Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I go on with what I was about to say, I was listening very carefully to the member for Murray’s contribution to the grievance debate, which was about people smugglers and refugees. I must say that I am very proud to be part of a government that is dealing with the situation in a level-headed way and sincere way, a way that is not inciting the Australian public. What the member for Murray did not tell us is what they are planning to do—what she would do if she were in government—and what the alternatives are. We have not heard any alternatives from the opposition at this point. I would like to repeat the questions the Minister for Foreign Affairs asked today: would they bring barbed wire? Would they bring back the Nauru project? Would they bring back temporary protection visas? These are questions that have not been answered by the opposition. In defence of the Rudd Labor government, we are dealing with the situation in a very level-headed manner and in a way that is not inciting the Australian public. We are not using this for political purposes, which is something that we saw in the past.

I planned to speak about other things tonight. One of the things that I really wanted to speak about was preventative health. As Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing, I want to talk about the work that we do. We have spoken with many people—experts, professors, doctors and many people who know the area of health—and they have all been giving us one message. They have been all been telling us one thing: preventative health measures make the most sense. Preventative health measures are cheaper, less disruptive to people’s lives and cause less grief and fear, fewer side effects and complications. We know that from campaigns that have been run in the past that educating and teaching the public about what they can do to avoid illnesses works. We have seen many successful campaigns over the years.

It is a very important message that preventative health is common sense. I was disappointed that the Liberal Party today voted against the establishment of Australia’s first national preventive health agency. In doing so, the Liberal Party established itself as being possessed by the opposite of common sense: it was completely daft, irrational, illogical and irresponsible. Voting against the establishment of the Australian National Preventive Health Agency serves only to establish the opposition as obstructionist, devoid of policy and oblivious to the best interests of millions of Australians. By voting against this measure, they are voting against cheaper costs and less disruption to people’s lives and for the causes of more grief, fear, side-effects and complications, because preventative health is common sense and the way to go.

This could have been anticipated, looking at the positions of the Liberal Party over time—and there are many positions to look at. The opposition has only wanted to work in retrospect. For example, in government and now in opposition the coalition parties want to deal with climate change only after the Murray-Darling has become a desert, not before. They want to deal with the global recession after our economy collapses, not before. They want to deal with road, rail and harbour development only after the mining boom ends, not before. They want to deal with school retention rates after they bottom out, not before. They want to deal with crumbling public housing stock after it has been condemned, not before. Nothing could be more typical of the coalition parties than their desire to do nothing and blame everyone else after the fact. The opposition is always looking at the view to their rear. It is living in the past and politicking on current choice as a throwback to 2001. Its lot is to try to lead from the position of yesterday.

We all know that pensioners, and age pensioners in particular, have been doing it very tough for some time. I know this because I have one of the oldest electorates in the country. Well over 20 per cent of people in the electorate of Hindmarsh are aged 65 or over. Many of these people are pensioners, many of them are suffering ill health and many of them feel the effects of isolation in the community. These people have deserved more assistance. I have said this publicly for many years. I am pleased that the Rudd government was good enough to give pension increases last September in extremely difficult economic times. I praise the Rudd government for those pension increases.

Pensioners—the people I spoke about in my electorate, and in fact in electorates all over Australia—often are living without any savings and without any investments but with substantial recurrent costs to meet. They deserved the full increase in the pension that was handed out to them by the Rudd Labor government. So it is unacceptable that some state governments callously want to exploit some of the most vulnerable in our community, as I read in the paper yesterday. I read that some states may increase some public housing rents because of the increase in the pension. They cynically double-deal with the goodwill of the Rudd government and take more than they should for public housing services. Since coming to power, the Rudd government has done more to assist our most vulnerable than the previous government did in over a decade. This was the first substantial increase in pensions, and it took a Rudd Labor government to come up with that increase. What each state is doing on this front is yet to become crystal clear, but they should each be aware of the likely consequences of trying to exploit the needy in our community. Those pensioners deserve that increase, they deserve that extra amount of money, and to claw it back by increasing public housing rents I think is a very callous act. But we are yet to see this story fully played out.

Another issue in my electorate is a Telstra issue. It has diminished the service it is making available to customers through MPs’ offices. I am not sure about other MPs in other states, but in my state of South Australia previously there were contact points within each electorate office to speak to and resolve constituents’ issues with Telstra. This particular service has been revoked and we have been told to only use email to put our complaints forward or to see how we can have a particular constituent’s inquiry investigated. The customer service people who used to take our calls and assist us were extremely helpful, but that service is no longer available to MPs—at least in South Australia.

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not right; I have immediate contact with Telstra.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This letter came through my office. I received it last week and I would be more than happy to show it to the member. It says that you should only email this particular department to resolve your issues and that they are not taking phone calls. So again Telstra have revamped their assistance services to reduce the direct customer contact that MPs’ offices can have; it is indicative of a company which has an attitude that betrays a disrespect for customers, a disregard of quality service and an orientation towards working behind closed doors—out of sight, out of earshot and removed from those they preferred not to be associated too closely with.

Telstra has incited frustration for years. We saw the frustration it has caused the many pensioners when it wanted to charge them $2 if they did not have an internet service to receive their bills. I have raised this before. Even though there is an application they can make not to be charged the $2 if they do not have the internet services, I think it is a callous company that wants to charge you for sending you a bill. I again praise the Rudd government for taking Telstra to task as it currently is and for challenging the effective monopoly that they have not just enjoyed but cynically exploited by any means conceivable. I look forward to the fibre-optic cable rollout and constituents’ access to an alternative network of infrastructure that will deliver to them the service that they deserve.

In the last minute or so that I have left, I say that this government has also been good enough to make available funds for the replacement of an important piece of transport infrastructure in the Glenelg area of my electorate: the King Street Bridge. This conflict has been ever present with the residents, council and state governments. Some want it replaced, and I am glad that it will be soon. (Time expired)

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.