Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to open the debate on behalf of the opposition on the three appropriations bills which form the additional estimates for 2014 and 2015: Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2014-2015, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2014-2015 and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2014-2015. In total, these three bills seek to appropriate an additional $1.7 billion for the current financial year. I am hardly breaking suspense when I say that Labor will not be blocking supply and that we will be supporting these bills.

The amounts in these bills are actually already factored into the budget bottom line as presented in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, MYEFO, which was presented last year. The three appropriations bills reflect changes in expenditure as a result of those MYEFO decisions, as well as machinery of government changes that were announced as part of the ministerial reshuffle prior to Christmas last year—and in advance of the next reshuffle, which we presume is imminent. These machinery of government changes included renaming the departments of education and industry and moving responsibility for child care to the Department of Social Services. The 2014-15 MYEFO measures that are subject to the appropriations in these bills include additional funding for Defence overseas operations; additional funding for a number of agencies, including the Federal Police, Customs and ASIO, for counterterrorism activities; and a further measure for community engagement programs as part of the Countering Violent Extremism program. I would note that there is a concern from the opposition as to how quickly the government is able to make sure that that money is in fact out and into the community. Funding for the Department of Parliamentary Services and the Australian Federal Police to enhance the security of Parliament House will, according to MYEFO, include upgrades to CCTV and access systems, additional Parliamentary Protective Service staff and an increased AFP presence here.

Also covered here is funding for the Department of Employment in relation to the Job Seeker Compliance Framework measure; $90 million for the Department of Agriculture for concessional loans under the Drought Recovery Concessional Loans Scheme; funding for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for the establishment of a temporary embassy in Ukraine; funding for the Department of Health to provide upgrades to the Metricon Stadium facilities for the Gold Coast Suns AFL club; and—as appears in my notes, and I think my staff have put this in to make me feel bad, given the NRL Grand Final last year, but I am sure the member for Grayndler will be pleased to know that these bills include this—funding for the South Sydney Rabbitohs Community and High Performance Centre of Excellence. So $10 million is going to the club that defeated mine in the Grand Final last year. Notwithstanding that, we are still not blocking supply. There is funding for the Department of Finance in relation to the Kenbi land claim on the Cox Peninsula.

But what the MYEFO showed—which needs to be noted in the context of these bills, regardless of what we often hear from the dispatch box from those opposite—was an increase in the budget deficit in comparison to the 2014-15 budget, and a $44 billion blow-out over the forward estimates. This represents a $202 million blow-out in the budget deficit over the forward estimates by the Liberal-National government for each of the 216 days between the May 2014 budget and MYEFO last year—blowing out their budget by $202 million a day, while all the time turning up to the dispatch box each day claiming that they were doing something about debt and deficit. Blowing it out by $202 million a day does not exactly meet the criteria that the government have claimed or the spin that they have put out into the community. To put it another way, since coming into government, based on the figures in the independent PEFO document prepared by the public servants under the Charter of Budget Honesty, the budget deficit in 2014-15 has blown out by $16.4 billion—from $24 billion then to $40.4 billion now.

We heard prior to the election from the then opposition that if debt was the problem more debt was not the answer. Yet debt keeps on increasing over the forward estimates. Gross debt is $100 billion higher. Net debt is $146.3 billion higher in MYEFO than it was in the 2014-15 budget. Overall, debt is higher now than it was when the Liberal-National government took office. Gross debt in 2014-15 was forecast in the pre-election forecasts to be $330 billion. It is now $367 billion. Net debt, under the Charter of Budget Honesty, was forecast to be $212 billion. It is now $244 billion. We are aware of the falling commodity prices, particularly iron ore, and the effect that that has on the budget bottom line. However, this does not account for the majority of the deterioration in the budget bottom line.

We were told by those opposite that there would be an instantaneous adrenaline charge to our economy—an instantaneous surge of confidence—if the coalition were only voted in. But take a look at the other economic indicators. Unemployment is at 6.4 per cent, up from 5.7 per cent at the time of the last election—5.7 to 6.4 since the election. That is the highest it has been since August 2002, when the current Prime Minister was in charge of employment. Consumer confidence remains low—nine per cent lower now than it was at the time of the last election according to Westpac and the Melbourne Institute.

Anybody from the government taking heart from the last Westpac and Melbourne Institute consumer confidence figures—which did show an increase, with the index showing more optimists than pessimists for the first time since February 2014—should understand why consumer confidence increased: the Reserve Bank had cut interest rates for the first time since August 2013 as a sign of a weak economy; petrol prices had seen a 21 per cent decrease on average in the last two months; and there was a surging share market, with a 9.7 per cent increase in the share price index in the last month. These are things that were really out beyond the control of the government. Most interestingly, the leadership tension within the Liberal Party—the unrest in the government—certainly showed in a sharp fall in the confidence amongst coalition voters, but confidence of ALP supporters, third party voters and the undecided was boosted significantly, to deliver the overall positive result. Business confidence remains below long-run averages.

The 2014-15 MYEFO itself shows the impact of increased unemployment and weakness in the economy, reflected by its slower wage growth, with taxes from individuals being revised down by $8.6 billion over the forward estimates. So the economy is weak, unemployment is high and confidence has not really recovered since taking a battering after the last budget. You cannot expect confidence to increase when you are attacking the household budget.

Let us not forget that the budget bottom line, as shown in this MYEFO document, still incorporates a series of broken promises. They are factored into the budget blow-out. So those opposite cannot say, 'Oh, the budget blow-out's because legislation hasn't made it through the Senate.' These numbers presume that the government has been able to get all of its legislation through the Senate, and, notwithstanding that, we see that it is still blowing debt and deficit out. Measures such as the introduction of the GP tax, for which we saw a revision of in the 2014-15 MYEFO but around a month later in January saw another key element of the new measure in an increase to consultation times, jumped. That is not reflected in these figures.

The government is thoroughly confused on these issues. First it was a co-payment, then a price signal. We have latest heard that it is a value signal—not that the minister or anyone opposite is able to explain exactly what the difference is. The savings from this were supposed to go into the medical research future fund, which was supposed to be set up on 1 January 2015, and there are signs that the government is now wavering on this as well. We have consistently said that we support medical research, but we do not support funding medical research by putting a tax on people on the condition that they are sick.

Cuts to pension indexation lead to what the Australian Council of Social Service estimated to be an $80 per week cut to pensioners, and this cut is very clearly budged for. Page 203 of budget paper No. 2 shows the $449 million cut through indexing the pension and other payments by the consumer price index. The Parliamentary Budget Office has calculated the impact over the decade of the government's budget measures, including the change to indexation of the aged pension. What the Parliamentary Budget Office found was that the change to indexation would cut $23.4 billion from the aged pension over the decade 2024-2025.

Cuts to various family payments, including measures such as restricting access to family tax benefit part B to families with children aged under six, reducing family tax benefit part A and B supplements and freezing family tax benefit payment rates for two years lead NATSEM to estimate $6,000 being cut from a typical Australian family's budget per year.

There are measures here that essentially leave job seekers with nothing to live on for a period of six months. A measure we saw the other week was one of the Prime Minister's captain's picks. Plans for $100,000 university degrees through its plans for university deregulation and the increases in the petrol tax are here as well. These bills also deal with the cuts to the ABC and SBS, where the MYEFO saw a further $250 million cut to ABC and SBS following on from the budget measure which had already cut $43½ million from the two broadcasters. And foreign aid had a further $3.7 billion cut in MYEFO following the $7.6 billion cut in last year's budget. That is a total of $11.3 billion cut from foreign aid. These cuts collectively have made foreign aid as a percentage of our gross national income the lowest it has been since records have been kept.

Of course, with all of that, for all that these figures represent policies that we oppose, it would be irresponsible for us to do anything other than support supply and to see these appropriation bills go through. But be in no doubt: those in the opposition will be making sure the full impact of these bills is well understood. With that in mind, I move:

That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading the House notes that:

(1) the 2014-15 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook showed a $44 billion blow-out in the budget deficit over the forward estimates from the 2014-15 Budget, which represents a $202 million blow-out in the Budget deficit by the Government each and every day;

(2) Government debt is higher now than it was when the Government took office;

(3) the Budget bottom line in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook incorporates a series of broken promises, including: the introduction of the GP tax, increasing the petrol tax, cuts to pension indexation, $6,000 cuts to a typical Australian family, plans for $100,000 university degrees, cuts to the ABC and SBS, and a $11.3 billion cut from foreign aid;

(4) the Government continues to undermine business and consumer confidence with its unfair Budget, which are now below the levels at the 2013 Federal Election; and

(5) the Government's failure to have a clear plan for economic and jobs growth has led to the unemployment rate increasing to its highest level since August 2002, when the current Prime Minister was the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations."

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It certainly is.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today I would like to speak of the situation in Burma. I raise this issue on behalf of my constituents of Karen and Chin heritage and on behalf of the ethnic nationalities in Burma. It is true that many ethnic peoples of Burma have come to this country as refugees. We should understand why this has been the case and why we continue to take some 1,900 refugees a year from the camps on the Thai-Burma border. I thank my friends from the Karen and Chin communities in Perth and my friends from many ethnic groups in Burma who have provided me with the information to allow me to better understand the history of Burma and the situation that exists to this day.

There was a time when the Burmese government was the subject of sanctions. At that time, the acknowledged leader of the opposition, Aung San Suu Kyi was under house arrest, many dissenters were in jail and the leadership of Burma wore uniforms. Of course, the sanctions are now gone, and the uneducated observer would believe that Burma has made progress and is somehow worthy of our trust. However, this is, sadly, not the case. The reality is that there is not a true democracy in Burma. My point is that the government of Burma is not worthy of this nation's trust but they are deserving of our sanctions, and I will justify that statement in this speech.

There has been a civil war in Burma for 66 years. That means 66 years of continuous fighting and 66 years where Burma has been held back, all because of the unwillingness of the regime in Burma to adopt a federal democratic system. Peace could be achieved by offering such a federation where the ethnic peoples of Burma would have the peace, freedom, self-determination and personal safety that they desire. But, despite that clear opportunity for a very easy way forward, the regime in Burma resists that chance.

Why? They do so because they know the truth about some demographic realities. They know that people of ethnic heritage actually outnumber ethnic Burmans. To conceal that fact, they try to count some Buddhists as Burmans. That of course is not true; 60 per cent of the population of the country are the so-called 'ethnics'—of non-Burmese ethnicity—and more than 60 per cent is the territory of the ethnics.

At the heart of a regime such as Burma is the first priority: self-preservation, a determination to hold onto power at all costs. Obviously that ambition is helped by ensuring that the ethnic people are prevented from ever having the opportunity to vote. They have also locked up control of the houses of parliament by having a constitution that ensures one-third of all seats in both houses go to the military. Apart from the parliament, the key positions in every part of the government and the public service are held firstly by Burmese Buddhists, then other Buddhists, then Burmese Christians and then ethnics that are Christians.

The leadership of the government is of course the same former military leadership that has controlled Burma since 1988. They just wear suits now; there is no other difference. I, therefore, say that the fact that Aung San Suu Kyi leads the National League for Democracy does not make Burma a real democracy. She cannot run for president, because she married a foreigner, and the NLD is not even eligible to run for one-third of the seats in the houses of parliament.

Leaving the obvious absence of true democracy to the side, I just want to talk about some other stark realities that we should be aware of. Although it is not well known, in every ethnic state in Burma there is fighting, and the Burmese Army is seeking to increase their troop numbers, despite there being a so-called ceasefire in some states. It must also be noted that the regime seeks to make use of the natural resources of the ethnic states for their own purposes.

Last month I visited Thailand and the border region of Burma at my own expense with my friend, and a long-term supporter of the Karen community, Scott Johnson. I went because I know many people from the Karen Welfare Association in Perth and the Tribal Refugee Welfare Association in Perth. They have told me about what was really going on inside Burma. I thank Connie and Keith Allmark for their advice and for everything they do for the Karen community, and also for the decades of support they have provided to refugees from the ethnic areas of Burma.

I also thank Paul Kyaw, the President of KWA, and his team of Richard Lwin, Charity Htoo, Joansy Pegrum. I also thank Major-General Nerdah of the Karen National Defence Organisation, and well-known Karen politician David Thackabaw for their support and hospitality during our visit.

I have heard consistent reports of brutality and atrocities, but as the source of some of my comments today I would like to pay particular tribute to an excellent organisation, the Free Burma Rangers. I encourage anyone who doubts the validity of what I say today to look at their website freeburmarangers.org. FBR is a multiethnic humanitarian service. They send teams, provided by ethnic pro-democracy groups into the areas under attack by the Burmese Army in order to provide emergency medical care, shelter, food, clothing and human rights documentation. The teams use a communication and information network inside Burma that provides real-time information from areas under attack. Primarily they are about health, and reporting the facts of what is going on.

Free Burma Rangers began as a result of the Burmese Army offensives in 1997. The establishment was a reaction to the destruction of villages, murders and over 100,000 people fleeing their homes. To this day over one million people are still displaced inside Burma. In that time over 250 multiethnic relief teams have been trained. There are now 71 full-time teams active in Arakan, Chin, Kachin, Karen, Karenni, Kayan, Lahu, Mon, Naga, Pa-Oh, Palaung and Shan areas of Burma. The teams have treated over 500,000 patients and helped over 1.1 million people.

It is an impressive organisation that has done great good, but again I know that some people think Burma is going well. For those who think that, I would like to talk about the recent Free Burma Rangers reports. On 2 December 2014, the rangers reported that there had been no reduction in violence between Burmese Army forces and ethnic groups, in spite of the international attention President Obama's visit to Burma received. The two-week period which included the president's visit was marked by 20 clashes between the Burmese Army and ethnic groups. These clashes resulted in the deaths of 24 ethnic resistance fighters, along with 28 wounded; while four Burmese Army soldiers died and one was wounded. The Burmese Army moved more than 1,508 troops, 48 supply trucks and 38 supply horses, and operated five transport and reconnaissance aircraft in northern Shan state and Kachin state. These figures reflect an active military operation, not the actions of a peacekeeping force.

On 11 December it was reported that on 19 November 2014, the Burmese Army's Light Infantry Battalion 390 fired a 105 millimetre Howitzer at the Kachin officer training school in Waingmaw in Kachin State, killing 23 trainees. That included two Free Burma Rangers that were present. Later on, the Burmese shelled villages and displaced persons camps, killing three more people. The Free Burma Rangers also reported that two Kachin girls were raped and killed on 19 January 2015 by troops of the Burmese Army. The girls were named Maran Lu Ra, age 20, and Tangbau Hkawn Nan Tsin, age 21. They were Kachin Baptist volunteer missionaries working in northern Burma along the Kachin-Shan state border. The rape occurred in the KBC church compound in northern Shan state. On the night of 19 January, Burmese Army troops came into the church ground where the girls were sleeping, raped them and then beat them to death.

At Nam Lim Pa Village in Kachin state on 30 January, the Free Burma Rangers teams found three bodies with evidence of torture. All three were killed when the Burmese Army attacked in late November 2013. A total of seven people were killed in or nearby the village. One of the victims was La Bang La Ring; he was killed by the Burmese Army in Nam Lim Pa and found with six deep knife or axe cuts on his back, as well as other signs of torture. He was a deaf-mute.

Nhkun Brang Aung was 20 years old and mentally disabled. When everyone else was fleeing the advancing Burmese Army troops, he said he was not afraid of the Burmese Army because he did not believe troops would bother someone like him.

Another unidentified body was found with rope burns; his head had been scalded with boiling water; his body bore signs of additional torture; he had been shot to death.

When Scott Johnson and I visited Mae Sot in Thailand, we met with a number of Thai, Karen and others from different ethnic groups. I even met with a mine clearer who told me how significant the Burmese Army mine threat was. He is doing a great job of recruiting and training local ethnic people to help clear the mines. For me the use of mines by the Burmese Army is a significant issue. The Burmese Army operates hundreds of outposts and camps in the territory of the ethnic peoples. They lay antipersonnel mines around these posts and when they leave, they leave the mines behind. Upon reoccupation by the local ethnic villagers, some mines get cleared but sometimes someone is killed or maimed before they clear the mines or if they trip a mine that has been missed.

When I visited the Mae Tao Clinic in Mae Sot in January, I visited the prosthetic limb workshop and saw where they assist those victims of the Burmese army's landmines. When I was at Oo Kray Kee village in Karen State, Burma, I saw some people that had lost limbs.

I believe that the Burmese regime should be held accountable for their use of landmines. I have also been told that in June 2011 in the north of Shan State, the Burmese army even used chemical weapons. I should also mention that there are consistent allegations that the Burmese have a strategy of selling drugs into the ethnic communities. These are the strategies of the Burmese regime and they should be known.

In my visit to the region and from what I have seen, I certainly found the 'ranger' reports, the stories of other people I met and some of the sights quite disturbing. I did, however, find the many ethnic leaders and the Karen people I met inspiring. I saw many young men and women carrying weapons and I saw the people living in very basic conditions, yet determined to fight on for a better future. I saw five-year-old children delighted with the new thongs they had just been given. I met two boys of eight and five years old, who had been orphaned when their parents had been shot in front of them or had disappeared. When asked what they wanted to do when they grew up, they answered, 'To be soldiers.' It was a moment I will never forget.

I also met a number of leaders of the UNFC, or the United Nationalities Federal Council. They represent the majority of the people in the ethnic nations within Burma. They have 12 member nationalities and four associate groups. The UNFC want peace and a democratic Burma, and we should listen to them.

Firstly, they want to sign a nation-wide ceasefire, but not yet. Overall they want a federated union based on the original Panglong Agreement of 1947. The union they want must be state based and the nation should be divided into states. They told me that although there would be around 20 states, only about four would be Burman-majority states. Several of the districts currently said to be Burman majority are actually more Karen majority areas. Having such a system would see federal and state parliaments. Specifically, they want constitutions for each state and a revenue base. Nationally, they of course want a real constitution and not the current one that enshrines the military in a third of all seats, and not the 2001 constitution either.

When I asked the UNFC what they would like Australia to do, the first thing they said was that although the Australian embassy was active, it was not active enough in pursuing reform in Burma. In particular, the UNFC wants the ambassadorial-level Peace Donor Support Group to meet with them, but also to bring the Burmese government and the ethnics together for talks.

Another concern of the UNFC is how more nations and even NGOs are channelling aid through Burma itself, giving the regime the opportunity to exert more control. The position of the UNFC is therefore that it is not yet the right time to invest in Burma or even to allow aid through the central government. In some cases it is alleged that foreign aid is being used for the construction of roads for military use so they can access ethnic areas in order to repress the ethnic peoples. In any case, the border region is being increasingly starved of aid monies and this is making it very difficult to support the refugee numbers along the border. In particular, it is said that the rice and other food going to refugee camps is being reduced as foreign governments tell their NGOs to go into Burma rather than continuing their efforts along the border.

There are some places in the world where internally displaced populations are useful for political mileage, such as the camps in the Palestinian Authority controlled areas and supported by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. This is not the same at all. The refugee camps along the Burma-Thailand border are there not for cynical political advantage but because it is just not safe inside the ethnic areas in Burma.

As I have said already. The unscrupulous use of landmines, torture, murder and rape by the Burmese military show exactly what sort of threat the people face. The situation is just not safe for the mass movement of refugees back inside the borders of Burma. The trouble is that through the premature diplomatic embracement of Burma, Western nations, China and others in the region are providing tacit consent, whereas we must hold the regime in Burma to account.

To conclude, I say that I have great respect for the ethnic peoples of Burma. They are long suffering, and the privation and challenges I saw in January and at the start of this month are a day-to-day existence for them. Support from Australia and internationally can be achieved. I have laid out what they want and we should act to assist them. If we do not, then the fighting will continue. If we do not, the maiming, the torture and the rape will continue. If we do not, then people will continue to die at the hands of the regime.

As I saw in Oo Kray Kee in Burma, the Karen and many of the other ethnic nations have been involved in 66 years of civil war to defend themselves and their culture. They have the materiel capacity to maintain their resistance and they have the will to maintain their resistance. The only way that this war, the killing, the maiming and the rape will stop will be through international pressure. All can be resolved with a true democracy of federated states. It is time to act.

Eric Hutchinson (Lyons, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure indeed to rise and speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2014-2015. It gives me an opportunity in the context of this bill to discuss what has been for me a privilege to be part of a team here in Canberra and more recently working with my state colleagues, with the single focus of delivering for Tasmanians and for the wonderful state that I come from—particularly for my electorate of Lyons.

The people in my electorate and the people of Tasmania are focused on seeing us as representatives in this place talking about job creation, a stronger economy and opportunities for young people. Over the past 18 months we have seen a government—and I am very proud to be part of that government—that has focused on commitments that we made prior to being elected in 2013, particularly in relation to infrastructure that we have been able to deliver. These are starting to deliver the shoots, if you will, of opportunity. We are seeing that reflected in business confidence surveys. Tasmania is leading the nation. Small and medium enterprises are looking again to reinvest, and there are even signs—and I am so pleased to see this—that businesses are once again willing to take on employees, and particularly younger employees.

In terms of infrastructure it has been a year of delivery. Anybody who comes to our beautiful state and drives down the Midland Highway that goes from Launceston to Hobart will not be able to do it at the moment as quickly as they will be able to in 12 or 18 months time. There is a lot of work going on there. It is so pleasing to see local civil engineering businesses out there improving the road, in some cases looking at duplication of the highway, in other cases widening the highway and putting additional lanes in but particularly focused on bringing that road up to being a much safer road than it currently is. With $400 million committed to the Midland Highway from the Commonwealth government and $100 million committed from the state government, Tasmanians are starting to see the work that is happening on the highway.

It has been a year of delivery for road infrastructure and for black spots. My electorate being a large, rambling rural electorate has had its share of black spot funding, which has added to making our roads safer as people travel around Tasmania. Again, there is an additional $350 million committed across the nation for Roads to Recovery. The 13 municipalities in the electorate of Lyons will share greatly in that additional money for regional infrastructure. I am looking forward to announcements around the Bridges Renewal Program. We have many councils that have put in applications. I hope that some of those so successful. I know that the amount of money that is allocated surely will not fix all of the bridges that are required to be repaired and renewed around Australia, but I look forward to a successful application in my electorate.

Outside of roads, the government gave a significant $38-million commitment to upgrade the Hobart airport, to put the 'international' back into the Hobart airport. I was pleased to join Senator Abetz, Senator Parry and Senator Bushby recently at the Hobart airport with Rod Parry, the CEO, and Mel Percival from Hobart Airport Corporation to announce the first tranche of funding for planning. This will open up so many opportunities for our state. As some would understand, that investment was principally based on the expansion of the Antarctic program, making Hobart a step off point for Antarctic endeavours. Large aircraft were unable to take off with the fuel that was required to do those journeys. By extending the runway at the Hobart international airport, we will be able to compete and attract, one would hope, missions from other countries that will use Hobart as a step-off point. All the benefits will then flow to other businesses in the area in addition to those that are used to provision research in the Antarctic.

Demonstrating this government's commitment to infrastructure that will allow the private sector to have the confidence to invest could be demonstrated no better than through the $60 million that was announced only last week by the Prime Minister when he visited my electorate at the beautiful town of Evandale just south of Launceston. There are five schemes around the state: Circular Head on the north-west coast in my colleague the member for Braddon's electorate; the Scottsdale scheme up in the north-east in my colleague the member for Bass's electorate; and there are three schemes in the electorate of Lyons.

The Southern Highlands scheme in the town of Bothwell, an area of this state that has been drought declared more than any other region in Tasmania over the last 15 years, will at last build an irrigation scheme. Winter take and flood take out of the Shannon will be put into a turkey's nest dam that will deliver to farmers between Bothwell and all the way down to Hamilton. It is significant. The town of Bothwell, over the last 15 years, has run out of water on a number of occasions. This is not only for the farmers in the area but also for access to reliable water for the town. It will truly be a game changer. It will allow businesses in that area to diversify. We will see dry land becoming dairy farms. We will see the ability to properly finish livestock that have traditionally been produced only for breeding stock. We will see more reliable poppy crops. We will see a whole range of other things being grown in that area.

Over on the East Coast, the Swan River scheme is a very high-value scheme where the focus will be on viticulture and horticulture. The towns of Swansea, Triabunna and Bicheno will benefit from the jobs that will flow and the investment that will come from private owners in those areas that will invest as a result of this infrastructure being put in place.

After much procrastination, it has been the job of this government to finally commit to replacing the Aurora Australis. I do not know how much it is going to cost. It will cost a substantial amount of money. Thanks to the good work of Minister Hunt, there is now a commitment to replace the very ageing Aurora Australis to enable Australian researchers, many of whom come from Hobart and from my state of Tasmania more broadly, to continue their good work of researching the Southern Ocean and the Antarctic.

The government has delivered over the last 12 months as part of an election commitment the Solar Towns project for the communities of New Norfolk, Gagebrook, Bagdad and Nubeena, down on the Tasman Peninsular, which recently had Minister Hunt at the Sorrell RSL. I just received notification from the Bicheno golf club on the East Coast that it has received nearly $20,000 for the installation of solar panels. All around the state we have been able to support those community and sporting organisations to be more self-sustaining through the Solar Towns funding. Almost $300,000 has been rolled out in the electorate of Lyons.

In addition, within the Minister for the Environment's portfolio, four new Green Army projects have just been announced in the second tranche of funding—three in the municipality of the Break O'Day and a project which crosses over into the member for Franklin's electorate as well as into the member for Denison's electorate in the southern part of Lyons. We already have projects in the north-west, particularly in the Rubicon Estuary looking to remove the curse of the rice grass that has infested that estuary for many years. There is great work going on in the electorate around the Green Army projects. I encourage further applications from community groups and councils for appropriate opportunities to clean up waterways and to stop erosion—a whole range of opportunities.

I was very pleased that also last year we were able to continue the funding, again through the Department of the Environment, of a really important project being undertaken by the Inland Fisheries Service. There is $800,000 for the work they are doing to eradicate carp. Many mainlanders may not appreciate that Tasmania is effectively free from carp except in two locations: Lake Crescent and Lake Sorell. About two years ago the Inland Fisheries Service were successful in removing carp from Lake Crescent. The challenge still remains in Lake Sorell. These are dedicated professionals. I was so pleased to be able to support them with funding.

Indeed, confidence is returning. I was very pleased with the ASBAS funding. There were very high-quality applications. I know firsthand the work that the Break O'Day Business Enterprise Centre do and the passion they have for their work. ASBAS small business funding was received by the Break O'Day Business Enterprise Centre at St Helens in the north-east of my electorate. Nick Crawford and his team do truly wonderful work. He is committed. Apart from being a very good fisherman, he does wonderful work with the community there. It is all part of the confidence we are seeing coming back.

For the first time in many years the unemployment numbers in Tasmania have started to turn the corner and are again heading south. I really do believe that that is an illustration that there is renewed confidence coming back into our communities, particularly regional communities. I am looking forward to the Innovation and Investment Fund, which was well oversubscribed. I am aware that the amount of money we had for dollar-for-dollar business investment was oversubscribed to a great degree. There were 137 applications with a commitment of private capital of $85 million across a wide range of sectors and industries. Again this illustrates absolutely that there is confidence in the business sector to invest and start to create jobs again in Tasmania.

I was very pleased to have Senator Abetz with me at two Work for the Dole programs last week that are going particularly well. At Woolmers Estate young people are learning and gaining new skills—in this case for the management of the kitchen garden and some of the heritage work that needs ongoing and regular maintenance. The skills and discipline they are provided with are wonderful for them. I have no doubt that some of those young people will very soon end up in work.

I guess the highlight for me of the past 12 months has been the work that has been done by the Minister for Trade and Investment, Minister Robb, in delivering the three free trade agreements—with South Korea firstly, Japan and more recently China. These are game-changing opportunities for our state. When the minister visited my electorate a couple of weeks ago I did say that, instead of the KAFTA, it could well have been the TAFTA, the Tasmanian free trade agreement. It has been so good for Tim Reid and cherry exporters in our state. As a result of the 24 per cent tariff being reduced, he has been able to increase his exports of cherries from five tonnes last year to 190 tonnes this year. This is jobs, wealth creation and the private sector in Tasmania finally, after many years of Labor and the Greens hurting our state so badly, starting to find its feet again. I look forward to continuing doing good work.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In 2010 I visited Queensland on several occasions to give speeches about rapid population growth—in Brisbane, on the Sunshine Coast and at the Woodford Folk Festival. I encountered great unhappiness at the impact that rapid population growth was having in Brisbane and South-East Queensland and was not surprised when the Queensland Labor government was defeated in 2012, although the scale of the defeat was remarkable. In many respects the Queensland government had fallen victim to the same problems that had beset the Victorian Labor government which was defeated in 2010. The Queensland Labor Party has now pulled off an astonishing turnaround, regaining office in a single term and toppling an elected Premier in the process. In Victoria Ted Baillieu was replaced by his own party and did not get to contest the election; in Queensland Campbell Newman lost his seat.

Political commentators are astonished at this growing political volatility. Kevin Rudd was elected as Prime Minister and replaced by Julia Gillard before the 2010 election. She in turn was replaced by Kevin Rudd before the 2013 election. It is now widely speculated that Tony Abbott too will not get to seek re-election as Prime Minister. So what is going on? No doubt factors like broken election promises, the 24/7 media cycle, the global financial crisis and voters choosing state and federal governments of different complexions are having an impact, but one feature of the past decade is regularly overlooked.

In 2004 Australia had a net migration program of 100,000. Then, in the space of three years, it ratcheted up to well over 200,000, where it has stayed. This doubling has given Australia rapid population growth for the past decade. We now have an extra million people every three years. Prime Minister Howard, who introduced this rapid increase, lost his seat at the 2007 election. I have become convinced that rapid population growth and political instability go hand in hand. I think of this as the witches' hats theory of government. Think about those advanced driving courses that require drivers to drive in slalom fashion through a set of plastic or rubber orange cones, which are commonly called witches hats. The driver's mission is to avoid the hats. If they hit a certain number, they fail the test.

I think the re-election task of the government has some similarities. If you think of each hat as an area of public policy—education, health, housing, transport, aged care et cetera—if a government mucks up an area of public policy, it is akin to hitting one of the hats. And if a government hits a number of hats—that is, fails a number of public policy tasks—it is likely to be voted out, just as the driver who hits the hats will not get their advanced driving qualification. It seems pretty obvious that, if you are a driver, you are much more likely to avoid the hats if you are travelling at 50 kilometres an hour whereas if you are driving at 100 kilometres an hour you are pretty likely to hit some hats. And if you are a government, you are much more likely to solve people's problems if you have a population that is growing slowly rather than one that is growing rapidly.

The Queensland and Victorian Liberal governments were elected on the back of public discontent with issues such as planning, public transport, cost of living, housing unaffordability and job insecurity. But as these things had been caused by rapid population growth—and the growth continued—they did not solve those problems and they paid a massive electoral price for it. For example, governments get punished for trying to sell off public assets. They do it to raise money to build new infrastructure or to pay down debts incurred as a result of past infrastructure building. But they would not need so much money, or so much infrastructure, if the population was not growing so fast. Queensland academic Jane O'Sullivan says population growth of two per cent doubles the infrastructure task compared with that in a stable population.

It is not only in Australia that rapid population growth drives political instability. It happens right around the world. Governments in the Scandinavian countries, with slow population growth, are able to solve people's problems and enjoy considerable political life expectancy. Countries which have high birth rates—such as Egypt, Nigeria and the Philippines—have chaos. In the Pacific Islands, Samoa has had a relatively stable population and stable government for decades whereas Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands have had neither.

I know it is not fashionable to focus on our past decade of rapid population growth as a cause of Australia's political instability and volatility. Some are happier focussing on the alleged personal qualities of our leaders—they have heaped praise, or derision, on Anna Bligh, Tony Abbott or Campbell Newman—when the fact is that a different leader with the same policies would have led to the same result. Others want to interpret election results through a highly ideological prism, and come unstuck as a consequence of believing too much of their own propaganda.

It is probably too late for this Prime Minister. But perhaps his successor, or successors, and other political leaders around Australia might want to ask themselves: 'Do I want to be yet another casualty of our equivalent of the Colosseum, or do I want a respectable time in office as prime ministers and premiers had as recently as the eighties and nineties?'—and, if so, isn't the way to improve their political life expectancy to slow the 'population car' down and focus on solving people's real life problems?

There is a clear correlation between population growth and social upheaval and unrest. The Arab Spring in Tunisia started when rising food prices, high unemployment and a widening gap between rich and poor triggered riots which led to the flight of Tunisia's autocratic ruler, Zine Ben Ali. Before he left, he vowed to reduce the price of sugar, milk and bread—too little too late. Protests began in Egypt, which led to a change of government there, and in Libya, which led to a change of government there too. The backdrop to this unrest was a rise in global wheat prices of the order of 70 per cent between June and December 2010. People simply could not afford the bread they needed to live. Egypt's population had grown from 22 million in 1952 to 81 million in 2010, nearly a fourfold increase in 60 years. Rapid population growth means lots of high-testosterone young males, who are prepared to risk bullets and oust dictators. After decades of exporting oil to pay for grain, Egypt now needs to import both oil and grain to meet the needs of a population that doubled under Mubarak and did not thank him for it.

But the link between rapid population growth and social unrest is not confined to the Middle East. On 12 August 2011, BBC Radio 4's More or Less program quoted US sociologist Professor Jack Goldstone, who said that, throughout history, there was a clear link between rapid population growth and social unrest as seen in events like the French and Russian revolutions and now in pockets of society that have seen rapid population growth and immigration.

The continent of Africa contains many examples of rapid population growth fuelling political instability. Africa's most populous country is Nigeria. In the 50 years between its independence in 1960 and 2010, Nigeria's population rose from 45 million to 158 million, a more than threefold increase. Accompanying this rapid increase have been economic booms and busts, military coups, widespread corruption and ethnic and religious divisions—and now we have Boko Haram. The population of Ghana quadrupled over 50 years—from six million at the time of independence in 1960 to over 24 million by 2010. From 1960 to 1992, Ghana was marred by military coups. Although rich in natural resources, Ghana is a heavily indebted country, with land disputes in the north erupting into ethnic violence. Kenya had a population of fewer than nine million when it gained independence in 1963. It now has a population of 40 million, a fourfold increase, and is currently growing at a brisk 2.8 per cent per year. In 1982 it became a one-party state and has been beset by mismanagement and corruption.

There is little doubt in my mind that rapid population growth and political instability go hand in hand. While often the instability is attributed to ethnic or religious differences, I believe these are merely symptoms of the underlying problem—too many people for the available resources of land, food, water, fuel, housing and jobs. A scarcity of resources leads to conflict. When that conflict occurs, people may well band together, or divide, along religious or ethnic lines—indeed, that is human nature—but whether we have that conflict in the first place, or whether people of different ethnicities and religions can live harmoniously together, often comes back to whether there are enough resources for all or simply too many people for the available resources. But there is the larger truth that rapid population growth is likely to undermine support for governments irrespective of the prevailing political system and culture.

Let me return to Australia. In 1945 Australia's population was seven million; today it is over 23 million. There is nothing inevitable about this growth. Back in 1945, Sweden's population was also seven million; today their population is nine million. Are we outperforming Sweden as a result? No. Do we have a better relationship with our landscape and environment? No. Does the evidence suggest we are better off as a society for this rapid population growth? No.

Let us go back to the Whitlam years—1974 and 1975. It has become folklore that the Whitlam Labor government were terrible economic managers and that subsequent governments have done a much better job of running the economy. Yet unemployment even in Whitlam's worst year, post-OPEC oil shock, averaged less than five per cent and has never been as low since. The Whitlam government was supposed to be a high-taxing government, but taxation as a percentage of GDP never reached 20 per cent; since then it has climbed above 20 per cent, rising to 24 per cent under John Howard and Peter Costello. And back then your taxes went a lot further. All the roads were free—no tolls; all the universities were free—no fees; and few parents sent their kids to non-government schools, so they did not have to fork out for school fees either. Net migration at that time was much less than 100,000 per annum compared with the over 200,000 it has been in recent years.

Or we could consider the 1960s. Then we had a population of around 12 million. There was no such thing as GST. Homes and rental properties were in good supply and inexpensive, compared with today, when Sydney and Melbourne have some of the most unaffordable housing markets in the world. There were jobs for everyone who wanted one. People did not have to work long hours; in fact, there was talk of a 35-hour week. Government employees did not have to sign work contracts. There were two mail deliveries each weekday and one on Saturday. There was no real waiting time for hospitals, and trains and buses were inexpensive and uncrowded. You could drive across cities in no time at all. Beaches and other public facilities were uncrowded; electricity and gas were cheap and we did not have water shortages. Working people could afford beachside suburbs or a holiday house. Crime rates were low. Many people did not lock their windows or doors. We did not have home invasions and children wandered city streets freely and without fear. We grew our produce instead of concreting our market gardens and then importing it. Prewar, according to the urban historian Patrick Troy, Melbourne grew a third of its own food in backyards—not because it needed to, and not because the country was not eager to supply produce, but because labour and space were available.

I want to spend a little time outlining particular areas where I believe that increasing population causes governments to grow out of touch with their communities and voters and therefore to lose support. Planning is a key area. In order to house a growing population, particularly in big cities, governments end up taking away citizens' right to a say in what their street, their neighbourhood and their suburb look like. Governments appeal to us to accept high-rise—we should become more European, they say—but many people do not want it. They like their backyard and they like their open space, and that is a witch's hat bowled over. In relation to prices, from 2007, electricity price inflation accelerated sharply. A rapid increase in electricity prices is definitely another witch's hat down. Regulators allowed double-digit price increases to fund infrastructure investment, which was needed to meet population growth. A country with a rapidly-growing population needs to devote more resources to building roads, schools, shops, houses, factories and so on than does a country with a low rate of population growth. This makes it harder to achieve the per capita income gains people aspire to.

Unskilled workers suffer from migration, skilled or otherwise. There is a huge amount of evidence that any increase in the number of unskilled workers lowers unskilled wages and increases the unskilled unemployment rate. Employers gain from unskilled immigration; the unskilled do not. There goes another witch's hat. So when you think about the adverse impacts on people that a rising population produces it is not really surprising that governments, in times of rapid population growth, tend to knock over plenty of witch's hats and lose public support. We are seeing this yet again in the trials and tribulations of this government.

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

I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2014-2015 and cognate bills. In an electorate like Grey there is always plenty to talk about—lots of worthy projects and lots of opportunities. While we never move as fast as we would perhaps quite like to, there have been a number of successfully concluded projects that were recipients of federal government assistance in the last 12 months. I would like to just to touch on a few of them.

The three major airports in Grey, at Port Lincoln, Whyalla and Port Augusta, have all seen major new works to their terminals completed or opened in the last 12 months. These airports are all owned by the local councils and this has made a significant difference. Port Lincoln Airport is the second busiest airport in South Australia, and all of them now present a very fine entrance to their cities. There have been major new works in aged care at the Yeltana Nursing Home run by Whyalla Aged Care, with $2 million in capital grants announced and a further $2 million in interest-free loans. $1.4 million has been announced for the Mary MacKillop Wing at Star of the Sea Aged Care Home in Wallaroo and well over $2 million each for the Barunga Village in Port Broughton and the Helping Hand Aged Care centre in Port Pirie. There has also been $900,000 allocated to Coober Pedy council for a new pipeline, and $5 million has gone to the Port Augusta regional community sports hub, which I will have the great honour of opening in a couple of weeks time. There is a raft of support for community organisations, right across the electorate and too numerous to mention.

Certainly some of this money was committed under the previous government, but whenever money is committed it must be delivered. I support those commitments and it is a good thing that we can support our regional communities.

But the nation has huge economic challenges and we must fairly inform the people of the challenges ahead. Some—even some in this chamber—say that debt does not matter; that Australia's debts are low compared with Italy, Spain or Greece. And that is the case, but those countries deal with 20 per cent-plus unemployment figures. They have rates of youth unemployment that top 50 per cent. You imagine what a scrap heap it is for young people to spend the first 10 years of their working life in an unemployment queue. It is paramount that we get the finances of Australia back under control so we do not end up like those European economies, in which I have no faith at all—I have very little faith that they will ever be able to get their debts under control.

A stitch in time, and that is the challenge facing this government. At the moment, we are borrowing a $100 million a day, and more than 30 per cent of that $100 million goes directly to pay the interest on our borrowings.

Mr Champion interjecting—

While I am facing interjections from the member for Wakefield—

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is coming from both sides to be honest.

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

I might say that it was his government that set up this the incredible debt that Australia is facing.

At the moment, we have a net debt of around $250 billion—that is $250 thousand million, without changes to policy—that we were left by the previous government, heading for over $600 thousand million debt and we are paying interest rates that are at an historical low. The RBA current base rate is 2.25 per cent, and we can imagine how Australia would deal with paying the interest on those debts should interest rates go back to a more normal level of, say, four, five or six per cent.

It is no secret that the South Australian economy in particular is struggling. We have low population growth, high public debt, the second-highest unemployment rate after Tasmania—but only just—and the effect of the closure of the car manufacturing business is yet to come. Recent news from the resources sector has been fairly grim, particularly from my electorate. RM's decision to mothball its Southern Iron mine with the loss of 600 jobs will impact right across my electorate and the state generally as will the continuing downsizing of Santos's workforce in the Cooper Basin. Certainly not all of these job losses are in the Grey electorate but they will have a significant impact, and I cannot go past the personal impact on the individuals concerned.

I say have faith, because I believe that all of the industries will bounce back in the not-too-distant future. There are a number of reasons for saying that. For instance, in the last 12 months the Australian dollar has devalued by 25 per cent, which is providing some relief for exporters and those who are in export-competing industries. It is making previously unviable export industries competitive once again. The free trade agreements—and they were mentioned by previous speakers—with Japan, South Korea and China are unprecedented. This has been a golden era of trade negotiations by the very capable trade minister, Andrew Robb.

Some have been under negotiation for more than a decade and, as the member for Wakefield would know—

Mr Champion interjecting—

absolutely jack got done in that six years that they were in office. They left the same pile of negotiations on the table. They had not even lifted the top page off them, but the member for Wakefield still interjects. He should hang his head in shame. But Andrew Robb has picked up the pace and got the negotiations moving.

Those three trade agreements will benefit this country—this government provides much more than just talk; it provides action. I expect many of my industries, particularly the meat producers, the barley and pulse growers, the wine industry, aquaculture and marine fisheries, and our service industries to be enormous beneficiaries of those free trade agreements.

While we might face some very serious budgetary challenges at the federal level, we have every reason to be optimistic about our future as a nation. One of the reasons that I am optimistic is that this government and Minister Malcolm Turnbull have managed to get the NBN back on track—if indeed it was ever on any kind of track at all except the track to disaster left to us as a stinking carcass by the Labor Party and Senator Conroy. It was a field of failed dreams—and never more apparent than in my city of Port Augusta where the good people there were promised fibre-to-the premise to be completed by September 2013.

The opposition is very keen to point the finger at this government and say: 'You're not getting the NBN; you're holding up the NBN.' In fact, Port Augusta was supposed to be finished by September 2013, exactly at the time of the last election, so there should not have been anything for the coalition government to do. It should have been all finished and switched on. In fact the contractor has collapsed. They do not exist anymore as far as I know, and that was the contractor for Western Australia and they had already ceded their contracts to the Northern Territory.

Since that time, the minister has appointed a new NBN board—a board that has experience in rolling out communications systems. Port Augusta, I am very pleased to announce, will still be wired fibre to the premise. This is largely because it is one of 126 centres around Australia that are central hubs. It was important to keep the work going to the local contractors, and so the NBN board and the minister made the decision that Port Augusta would be wired fibre to the premise. As such, it is broken into three areas: central Port Augusta with 2400 connection points—the physical build commenced on January 15 and will be completed by October 15; the Port Augusta east connection will have 1800 consumers, and the physical build has commenced and will be finished by November 15—Port Augusta east includes Stirling North; and Port Augusta West will have 520 consumers and the preparatory work is underway—that is, getting the pipes, boxes and everything ready to feed the cable in.

This is great progress and shows how well the NBN rollout is tracking. The biggest changes will be noticed where the NBN fixed-wireless network is being rolled out. It is going into areas of high need that have very, very poor broadband at the moment and do not have access to things like ADSL There are six live sites in Grey that have fixed radio networks at the moment—Arno Bay, Balgowan, Cleve, Port Neill, Port Rickaby and Port Victoria—and we expect another 22 sites to be live by June 2015. That is providing a great benefit to regional Australia.

I want to raise another issue that I have spoken about in this chamber before, and that is a commercial fish-unloading facility for Ceduna. Ceduna is in the far west of my electorate. There is a port at Thevenard and it is the second-busiest port in the state. Almost three million tonnes a year are shipped through Thevenard—mainly gypsum but also salt, grain and mineral sands from Iluka and the Jacinth-Ambrosia project out to the west of Ceduna. It has also been a significant fishing port in the past. There is one company still operating at Ceduna—two of the Great Australian Bight trawlers unload there—Raptis. The port is so busy that it has become very difficult to unload and the Ceduna council has been pushing for a new fish-unloading spur on the main wharf, which will cost $9 million. There have been a number of times in the past under RDA when we thought that this might get up, that it was over the line and that we had some support, but it always proved to be ephemeral. There is no light at the end of the tunnel yet but they have put in an application under the National Stronger Regions program. They are looking for around $4.5 million. Hopefully part of the other $4.5 million will come from the state government. I am speaking to some of the state government ministers and trying to push them along that road slightly. The Ceduna council is certainly behind the project and we now have a major private investor who is willing to put their money on the table as well. Encouragingly, we believe that if we can get the unloading wharf in place there may be up to 10 berths occupied and that some more trawlers and some of the fin fishermen will come and unload in Thevenard. It is a real economic boon for that part of the state. It is sometimes difficult to find industries that we can really support in regional areas and that can support these regional populations. This I think is a great opportunity. It is a very good project. It has passed all the trip-wires a number of times before but it just did not make the funding cut at the end, because funds were diverted somewhere else or did not arrive at all.

I will be giving my absolute backing to this project and hoping that we can get Stronger Regions to see its benefit. It certainly has the backing of the Eyre Peninsula Local Government Association and the RDA-Whyalla. I look forward to that project coming on stream as soon as possible. I certainly will be pushing this government to make sure that it receives a priority.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sometime this year, good government is going to start—and, by the gods of mercy, it cannot come too soon. Wherever you look, from hospitals to GP surgeries, from preschools to universities, from pensioners to families, and to communication services like the National Broadband Network, what this government have not cut they have broken. Then there is the rest of the economy, which has absolutely ground to a halt by the decision-making paralysis of those who sit opposite. So obsessed are they with who on the front bench is going to be the next Prime Minister of Australia that the basic business of government is just not happening. There would not be a member of parliament who has not had a conga line of community organisations camped on their doorstep, plaintively begging them to try to get the government to make a decision on their next funding round. There would not be an area of the economy that has not had the absolute policy paralysis of this government affecting them in their everyday decisions.

I was expecting in this debate an opportunity to hear from members of the other side of the House about what they were going to do to stand up for their electorates on the things that really matter. Appropriation bills are an important opportunity for the parliament. They are an opportunity for the government to release additional money to advance its economic and social programs. They are also an opportunity to see the government reallocate money within the budget to projects or purposes that have been either neglected in the months prior to the appropriations debate or absolutely unforeseen—things that have turned up post-budget day that could not have been contemplated and that any party committed to good government would have included in the appropriations bills so that we could deal with those issues. Have heard from any them about those things? No, we absolutely have not.

I want to focus on the issue that matters most to people on this side of the House, and that is the issue of employment and unemployment—a matter which is No. 1 for people who vote for me to come here into parliament and represent their interests. I see the member for Wakefield in the House today and I know that every day that he comes into parliament he is fighting for jobs and opportunities for the people he represents in parliament—particularly those who are working in the manufacturing sector. I have never seen a more passionate member of parliament when it comes to talking to the interests of manufacturing workers.

A government that was focused on employment and unemployment and not on the intrigues of their own party room would know that they are in strife. In the month that they took office, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the unemployment level in this country was 6.1 per cent. This is a government that promised jobs growth, a government that promised a million new jobs in its first term of government. What do we see?

We see unemployment going up to 6.4 per cent. Under this Prime Minister and this government, we are going to see the highest rate of unemployment that we have seen in the last decade—even through the global financial crisis. We will not have seen unemployment figure at the rate that we are seeing under this government and on their watch. And is it any wonder?

I am glad the member for Wakefield is in the chamber, because I saw one of the most passionate speeches that I have heard from a member of parliament in this place the very day that we saw the Treasurer, supported by the Prime Minister, chase an iconic car manufacturer, an iconic Australian brand, out of the country. They virtually begged them—and I am talking about Holden—to close the doors and leave the country. Is it any wonder that we see a complete misunderstanding of the need of ordinary workers in this country and is it any wonder that we see the unemployment rate going from 6.1 per cent to 6.4 per cent in the first 12 months? I expected to see some passionate contributions from members opposite about what the government was going to do to address the scourge of unemployment, but we have not heard anything about that. In fact, what we have seen is a cheer squad for the cruel, harsh cuts that this government is visiting upon the Australian people.

One member of parliament that I would have expected to come in here and have something to say about employment in her electorate is the member for Gilmore, because, in the last 24 hours, her electorate has been shocked by some terrible news, with the closure of Australian Paper mills. This is a very important employer and a very important contractor in the Bomaderry and Nowra districts. It has been producing quality paper for over 65 years. It has been producing some of the highest quality paper. Indeed, it is the only facility within Australia that can produce the sort of security paper that is used in things like cheques and bank cheques. The closure of this plant means that every bank and even the Australian government will be importing that sort of paper. Quite typically, over 75 people are going to lose their jobs as a result of this, and my heart goes out to them.

In my own electorate I lived through the bitter months of the downturn in the steel industry and the closure of a BlueScope blast furnace. I contrast what the Illawarra based MPs did at that time—rallying around the workers and the town and putting in place a rescue plan for the workers and to support the business through that difficult time—with the inaction from those opposite. Not a word has been offered in this place in the interests of those workers in the member for Gilmore's electorate. I certainly hope that some action is going on somewhere that I have not heard about. I certainly hope that something is going on—and I know I am not alone. I think of the circumstances of Jono Clack. Many people, as I have said, have been working there for over 20 years—but not Jono. He is a young apprentice who thought his future was set. He is a talented young bloke. In fact, he is so talented that this year he won an award for excellence in electrotechnology at the New South Wales Training Awards—a man with a future. He thought he was going to be able to complete his apprenticeship at Australian Paper mills but, regrettably, that is not going to occur.

There is an urgent need for the government to address the serious policy issues confronting the people of the Illawarra and the Shoalhaven. Employment is the first, second and third priority. I said that unemployment nationally was 6.4 per cent. That is an absolute tragedy but, when you look at the unemployment rate in the district where Australian Paper mills operates, it is a full one per cent higher than that. It is 7.2 per cent—nearly a full one per cent higher than the national average. If ever there was a need to do something about this, this is the time. I see the member for Gilmore has entered the chamber now. I hope she will have the opportunity to say what she is going to do to defend the interests of manufacturing in her electorate.

Right around the country we saw members opposite saying to electorates that if they elected them they would see jobs growth, opportunities and members standing up for opportunities in their electorate. Instead, we are seeing a cheer squad for this budget, reinforced by the appropriation bills here today. What we are looking for from those opposite is some leadership. When they went to the election they promised that they were going to stand up for their local electorates. When their electors returned them as the successful members for their electorate, they expected somebody to come to Canberra to fight for their local interests—but they are still waiting. Right around regional Australia they are still waiting. They were expecting somebody to come here and fight for their interests and they are still waiting. All we see are cheer squads for the Prime Minister—however long he is the Prime Minister—and cheer squads for the cuts of this Treasurer, instead of doing something for their local communities.

I saw those opposite criticise the previous government when we were out there fighting for jobs. We used to have a local employment coordinator whose job it was to connect people in circumstances like this—people who had just lost their jobs—with new job opportunities. We used to have one. They sacked her. They sacked the local employment coordinator whose job it was to look after people in circumstances like this.

Is the member for Gilmore going to stand here now and say, 'I will work day in, day out, to ensure that we have this position reinstated to help the local workers, where we have 7.2 per cent unemployment'? I bet we do not hear a peep of it, because the people living in regional Australia, who elected members to come in here and be regional champions, are still waiting for their regional champions. And the fact is that each and every one of the members opposite is going to vote in favour of these appropriations bills. This is their opportunity to say, 'The budget was wrong, and we're going to vote against it,' because this is a revisitation of the budget. This is their opportunity—

Debate interrupted.