up that offer and wrote to the proponent. The department took action on this issue, but there was no response. The money has not been returned.

Then there was the Indigo Cheese Factory in the electorate of Indi, which got $22,000 of taxpayers’ money three months after it closed its doors. Then there was approval for a toilet in Lock—$60,000. There are 290 residents in the town of Lock, so there was $206 for every man, woman and child in that town. That was approved by the former government. Minister De-Anne Kelly, the former member for Dawson, approved 16 projects, worth $3 million, in just 51 minutes prior to an election being called. Their definition of ‘regional Australia’ was very broad. Funding was given under their regional roads program to Campbell Parade, Bondi Beach, which is in the electorate of Wentworth. That was under their ‘regional’ program.

They had the Sustainable Regions Program that plucked out marginal seats and said that they were special and deserved funding. We know that the electorate of Macarthur was plucked out. Not Wollongong, not Goulburn, not Campbelltown and not Liverpool but Macarthur was plucked out as a sustainable region. When they defined the North Coast sustainable region, it began at the electorate of Lyne, which was then held by the Leader of the National Party—it now has better quality representation with the new member for Lyne—and went up the coast and around the electorate of Richmond. Why did it go around the electorate of Richmond? Because they voted Labor. Therefore, the good electorate of Richmond were not regarded as being part of a regional community. They also had the Darling Matilda Way sustainable region that excluded the electorate of Kennedy. It just stopped at the border of that electorate. That program is quite extraordinary.

In the past couple of weeks there has been another clanger in Sustainable Regions that I have not yet had the opportunity to inform the House of. I am very pleased to have been given this opportunity. Barlil Organic Poultry Pty Ltd is a company that has recently had substantial difficulties. It is in Cherbourg in the electorate of Wide Bay, which is held by the Leader of the National Party. On 5 July 2005 this private company got Sustainable Regions funding of almost half a million dollars—$495,000. The now Leader of the National Party became the Minister for Transport and Regional Services the very next day. Notice the timing there? You get your grants out to particular seats and then you become the minister the next day so the previous minister made that decision.

Indeed, the member for Wide Bay opened the project and wrote about it in his newsletter on his achievements between 2004 and 2007 to his electorate. It was a 37-page achievements document—37 pages paid for by the Australian taxpayer. In it he said that the Wide Bay Burnett Sustainable Regions program:

… will leave a legacy of significant projects which will continue to have a positive impact in the region for years to come.

That is what he said about this project—funding a private company. It has now gone bust. It owes a million dollars to creditors, many of them local businesses. Dozens of staff have not been paid their superannuation entitlements. We have half a million dollars of taxpayers’ money down the drain. We have a worker there quoted as saying on Channel 7 news—about the program they regard as top-notch:

I did not want anything to do with it. The bacteria spores were starting to grow on the chickens and they were still quite willing to use them for human consumption.

They are not talking about the bacteria growing on the carcass of the National Party. They are talking about a program in which chicken that was going green was being processed and sent out for sale, so Woolworths cancelled the contract. But what did the leader of the National Party say not beforehand but after this event? On Channel 7 news, in response to this collapse, he said, ‘It showed a lot of promise.’ That was their response, but because of the way the program is structured we are unable to get any of our money back. When I say ‘our’, I am talking about the taxpayers of Australia who have funded this largesse from the National Party opposite.

The fact is that we had the Leader of the National Party stand up here and complain about a number of issues that have occurred. One of the issues that he raised, which is a very serious issue, is Rex Airlines closing their regional routes. That is a serious issue. What did the Leader of the National Party do? I tell you what. Do you know which airline had the highest profit ratio in Australia last year? Was it Qantas? No. Was it Virgin? No. It was Rex. The Rex airline had a 14 per cent profit. I met with the CEO in Singapore two weeks ago. He did not raise the closure of any of these routes, and I say that, if the Leader of the National Party was fair dinkum about representing regional Australia, he should join me in condemning the actions of Rex in closing these routes. It is a betrayal. The fact is that the subsidy that was there, which was introduced in 2001 in the wake of the Ansett collapse as a temporary subsidy, is being withdrawn in 2012. Yet they are shutting the routes now, and the Leader of the National Party wants to score a political point rather than represent the people of regional New South Wales and join me in calling for Rex to reconsider its decision which people in regional Australia will quite rightly be angered about.

The people of Rex have good connections to the National Party. Let me tell you that the Leader of the National Party can pick up the phone and make a difference, and I call upon him to join with me in doing so. What is the contrast?

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Truss interjecting

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is there until 2012—you nong—and they are shutting routes today. I say to the Leader of the National Party that he has really lost the plot. They did nothing over 12 years to truly represent regional Australia. Now they are part of the problem—never part of the solution—as opposed to the new government, which has been moving very swiftly to put its programs in place.

I met with the Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia and with Regional Development Australia just on Monday. We are rolling out our commitments, which we are fulfilling under the Better Regions program. We are concluding all of the arrangements for the Regional Partnerships program. We are delivering some $1.75 billion over five years to extend the Roads to Recovery program—an extra $250 million for local roads. We are contributing $26 billion over the next six years for road and rail projects—the biggest ever infrastructure program. We are establishing the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure program. But one thing that we will not do, and it is in accordance with the report done by the House of Representatives committee, is fund private, for-profit businesses for mates. That is what we will not do. The report clearly recommended that, but we have a minority report from the National Party on that committee stating that they—

John Cobb (Calare, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Reflecting what people want. Read the evidence.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Reflecting what National Party mates want, which is for the rorts for the private sector to continue. The fact is that we are truly representing regional Australia. The fact is that we are working with people of goodwill. Next Monday night and next Tuesday there will be mayors and shire presidents from all over the nation coming to Canberra and being treated with respect like never before from a national government. That is why they have responded so positively.

But those opposite who are not quite sure what they stand for, whether it is the National Party, the Liberal Party or what have you, are so confused. The Leader of the Nationals essentially stated again that he was against the purchase of overallocated water entitlements in the Murray-Darling Basin. I say: is that the position of the coalition? They have been all over the shop on this. If you do not address overallocation in the Murray-Darling Basin, you cannot possibly provide a long-term solution. But it is not just the Labor Party that they are opposed to. They have deliberately stopped any of the three Independent members speaking in this debate. It is not just the Labor Party that they do not want to hear from. When we sat on that side of the House the Independents were given a fair go. I have raised with the Leader of the Opposition the issue of the Independents being allowed to speak in this debate. They have raised it with the Opposition Whip and they have been excluded. Anyone who is fair-minded and independent would regard the 12 years of betrayal by the National Party as a blight on regional policy development and would look towards what the new government has done in just 12 short months to correct the imbalance which was there.

John Cobb (Calare, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to talk on behalf of regional Australia. We have just heard the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government spend a lot of time talking about what we did but could not really put his mouth to anything that his government was doing in a practical sense. I recall that the very first thing the Minister for Finance and Deregulation did for regional Australia—probably by January of this year, two months after they were elected and long before the May budget—was when he decided to cut $640 million worth of programs from the existing budget, and guess where three-quarters of that money came from? About $400 million of it came out of regional Australia.

It is wonderful to hear the minister for infrastructure talk about all the things his government has done in 12 months. I will tell you something else his government did for regional Australia: he has been spending a lot of time talking about the National Party and Regional Partnerships. I travel a bit, and I was in Tasmania 10 days ago with Senator Guy Barnett. One of the things I kept getting asked was: how do we get the money to do a sporting thing for a school or help with a hall—whatever it might be—in a regional town? I said, ‘We can’t help you now; all those programs have been canned. The Labor Party doesn’t like anything that helps regional Australia.’ In fact, that is something the Labor Party really did for regional Australia. It got rid of the program that did more and provided more seed money for more programs than anything that had ever been done in this nation’s history.

To me, it is quite phenomenal that the minister for infrastructure could stand there a few minutes ago skiting about something he knows is a terrible lie. He talks about bad programs. He has not mentioned the fact that he had to admit to David Koch on the Sunrise program that he had not realised that there were a lot of good programs for regional Australia and that he would have to have a look at them. ‘I didn’t realise all these good programs were there,’ he said. Well, they are not there now because he cut them dead. The report he was talking about a minute ago totally ignored the evidence, totally ignored the fact that people want the same program as that which exists now. The government are saying that if they ever bring another program back it will not be for regional Australia; it will be for the whole country. And they want to have it in tight rounds, so it will only be so much money every three months, which means that Tibooburra will have to compete with Sydney. That means that Orange or Mudgee—or any country town—will have to compete with the city for money within that round. But that is doing something for regional Australia, according to the minister for infrastructure!

Let us talk about communications. Today during question time we heard one of the ministers opposite talk about broadband, as well they might—but not if you live in regional Australia. Next year, in 2009, virtually everybody was going to have access to broadband under the contract this government signed with Optus and Elders, but they have absolutely canned that. Now we have—what?—eight years before we might get something. In fact, they have done so much for regional Australia that they took back $3 billion which was targeted for regional Australia. They took $2 billion out of the Communications Fund, which was to keep regional people who were outside the competitive commercial area up with the latest, and another billion dollars from the contract with Optus and Elders which was going to provide broadband for nearly everybody by next year. Now, if they are lucky—after Sydney, after Melbourne, after Brisbane, after Perth, after Adelaide—by about 2015 regional Australia might get something. Mind you, the government does not know what it is going to do with broadband at this stage, and it does not seem to have anyone who wants to tender for it.

A short while ago you heard the Leader of the Nationals talk about water. These are more things that Labor have done for regional Australia. They are so good to us in regional Australia! They have now earmarked $3.6 billion to buy water out of regional Australia. And, yes, there will be people who will buy because, after six years of drought, a lot of them are in deep trouble—and, yes, they have banks on their back. Let us talk about that for a minute—about all these wonderful things the government are doing for regional Australia and how they are going to be situated. Yes, people may sell water—and they do not want a plan. They had an opportunity to do a plan. Now they are saying, ‘Maybe in 2011 or 2012 we will have a plan for regional Australia.’

Deputy Speaker, let me tell you something. They now only care about making Sydney and Melbourne once again think they are dealing with an issue of overallocation of water in the Murray-Darling Basin. They are simply buying. They bought Toorale Station—10 per cent of the turnover of the Bourke shire, four per cent of its rates. That is how good they are to regional Australia! Instead of that station being a bonus for that shire in western New South Wales, it is now a burden on everybody left to deal with it. That town has been hurt by drought for six solid years, it is in its seventh year of exceptional circumstances drought, and yet it has been totally devastated by that policy. As you heard the member for Wide Bay say a minute ago, the Minister for Climate Change and Water had no idea who she was buying the station from, what effect it might have on the town and what it would do. They are so good to us in regional Australia! They are going to buy the lifeblood of the Murray-Darling Basin. They are going to devastate towns. Instead of investing $11 billion or $12 billion to fix it, to make it better and to get savings, they are going to simply go out there and buy it and take it from people—not just the people who have the water who use it to produce the best food in the world, but everybody around them, the towns and everybody who lives there. They are so good to us out there! I just cannot believe how they are so proud of it.

I remember many years ago when Simon Crean became the minister for agriculture—he had come straight into parliament from being the unions’ secretary—and the then president of the New South Wales Farmers Association said, ‘It’s like putting Ned Kelly in charge of the banks.’ Well, I think having the current minister for infrastructure and transport responsible for regional Australia is like having Attila the Hun in charge of a nunnery. He is so good to us! And the Prime Minister and his colleague the minister for climate change are so good to us! If ever there was a time to invest in regional Australia it is now, as the world hits an equity crisis and a credit crisis. They are investing in the car industry, I notice—they found $6 billion for the car industry. Why wouldn’t you invest the $10 billion in the industry, in the water, to hold the productivity? Why would you not do that? You heard the member for Wide Bay, the leader of the Nationals, talking about health, and what he said is correct. He spoke on 25 August last year and said, ‘The buck stops with me on health and hospitals.’ I tell you what: not in the seat of Calare it does not; not in the Orange hospital—the only serious medical centre west of the Blue Mountains and from May to October they did not pay surgeons and visiting specialists. Yet when asked that question by the member for Parkes, what did the Prime Minister do? That is nothing to do with me: he ran a hundred miles an hour. We are so lucky to have you taking every damn thing you are taking out of regional Australia!

Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this MPI, which is on a good subject. Normally when MPIs come before us they are fairly awfully worded and read more like motions from a Young Liberal Party conference. But this is a good MPI: ‘The impact of government policies on the physical, social and economic health of rural and regional Australians’. It is an absolute pity for regional Australia and the National Party that the modern National Party is simply not up to a half decent debate on this subject. There are clearly significant issues in rural and regional Australia that need attention. But they did not get it for 12 years, they will not get it from the current National Party and they will not get it from a leadership so mired in its own past. That has been the weakness of its own public administration and its own inability to serve the needs of its own voters. Most importantly, it is not even capable of seeing the national interest, let alone serving it.

As the global financial crisis tightens its grip, we must be prepared to stand by our regional communities. That is why I had some optimism that in this debate there would be substance on the table and matters debated that went to real issues concerning regional Australia, farming communities and the economic health of our regions. But, no, what we get is another limp-wristed defence of poor, failed regional partnerships and pathetic policies that were designed to do nothing more than pork-barrel their own electorates. There is a common cause: that our government, this parliament, our nation, marshal its financial resources, its intellectual capacity and deals with the current global financial crisis. It is why the government has announced its $10.4 billion fiscal stimulus package. It is why we have taken swift action to deal with bank deposit guarantees. It is why we have been accepting the advice of our prudential regulators, proceeding with skill and with speed. That is in clear contrast to the approach of those members opposite when they were in charge of the prudential regulators. When the HIH collapse came along, not only did they ignore the signals and ignore the advice of the regulators, they did simply nothing, causing massive dislocation in regional Australia as sporting events, community activities and the very fabric of regional society fell apart because of the inability simply to get insurance. It was not something that particularly bothered members opposite. Their concern was the obtaining of donations from HIH, and the prudential regulation which was cared for by those members opposite was merely the prudential interests of the Liberal Party.

I learned something yesterday. Frequently you do learn something in this place. You learn by listening to what is being said. It had not occurred to me that in one of the more tragic and consequential events of the last few days—the difficulties of ABC Learning—the relationship between ABC Learning, Eddy Groves and the National Party was as close as it has turned out to be. It had not occurred to me, although it should have. Why was I surprised to discover that, at the same time the former government put its own donors on the Reserve Bank board shortly after the 2004 election, Larry Anthony had been appointed to a position with ABC Learning and shortly after that to the board of ABC Learning? What we learned yesterday in this place was the size of the donation made by ABC Learning to the National Party. In some of the documents, which I will table here today, that donation is $50,000. According to Eddy Groves, it is a donation from Edmund Stuart Groves, but according to the National Party it is simply a donation from ABC Learning Centres. I make this point: the National Party—a once great political party, a party that gave us people like Ian Sinclair, a party that gave us people like Doug Anthony, a party that used to know and understand the needs and the interests of rural and regional Australia—no longer simply does not represent the interests of rural Australia but does not know what those interests are. It only knows its own interests, and it only knows its own financial interests at that.

I said at the start of speaking in this debate that I was optimistic that we would have a debate that addressed some of the crushing difficulties and issues facing rural and regional Australia. We saw yesterday the launch of Diabetes Australia’s online mapping facility showing the incidence of diabetes across regional Australia. There are health issues to do with stress, to do with youth suicide, to do with diabetes, to do with health care and to do with the delivery of health care in rural and regional communities. Do they get mentioned or acknowledged in this place? No, they do not. What the members opposite go back to, time and time again, is merely Regional Partnerships. In 1996, there were 18 members of the National Party in this place. By 1998, there were 16 members of the National Party in this place. By 2001, there were 13 members of the National Party in this place. By 2004, there were 12. By 2007, there were 10 members. Currently, we have nine. What does that tell you? It tells you that the people of rural and regional Australia are on to something, and what they are on to is the fact that the National Party today is not up to the task of representing rural and regional Australia.

I had a fascinating insight in the past month. It was to watch the election in Western Australia, the election which saw the defeat of the Carpenter government. What we saw in that election was a vigorous campaign by the Western Australian National Party—a campaign around regional Western Australia, a campaign under the tag of ‘Royalties for Regions’. It matters not whether you support the National Party’s campaign in Western Australia or even whether you understand it. What is insightful is that following the election it became clear that the National Party would hold the swing votes in that parliament—the National Party could decide who would become a government, whether it would be Colin Barnett and the Liberal Party or Alan Carpenter and the Labor Party. So the Leader of the Western Australian  National Party did the right thing. He said: ‘I will represent the interests of those people who voted for our members of parliament. I will negotiate with both major parties and get the best deal for regional Western Australia.’ It was not an unreasonable proposition, not an unreasonable thought. It was a completely honourable motivation. But what happened? He got a phone call from the Leader of the National Party in this place, Warren Truss, to say, ‘You will not do a deal with the Labor Party.’ What he said was, ‘You will form a coalition with the Liberal Party.’

The Liberals knew that this heavy-handed approach would come. The Liberals in Western Australian knew that, when it came down to it, the National Party would not stand up for their constituency, they would not stand up for the people who voted for them and they would not stand up for the farmers and communities that need the support; the National Party would merely support the Liberal Party. That is why in this place we see a once great political party reduced to not only a rump but a pathetic rump that knows not where it is going and only looks in the rear-view mirror to see the once great members, frankly, laughing at the underperformance of the current members of the National Party.

When I travel around regional Australia, I am stunned at the inability of the National Party to understand the needs of regional Australia. I am forever thankful that in just 10 months what the new Australian government has done is confirm that a new Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program will be created to help address the infrastructure needs of local communities. It will not be a pork barrel. We started rolling out the biggest ever federal investment in the nation’s rail and road networks—$26 billion over the next six years. We have already delivered $1.75 billion over five years to extend Roads to Recovery and an extra $250 million for local roads. We have provided $1.9 billion this year to help councils and shires deliver important local services. We have announced the first-ever assembly of all of our mayors and executive officers from all around Australia to come to Canberra next week to speak with the Prime Minister and cabinet ministers and to engage in a dialogue that will be productive and in the interests of regional Australia. (Time expired)

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In following the member for Brand in this debate, I am pleased to tell him that he should observe his home town of Whyalla—where the goodly residents of Grey have called upon a Liberal to represent them. I am sure he would be pleased with that result. It is appropriate that 12 months after Kevin Rudd committed to govern for all Australians we should look at what his commitment to regional Australia has been. It is time to match the rhetoric with the achievement. What has been done to support regional Australia in the last 12 months? Well, right at the top of the list, Regional Partnerships, as we know, have been axed. We have just listened to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government taking a broad slam at the Regional Partnerships program. But let us ask: what has replaced it in 12 months? Absolutely nothing has replaced that program. One thing that the minister can never find is supporters in regional Australia who say this was a bad program. The people of regional and rural Australia would like to see a return of the program.

While I am talking about the minister, I might point out that he also took a broadside at the coalition for not allowing an Independent to speak on this motion. The Independents of course can put an MPI up at any time. On this particular MPI they did not rise to support the motion. Having said that, they approached our whip after the start of debate and asked to displace one of our speakers—which, I might point out, would probably have been me—to speak in their place. We look forward to a cooperative relationship with the Independents.

The government have axed the Investing in Our Schools Program and the Community Water Grants program. They have raised taxes, registration and compliance costs for long-haul transport and  extra taxes on farm work vehicles, such as the ubiquitous LandCruiser; and they have tightened assets test guidelines for qualification for exceptional circumstances. Peter White, the President of the South Australian Farmers Federation, or SAFF, said just the other day that South Australian farmers are facing the worst situation for 80 years—since the Depression. It shows just how attuned this government are to the needs of regional Australia when, in the worst drought in recorded history, they slash community water grants and tighten the assets test for applying for exceptional circumstances.

Now we find that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry is either asleep at the wheel or has no regard for those under pressure in the need to respond to the shortfalls in the exit grants program. It has just come to my attention in the last few weeks that in fact the $150,000 exit grants which were brought in last year in September, before the fall of the last government, are not quarantined from creditors. This means that, as land prices are falling and as farmers are under pressure, this incentive that was put in place to try to entice farmers off their properties so they can make a dignified exit from agriculture is in danger of being just gobbled up by the banks. The intention was never for this to be a support mechanism for the banking system; it was to help farmers make the decision to leave the farm with dignity.

The previous Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry was interrupted by the election and at this stage there has been no quarantining of those grants. That means this current minister has either refused to act on this quarantining measure or he does not care. I do not know which one it is, but either is pretty unpalatable to the constituents in my electorate of Grey in South Australia. If you destroy an economy, you will in the end destroy the community. This government has signalled its intention that it is willing to invest in urban infrastructure to support transport systems and to support failing state governments around Australia—to bail them out—but at this stage it has sat on its hands for the last 12 months and not lifted a finger to help rural Australia at a time when it is being challenged by the worst drought in 100 years. There is this discrepancy in the $150,000 exit grants, and I am asking Minister Burke to step up and fix that by making these grants off limits to the banks. (Time expired)

Chris Trevor (Flynn, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is of some interest to note that the honourable member for Wide Bay and Leader of the National Party has moved this MPI in this House. The honourable member for Wide Bay and Leader of the Nationals certainly should above all be aware of the impact of government policies on the physical, social and economic health of rural and regional Australia. The reason he should know about this is that it his party’s impact—or lack thereof, I should say—that lost his party and the previous coalition government the seat of Flynn, my seat in central Queensland. Before the last election this seat was considered a safe rural National Party seat with a margin of 7.7 per cent. That was before it fell into the safe hands of Labor. The National Party abandoned the people of the bush and they paid for it in Flynn. As I move throughout my electorate of Flynn as its proud Labor member and chairman of the Prime Minister’s task force, two things are clear: (1) the previous government’s policies as they relate to rural and regional Australia did not work, as was shown in the last election, and (2) our policies are being welcomed in the electorate, no matter what colour jersey you wear.

On a recent visit to Longreach and Winton in outback Queensland as chairman of the Prime Minister’s country task force, it became clear that our policies were being welcomed by all when it came to rural and regional Australia. The people of rural and regional Australia in that part of the world in my electorate of Flynn welcomed the government’s commitment of $1 billion to the public health system since we were elected; improvements to the dental health system since we were elected; investment, finally, in infrastructure—roads, rail and ports; announcements in relation to tourism, including the western tourism growth corridor; and our Economic Security Strategy policy, which will stimulate rural and regional communities throughout the whole of Australia.

What has become patently clear is that people in the bush feel that the previous government, including the National Party, deserted the bush. Lest there be any argument in relation to their belief in this regard, one only has to look to this side of the House and observe who the members for Leichhardt, Dawson, Capricornia and Flynn are. They are all Labor members and they all hold rural and regional seats. The previous government not once to my knowledge ever looked at the social impact of drought, including the physical and mental aspects and the effects on rural and regional Australians. We acknowledge the social as well as the financial impact that the drought is having on rural and regional Australians.

The Rudd Labor government, my government, is totally committed to rural and regional Australia. We will forge a new direction with local governments. We will give them a seat at the table, rather than rip them off like the previous government did by cost shifting local government costs onto rural and regional Australian ratepayers. We will create a new local community infrastructure program to assist in local infrastructure needs. We will build on Roads to Recovery, roads being a major issue in rural and regional Australia. We will deliver on our rail, road and port bottlenecks, which have held rural and regional Australia to ransom for so long and cost the Australian economy billions. We will keep all our election promises. There is nothing here about ‘core’ and ‘non-core’ promises; we will keep all our election promises and deliver for rural and regional Australia and for all Australians.

Regional Development Australia will be established specifically for rural and regional Australia. We will create Infrastructure Australia and look at giving due and long overdue recognition to the backbone of government in rural and regional Australia—namely, local government throughout Australia.

The previous government abandoned the bush. They failed the bush when it came to rural and regional health, ripping $1 billion out of the public hospital system. They failed the bush when it came to roads, they failed the bush when it came to climate change and they failed the bush when it came to infrastructure, water and broadband. (Time expired)

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the members for Lyne, Kennedy and New England from speaking forthwith to the matter of public importance debate for a period for each speaker not exceeding five minutes and for the time limit for the total debate to be extended accordingly.

I do so because of the failure of the opposition to permit Independents to contribute to this debate which occurred in the last parliament. I really would call upon the opposition to reconsider their attitude. They are attempting to block the voices of members elected to the House of Representatives in these seats.

Margaret May (McPherson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Contrary to what the Leader of the House says, we would never stand in the way of any Independent speaking in this House. They only had to approach us to ask. They can speak.

Question agreed to.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We thank you. It is extraordinary that people from the last government come in here and criticise the Labor Party on this issue. Be my guest; I am an expert in the field of criticising the Labor Party. But they were the government of Australia for 12½ years—

Margaret May (McPherson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Eleven and a half years.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Whatever it was. I will give them 11½ years.

James Bidgood (Dawson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What did they do?

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They did things. I do not want you to think that they did not do things; they most certainly did things. I sit in my office under a picture of Ted Theodore, who built all our sugar mills and our grain silos in Queensland and sold them to the farmers. We thank him. He was a great hero of Queensland. I sit under a picture of Jack McEwen. Jack McEwen, as soon as he was appointed a minister, fought the battle of the pound. He got stuck straight into Menzies and said, ‘There’ll be no going back to the old value of the pound, because that will cheat our farmers out of huge amounts of income.’ And Menzies agreed with him because three times the Country Party had walked out of coalition over the issue of the value of the pound. Doug Anthony, a great Australian, said in 1972 to the Australian press, ‘McMahon will bring down the dollar or I will bring down the government.’ They knew that these were not men to trifle with. These were men who believed in the people who they were sent here to look after and protect.

For 11 years, the National Party sat in this place and presided over the dollar rising from 60c to 95c, and they actually skited about it. They said to us what a wonderful thing it was and that it was a demonstration of how successfully they were running the economy. Well, it was very successful for city Australia and it was very damn painful for those of us who live outside of the cities of Australia.

I cannot speak for the rest of Australia, but for 11 years we went on bended knee and pleaded with the former government, now opposition, to restrain the dollar. Do you know what was holding the dollar up? We all know now what was holding the dollar up, because the minute interest rates went down 0.1 of a per cent the dollar collapsed through the floor. It was the interest rates imposed by the last government that pushed the dollar up through the roof and deprived all of the primary producers of Australia of 50 per cent of their income. They were cheated out of 50 per cent of their income for 10 years. Even the most cursory glance at the history books of Australia tells you what wonderful and great men we were led by in the days of the Country Party under Earl Page, under Artie Fadden, under Jack McEwen and also under Doug Anthony. They were men that made that the issue of government. If that was the issue of government, then these people, the Nationals, stand condemned.

The people of country Australia once gave them 19 seats. When Doug Anthony left we started on our career downhill, where we never took a stand on anything, and we are now down—you are now down—to nine seats. We have gone from 19 seats to nine seats. But did you get the message? No. The man that was responsible for the deregulation of the sugar industry and for handing over every single sugar seat in this parliament to the ALP and to the Independents is now their leader. They rewarded him! In a way, I suppose, if you are a team of losers, you put the best loser up front. He is their chief loser.

I have not got time to speak about Woolworths or Coles or the fact that, within two years of the dairy deregulation, every four days in Australia a farmer commits suicide—the great shame of our nation. Who was responsible for it? These hypocrites that are standing up over here—that is who is responsible.

Time is running out for the people on this side. You have got a chance to introduce ethanol. If you do not, then just remember those six seats went in that direction. (Time expired)

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also thank the member for Grayndler, the Leader of the House, and the member for Fairfax for agreeing to allow the three Independent members in this place to speak. I do note that, as a new member in this chamber, as I work my way through MPIs, committees, speeches and processes in this House in particular, I am increasingly fascinated at the control that the two major political parties have over the process of the chamber. It is a live discussion that is currently taking place with the Speaker. I encourage everyone to participate in it, to think about it and to think about the rights that individual, non-aligned private members within this chamber have as a voice for the people that they represent, as much as anyone else in this chamber.

I also wanted to speak in this debate because there are entrenched matters within regional areas that are reflected within my electorate. I represent an area with some of the lowest individual household or family incomes compared with anywhere within Australia. I represent one of the highest unemployment regions by comparison with anywhere in Australia. This is why so many people, on 6 September this year, chose a different style of representation for the mid-North Coast of New South Wales, because they do genuinely want to get out of the entrenched position that we are in by comparison with the rest of Australia. There is a lot of work to do, both for the coalition that has just gone into opposition and for the new government, the Labor Party, that is currently in charge.

The three issues I want to raise that will be, I guess, a test of faith for the communities of the mid-North Coast are, firstly, Regional Partnerships, which we have already heard discussed in this chamber. The last 12 months in particular were a disgusting period of life on the mid-North Coast, where we saw handshakes done—the old ‘men of honour’ doing the handshakes for the photos—yet behind their backs and not in the photos were the crossed fingers and the broken promises that were never fulfilled. The Lake Cathie Medical Centre, the Wauchope-Bonny Hills Surf Club, Visiocorp Taree—a car industry manufacturing plant—are all key parts of life on the mid-North Coast. They are now filthy with the way they were treated over the last 12 months, and all I might say are incredibly valuable projects for life on the mid-North Coast. That is for the coalition to reflect on—the handshake with one hand and the fingers crossed behind the back with the other. But also, I say to the government, reflect on the importance of these projects to community life, because they are of value and I, as the new member, will continue to chase them. Again, I would hope that the old handshake contract is one that does mean something. Surely the last thing that professional politics needs is more cynicism towards the promises given by members of parliament, particularly ministers, even deputy prime ministers, regardless of who they are personally.

As well, I would raise the issue of anomalies in GP services within my area. It astounds me, as I try to get my head around why we are a region that struggles so much to get GPs into our area, that a GP setting up a practice in a place such as Hastings Street in Noosa—one of the most sought-after streets in Australia—receives a $60,000 incentive to do so; yet for a GP to go to my area, which has one of the lowest incomes, one of highest unemployment rates and one of the highest ageing demographics in Australia, there is absolutely no incentive. This RRMA scale is an absolute anomaly that is still alive and creating inequities and unfairness right throughout this country. It is creating winners and losers. It is creating a region against region situation—the battle of the Hastings: Hastings Street, Noosa versus the Hastings Valley on the mid-North Coast. I would hope that the government can overturn what is an outrageous GP program that was left to us by the coalition.

Likewise, I have got a struggle on the ground with the Australian technical colleges. My area was one that actually did get two colleges up and running. We have had to struggle to get 350 students, 43 staff and $17 million of taxpayers’ money resolved in the Port Macquarie community, and we are still unresolved when it comes to Taree. It is looking like a padlock job at the moment. There was no long-term sustainability in education from the opposition and there is no plan as yet from the government. (Time expired)

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In this matter of public importance debate I would like to give a little bit of history. Since Federation, there has not been a parliament that has been able to form a government without a country member in it. There has been a lot of preoccupation today about the fairly dismal performance of the National Party in the last parliament. I think there is a message in this, and the member for Kennedy touched on it, for the current government as well. There has not been a government formed in this parliament without a country member. Some people, particularly some people in the country—and the poor old National Party are going through this problem themselves—are assuming that they are a minority and therefore can never really make a contribution to the parliament.

We are in a unique period of our political history. The two sides of parliament—the city based dominant factions on both sides of the parliament—are almost identical. So this is a unique period, and I think that is one of the reasons that people in the country are looking for alternatives such as Independents and some of the minor parties in the Senate. Given that unique period of our political history—the sameness of the city based parties—the country could express itself in a different fashion. The former member for Gwydir, who has just carried out an inquiry recommending that the National Party merge with the Liberal Party, is betraying the very power that that once great party may well have had. That will be up to others. I think there is a warning to all country members in the parliament: do not ever forget that a government has never been formed without a country member as part of it.

Another issue that I would like to touch on is the hypocrisy demonstrated here earlier. I agree again with the member for Kennedy that the Labor Party is at a crossroads. You have been able to buy 12 months and there are a number of commitments out there, and the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government and the Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia alluded to some of those. They are all well and good—and they are particularly good in terms of infrastructure—but they have not been delivered yet. The next 12 months are going to be very important in terms of the delivery of some of those, particularly the major infrastructure items. But I point out the hypocrisy that the Leader of the Nationals and others demonstrated—as did the Leader of the Opposition in an earlier debate, if I may mention that. The Fuel Sales Grants Scheme was brought in by the former government to compensate country people for the difference in the goods and services tax that they would have to pay in relation to fuel, because the price of fuel was higher in the country than in the city and we were obviously facing a dual tax system. The Fuel Sales Grants Scheme was brought in to compensate for that and the compensation offered amounted to up to 3c a litre.

That government—not the current government, the previous government—removed that, so now there is a dual system. Country people pay more GST on their fuel than their city cousins. When you look back at that, the hypocrisy in accusing any government about taxation and the way it is operating at the moment is stark. When he was Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, the current Leader of the Opposition promised the people of the Liverpool Plains, in front of a television camera that went to news that night, that he would fund an independent study into the potential impact of mining on the groundwater systems of the Namoi Valley—and then betrayed those people by giving a directive to the departmental head to do nothing. The hypocrisy of suggesting that the new government has not done anything yet when these sorts of things were going on behind the scenes is stark.

The final nail was the new member for Calare. This week is the 12-month anniversary of the death of the former member for Calare. To listen to that man, the new member for Calare, and compare him to the former member for Calare—and to hear him say about the Regional Partnerships program and the absolute rorting that went on that it reflected what people want—is staggering. If that does not demonstrate a party and a philosophy that has absolutely betrayed its constituency and its integrity and any capacity to represent country people in the future, I do not know what does.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for the discussion has expired.