House debates

Thursday, 10 August 2017

Constituency Statements

Bass Electorate: Marriage

10:00 am

Photo of Ross HartRoss Hart (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

This week we have seen the Turnbull Liberal government push forward with its plans for a plebiscite on marriage equality. I would like to take this opportunity to echo the comments made by Senator Wong in the Senate yesterday: this plebiscite is nothing but a desperate, damaging and expensive stunt arising out of the Prime Minister's failure of leadership within his own party room. It is something that I fear will unleash hatred and division amongst our LGBTI community, despite protestations that is it is possible to conduct a rational and respectful debate and bring the community together. Yes, it is possible to have a rational, respectful debate, where the framers of the Constitution intended such debates to occur, and for that reason the debate should occur in this parliament.

But I digress. Considering that this government now proposes a statistically irrelevant non-compulsory opinion poll, I put a question to the constituents of the Bass electorate via Facebook, asking them how best to spend the $122 million of public funds that is now earmarked for the postal plebiscite. I received almost 200 comments in response in less than 24 hours, reaching over 6,000 people, a sample that I might suggest is as statistically relevant as the postal plebiscite itself will be. I was heartened by many of the suggestions coming from my constituents. Responses suggesting expenditure on health were by far the most common, including funding for mental health and aged care, which is not a surprise, given the issues facing the Tasmanian health system at the moment. Chronic underfunding by the state Liberal government has led to ambulance ramping, bed block, blown-out waiting lists and understaffing at our major hospitals, putting both patients and staff at risk.

Education also featured highly in well over half the responses, with a fantastic suggestion of funding a band program in every school in Australia. There was also great support for channelling funding into housing—for example, installing solar panels onto every public housing property in Tasmania—as well as addressing homelessness in our communities. One comment suggested that $122 million invested in increasing Centrelink's resources and workforce would ease the burden on the system, bringing down telephone wait times and speeding up processing times for claims.

Legal aid and community legal centres received many mentions also. Given that the funding for these services is often uncertain, $122 million would ensure that vulnerable and disadvantaged Australians would have access to legal services and to representation in a system that often leaves them marginalised. I know that there are many instances where people who are in full-time work, not just those who would normally count as disadvantaged, cannot by any stretch of the imagination afford legal advice. I know that many of the social services I deal with, including community legal centres, would heartily welcome a renewed commitment to funding public legal aid.