Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) Canberra was established to be the Commonwealth seat of Government, administration and policy support;

(b) more than 60 per cent of the Australian Public Service is located outside of Canberra, serving the needs of communities around Australia; and

(c) the proposed relocation of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority from Canberra to Armidale demonstrates the adverse impact of the Government's ad hoc decentralisation decisions on the Canberra community and economy and effective and efficient government; and

(2) calls on the Government to:

(a) commit to a cost-benefit analysis of its proposed decentralisation strategy and make the outcome of that analysis available to the public;

(b) agree that:

  (i) decisions regarding decentralisation should only be made subject to an open and transparent public consultation process and take into account the outcome of a cost benefit analysis; and

  (ii) any decentralisation of Government agencies is based on a demonstrated net benefit to the nation and does not come at the expense of the Canberra community and economy and effective and efficient government; and

(c) protect the Sir Robert Menzies vision of Canberra as the Commonwealth seat of Government, administration and policy support and a 'worthy capital' that Australians can admire and respect.

In The Government and the People—1939-41, Sir Paul Hasluck exposed the administrative heartache and headache caused by the dispersal of the Commonwealth Public Service, saying it 'wasted time and money, fretted men and hampered understanding, delayed decisions and led to conflict and duplication.' It was for this reason that the founder of the modern Liberal Party, Sir Robert Menzies set about concentrating the Public Service here in Canberra, deeming it better for the 'country as a whole'. That said, Sir Robert Menzies was not an early adopter when it came to the idea of Canberra:

I cannot honestly say that I liked Canberra very much; it was to me a place of exile; but I soon began to realize that the decision had been taken, that Canberra was and would continue to be the capital of the nation, and that it was therefore imperative to make it a worthy capital; something that the Australian people would come to admire and respect; something that would be a focal point for national pride and sentiment. Once I had converted myself to this faith, I became an apostle …

And his 'interest, and effectiveness, in the development of the national capital was later for him a source of special pride.' What a pity the Liberals and Nationals have no sense and understanding of history. What a pity the Liberals and Nationals have no respect for the legacy and vision of Sir Robert Menzies. And what a pity the Liberals and Nationals have no understanding of the Constitution, which says:

The seat of Government of the Commonwealth shall be determined by the Parliament, and shall be within territory … granted to or acquired by the Commonwealth … and shall be in the State of New South Wales and be distant not less than one hundred miles from Sydney.

That is in the Constitution. As I said in my first speech, without Canberra there would be no Australia—without Canberra there would be no Australia. To borrow the words of Sir Henry Parkes, the crimson thread of kinship runs through us all. Those threads are drawn together in this city. They run from every corner of this nation, and the knot that binds them is this House, in our nation's capital.

Already more than 60 per cent of Commonwealth government is conducted outside Canberra, through service delivery agencies such as Centrelink and the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Does the Turnbull government want to spit in the eye of the Sir Robert Menzies legacy, ignore the Constitution and move the remaining 40 per cent of public servants out of Canberra? Is that their vision for this nation? We already know the contempt and disdain shown to Canberra by the Liberals and Nationals. We saw it in 1996 under the Howard government, when 15,000 public service jobs were lost in this town—people left this city, shops closed down and Canberra went into an economic slump for five years. Since the Abbott-Turnbull government we have seen 13,000 public service jobs axed, national institutions cut to the core, and more cuts are planned in the budget. We have seen next to zero investment in infrastructure, with Canberra getting an insulting and paltry $3 million of the $75 billion spend in the budget. Sir Robert Menzies would be turning in his grave at the bog ignorance of the Liberals and Nationals, at the blatant misunderstanding about the reason for Canberra as the seat of Commonwealth government and administration. I repeat: as the seat of Commonwealth government administration, as outlined in the Constitution.

This ludicrous, half-baked Turnbull government's decentralisation 'policy on the run' shows that the blatant and shameless pork barrelling that is the proposed 'all cost and no benefit' APVMA relocation is just the thin edge of the wedge. It is a pathetic attempt to cloak the disaster of the proposed APVMA move in a kind of 'plan' or a concept to move that has had a devastating toll on that agency, with a massive brain drain which will take years to recover from. It is a move which has taken an enormous toll on product assessments, which have plummeted. It is that or it is one of the saddest chapters in Australian government history, a sad chapter in our nation's history and yet another sad chapter, through bog ignorance and complete misunderstanding of the Sir Robert Menzies legacy, in the history of the Liberals and Nationals. Shame on them!

Shame on them for turning their backs on the Sir Robert Menzies legacy and vision. Have they no sense of history?

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Around a third of us live in a regional, rural or remote part of Australia. We talk often in this place about the challenges that are faced by these parts of our country, but what we far too often forget is the extent to which our cities rely on them. The bread on the tables of our urban population, the fuel that powers their electricity supply and the raw materials that make up their consumer goods: all of these things come from regional, rural and remote Australia.

My own electorate of Fisher on the Sunshine Coast is certainly a regional area. Local people are rightly proud of their community. There is a reason that the Sunshine Coast is growing at such a significant rate. We are projected to expand by nearly 200,000 people by 2036 and our region's economy is set to double in size by 2033 to more than $33 billion in gross regional product.

The relocation of government departments is not about the Commonwealth government and Canberra bestowing their benevolence on our regions, but, rather, about what our regions can do for the Commonwealth government. It is about what our regions can save taxpayers in costs and efficiency, and what they can do to improve the lives of public servants in health and lifestyle. I quite agree with the member for Canberra about one thing, and that is that the decision as to where government agencies should be located should be based on the net benefit for the Commonwealth of Australia. On that basis, I think the decision is an easy one.

Office accommodation costs on the Sunshine Coast are 41 per cent lower than in Brisbane's CBD, and average total operating costs on the coast are lower than state averages in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. Queensland also has the lowest basic flat payroll tax of any Australian State or territory.

These lower costs come with the same quality facilities and infrastructure. High-speed internet is available in many parts of the Sunshine Coast already, with NBN rollout due to be completed over the coming year. The local council have in place a proposal for a submarine broadband cable which would be the only such infrastructure on the east coast of Australia and north of Sydney.

That connectivity has helped to foster an innovation hub on the coast, which is quickly becoming an Australian leader. The University of the Sunshine Coast Innovation Centre, which I visited just last week with the Minister for Defence Industry, is at its centre and has been the seed of a fast-growing innovation ecosystem. The Sunshine Coast has been awarded Google eTown status, and has been named a Smart2l community for three of the past four years. We also have a highly educated workforce. Our community boasts a dynamic and growing university, the University of the Sunshine Coast, which, with facilities like the Thompson Institute, is conducting world-leading research programs. Of the local workforce, 57.4 per cent hold a tertiary qualification, well above the state average.

In terms of transport we already have access to the National Freight Corridor through the Bruce Highway and the North Coast rail line. The Bruce Highway is currently receiving $1.6 billion in upgrades from the federal government, but even that is cheap in comparison. Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics analysis has found that Melbourne and Sydney recover just 28 and 25 per cent respectively of their public transport costs. That equates to a $4½ billion taxpayer funded subsidy to keep urban commuters moving—very slowly—every year. We also have Australia's fastest growing airport. From 2020, it will have an international standard runway and flights throughout the Asia Pacific will get underway. This is not to mention the $1.8 billion Sunshine Coast University Hospital, which has made our community South-East Queensland's healthcare hub. We need to recruit skilled and motivated people for our public service. Skilled and motivated people today expect the best business facilities, but they demand the best lifestyle for themselves and their families. That is what the Sunshine Coast can deliver. It delivers Australia's fastest growing airport, Queensland's cutting edge healthcare hub and the best in innovation, but it also delivers world-class beaches and magnificent hinterland. It offers 40 per cent commercial accommodation cost savings, a highly educated workforce and low payroll tax, but it also offers spacious housing, negligible travel times to work, healthy living and family-friendly green space in abundance. We should approach this issue with a rigorous cost-benefit analysis. I think the outcome of such an analysis is clear when it comes to the Sunshine Coast: with this one move we can transform lives, we can transform productivity and we can transform our regions. I commend that to the House.

Andrew Leigh (Fenner, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Prior to the 2013 election, the coalition pledged that no more than 12,000 public service jobs would go. We heard very clearly from the member for Sturt:

There is no ambiguity about the coalition's position … if elected, we will reduce the Commonwealth Public Service by 12,000 through natural attrition.

The then Leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Warringah, said:

I really want to stress that we are not talking about forced redundancies. We are talking about not replacing everyone who leaves; that's all.

Since the election of the coalition we have seen anything but. We have seen people forced out of their jobs, agencies sent interstate—in the case of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, to the electorate of the minister responsible for managing that agency, despite the fact that a cost-benefit study showed it was a bad deal for the taxpayer. According to figures from the Community and Public Sector Union, the latest budget sees staffing reductions in 17 of the 25 agencies that they analysed.

It is often said that under Labor there were public service job cuts and that under Labor there were secret plans for public service job cuts. The only way of setting that straight is to clearly go through the data. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a table of public service job numbers from 2007 until 31 December 2016.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows—

The figures that have now been incorporated in the Hansard show that from 30 June 2007 through to 30 June 2013 public service job numbers grew steadily, in line with the Australian population. That is as it needs to be, because, as our population grows, the demand for the work that most public servants do—in Centrelink and Medicare—grows along with it. In every year, except for Labor's last year in office, public service job numbers measured on the June survey increased. In that final year, the decrease was a matter of hundreds. But if we compare figures from 30 June 2013 to 31 December 2016—the most recently available figures—public service job numbers are nearly 14,000 down. That is well in excess of what the coalition pledged before coming to office. More than 12,000 public service jobs have been cut—a clear breach of promise.

The public serves Australia. Six out of 10 public servants work outside Canberra. But those who work in Canberra are no less valuable for that. They are citizens of Australia. They work hard to serve both sides of government, and yet they have been abysmally treated by this government.

At one of my regular street stalls in Gungahlin a young couple came up to me. They said that she worked in a federal government department. She had three degrees, had volunteered overseas and had many years of experience in the Public Service, gained by working on short-term contracts. But, due to the Public Service freeze that was in place, they did not feel that they were able to start a family. As the woman of the couple—let us call her Jess—said to me: 'I just do not have the confidence that I can sport a seven-month belly and negotiate an extension of contract.' So they are putting off starting a family until they can find a job that offers more certainty.

The decimation of the Public Service—and that is literally what it has been—has been enormously damaging for the great people of Canberra. The cuts to the Public Service have occurred in almost every area but two: non-ongoing numbers have increased under the Liberals, and the volume of contracts has increased. So uncertain, short-term work has taken the place of sustainable, ongoing public sector work.

The last budget saw severe damage done to Canberra. The cuts to schools were disproportionately high in the ACT. The cuts to universities disproportionately hurt us. The jump in out-of-pocket costs has been the highest in the ACT, and the underfunding of ACT infrastructure has been disastrous for this city.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very fond of Canberra. And, if the truth be known, I am quite fond of the member for Canberra and the member for Fenner, but they seriously need to get out more. As to the idea that Canberra is somehow suffering under an incredible scourge from the federal government cutting into the basic economy, they have not told private enterprise that—I do not know how many cranes I counted this morning coming in to Canberra. And I have witnessed the explosion in the population in the 10 years that I have been here.

But this is about decentralisation. The job of the Australian government is to provide value for money for the constituents of Australia. Our job is not to just look after the benefits of people who work in Canberra.

There has been a lot said about the so-called pork-barrelling of the APVMA going to Armadale. I can remember, under a previous government, when I was in opposition, there was the Department of Climate Change, and a beautiful steel and concrete edifice was dug into the ground, disguised with second-hand timber and vines to make it look environmentally friendly, in the middle of Canberra. There was no thought as to why, if climate change is affecting the whole of Australia, that had to be in the middle of Canberra. But there was no talk of pork-barrelling when that went up.

I have just done 3,000 kilometres in the last week, and most of those were on gravel roads. I have been to communities like Tibooburra, where the community committee runs the whole town: they collect the garbage; they fix the water pipes. So I have some idea of communities doing things and of the effects of government decisions on that.

The reasons for the APVMA going to Armadale were: because of the university, because there are the peak bodies for breeds there and because most of the users of ag chemicals are in regional Australia. There was some quite dishonest reporting of it. Indeed, the head of the department has since resigned. There were improper reports in the media about staff working out of McDonald's and nonsense such as that, which were completely fabricated.

We have seen other examples of decentralisation that have benefited the people who it is supposed to serve. The Grains Research and Development Corporation was decentralised across several locations. One of those was in Dubbo in my electorate. That was not because it was pork-barrelling for the member for Parkes but so that the people who need that research, who are collaborating with the government—the researchers, the farmers and others—could get access to highly qualified, professional people.

The Murray-Darling Basin Authority being decentralised across several locations was also of benefit. If we had that back when Senator Wong was the minister, we might not have seen the bulk purchase of water for Collymongle Station which took out three quarters of the jobs. In comparable terms, it would be something like 50,000 jobs out of Canberra. As a comparison, that was taken out of Collarenebri with one stroke of a pen. Ten per cent of the rate base of Bourke was taken out when Senator Wong purchased Toorale Station without any thought. If those decisions were informed and made closer to where the people actually lived, that would be a benefit to not only Australian taxpayers but the people we serve. I have just had the weekend in Broken Hill—a wonderful centre in the western part of my electorate. I spoke to the mayor and the general manager of Broken Hill on Friday. They said, 'We would like to look at what we can do with some of the decentralisation policies that you are looking at.' They are central to Adelaide, Melbourne and Sydney. The NBN is being rolled out at the end of this year and next year.

The member for Canberra talked about the Menzies era. In the Menzies era, members from regional Australia would catch the train to Canberra and stay there for six weeks. Letters would come from their electorates. We now have connectivity. The reason that those departments were placed all around Parliament House are not as valid as they were in the original days, because in you can work anywhere Australia.

Mike Kelly (Eden-Monaro, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Canberra for bringing forward this motion. It is extremely important to understand that this is an assault on what was created as the 'bush capital'. It seems to be something that the Nationals and the Liberals have forgotten in this process. This whole region is one economic, social, health and education entity that supports the economy of the whole of regional southern New South Wales. The coalition are, effectively, launching an assault on one region in order to pork-barrel for areas that they seem to control. It is not creating new jobs in regional Australia; it is stealing from Peter to pay Paul. What we need to have is a strategy for creating new jobs in rural and regional Australia. It is very fortuitous that I am standing next to the member for Grayndler, who understands that reinforcing rural and regional Australia was about addressing issues such as infrastructure and investing in good-quality, value-adding infrastructure that would grow those economies—things like the Bega bypass that the member assisted me with.

We have to understand that we are robbing this region and destroying the strategic weight that Canberra gives it. That strategic weight is what has enabled us to attract the international airport and the sectors that have come with that. My primary producers are taking advantage of that strategic weight and opening up that international sector. From the cherry growers in Young to oyster growers on the coast, we are seeing a huge opportunity for our primary producers to get their product on plates in Southeast Asia and to really bite into that growing middle class market with good-quality fresh produce. That will be lost to us if we see this destruction of the Canberra economy.

I will also lose the driving holiday-makers that travel all around this region and give such a boost to our tourism industry. It really annoys me when we see people like the Premier New South Wales, Gladys Berejiklian, slagging off Canberra when she completely ignores the fact that the Canberra region supports southern New South Wales not only economically, as I have mentioned, but also through health and education support that it provides to my communities and the many communities in this region. So she should be a bit more appreciative of the impact and the results delivered by Canberra that relieve burdens on her own budget and her own administration.

We already have substantial commuter traffic coming to Canberra from around the region—people from Queanbeyan, of course, Cooma, Bungendore, Yass, Goulburn, Braidwood, Murrumbateman, Gundaroo, Sutton, Collector, Michelago, Thredbo—if you drew a one-hour radius right around this area of Canberra, you would see that a vast number of people who work here and who are supported by the economy come from regional New South Wales. Twenty-seven thousand vehicles a day cross the border just from Queanbeyan alone. This government should be focusing on generating those new economies, as I said, and getting better education, better health and better NBN, improving productivity and resilience for our primary producers and getting their produce into regional markets. And this should be done now, not in 20 years through some of these dubious free-trade arrangements that they have entered into.

We have suffered enough under the coalition through their forced mergers in New South Wales, their mishandling of this greyhounds issue, loss of services—particularly through their attacks on Centrelink, providing regional advisers to my veterans; my electorate offices have effectively become adjuncts to Centrelink, handling hundreds and hundreds of complaints by people who are in great distress over the effects of this federal government's attack on services that are provided to rural and regional Australia. We have seen post offices close. Banks are closing in my region. We are seeing railway stations close. And our community is well and truly fed up with the total neglect it is seeing from coalition governments at the federal and state level. That is why people like Pauline Hanson and Donald Trump get the results they do: because the grievances of the people are not being addressed by governments they once had faith in.

Also banks: we have seen complete dropping of the ball in relation to dealing with banking issues. My farmers come up to me complaining of the way they have been treated by banks and are crying out for a royal commission into the way banks conduct business for our farmers. This government is flying in the face of cost-benefit analysis on why these moves should not actually happen and the Productivity Commission's own analysis that says this is no good, at a time of so-called budget repair, when we are forking out $60 million to try to move these departments. And how many departments do we have, to go around the whole of Australia? This is a joke. It is a joke to pork barrel, and it does not help this country or rural and regional Australia. (Time expired)

Damian Drum (Murray, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I find it amazing that the Labor Party are just so openly hostile in their opposition to the concept of decentralisation. We have a whole raft of experiences and a whole raft of examples of where decentralisation has in fact worked at both the state and the federal level. It seems to be an opportunity for all of Australia—not just Canberra, not just Sydney, not just Melbourne—to share in the wealth created by the taxpayers. This is an opportunity for everybody to share partially in the wealth generated by the Public Service—well-educated, hardworking, smart people working and living in every area around Australia, not just having them condensed into one or two or three very high-socioeconomic social areas such as CBDs of Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra.

It is amazing when it is put to the Australian people that we are spending $4½ billion to subsidise public transport in Melbourne and Sydney. No-one raises an eyebrow at that—just our everyday subsidisation of the fare box that happens around Australia in our major regional cities and our major metropolitan areas. There is this enormous subsidisation. No-one cares about that, but the second we start talking about putting some real wealth into the regions, everyone starts talking about pork barrelling. This is quite staggering. We have the situation in which, in the ACT, they are calling for a $100 million-odd light rail system that is going to operate in and around Canberra. And that is not going to pay for itself; it will need to be subsidised by taxpayers so that it operates just like every other metropolitan train service or tram service. It has to be subsidised so that it actually works.

But from the Labor Party there seems to be one rule for everybody else and another rule for the regions. So, the cities can take and use whatever they wish but, when it comes to asking for a fair share for the regions or for country Australia, all of a sudden the Labor Party puts up the shutters and calls for the absolute abolition of any of those sorts of funds going out to the regions. It is staggering, decisions being made by bureaucrats and public servants that have a real impact—and not on Canberra, not on Sydney, not on Melbourne, not on the major metropolitan areas. When the decisions of the bureaucrats and the decisions of the departments have a true impact on the regions, it is staggering to think that the Labor Party will oppose the idea that some of those bureaucrats should in fact live in the regions, that they should be able to sample the consequences of their decisions each and every day because they are living through it.

This was one of the great arguments for further decentralisation of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, where the decisions that are being made here in Canberra are impacting on all of the towns, communities and cities along the Murray-Darling Basin. Those decisions are having an impact on everybody's lives every day of the year. Yet we have in this chamber a shadow minister for water who continually wants to push the water away from productive agriculture and towards environmental purposes. That balance has been totally tilted askew and we are going to get to the situation where damage is going to be done. These sorts of decisions are seen to be made on a distant planet, and whatever decisions the bureaucrats in Canberra make on various other regions around Australia seem to not be of any real concern to those people. Through a decentralisation policy, we might find that those people live and breathe the consequences of their decisions—and you can replicate this example across other areas.

But when we think about decentralisation we should not just be thinking about decentralising departments and portfolios that actually pertain to rural and regional Australia. There is no reason that you could not do more along the lines of the Australian Taxation Office, which was decentralised many, many years ago to the Albury-Wodonga region. That is seen to have been very positive and very successful—as with the case of the State Revenue office move to Ballarat and on and on it goes. They are great examples. We should follow this lead. (Time expired)

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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.