Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am delighted to be able to debate this motion this afternoon and indeed to highlight the government's commitment to governing in the best interests of all Australians. The failure of those opposite to sustain significant policy debate, I think, is doing this nation a great disservice. But I am somewhat heartened by Senator Sinodinos's contribution this afternoon because you can see within that the true ideological divide in the very policy measures that we are talking about. The motion itself says absolutely nothing. It is a debate about a motion about negative politics, creating yet another run of negative politics driven by the opposition. I am quite happy to debate members in this chamber about the policy issues that are critical to the direction of this nation. But what we need to do is to get on with governing and governing in the best interests of all Australians.

There is nothing wrong with means testing. We are not a country of tall-poppy activists in this country. It is simply good public policy to make those who can afford it pay and to make those who cannot afford it pay less. These are the underpinnings of a stronger, fairer, smarter, modern Australia. It means we need to be committed to the right policies that are targeted to the needs of Australians and setting out their details and costings, and making sure they are fully funded. These are the things to which the Labor government is committed.

What we get from those opposite are slogans, sound bites and uncosted policies, tailored to suit whatever audience of the day they are trying to reach. The motion that we are debating today is just another sound bite—no policy critique; no vision of their own. Certainly no policies targeted at the best interests of all Australians are coming from the coalition. You can see this very starkly in the agenda in political debate that has emerged in just the last fortnight.

I give my wholehearted support to Labor's Aussie job $1 billion plan for manufacturing. From a Western Australian point of view, whether you are wearing a state hat or a federal hat, when you look at the Labor Party's policies compared to the National-Liberal Party's policies you will see there are clear ideological divides—clear divides in the way we would like to plan to give industry a leg-up and a boost in this country. It is Labor's plan that I think best serves this country in terms of jobs, growth and future opportunities.

We know that Western Australia has had a massive boom in mining investment. The effects of this have been felt right around the country and in Western Australia. But it has not been good news for everyone. Surely every person in this place can accede to that. For some it has actually made life much more difficult—the high dollar and intense competition. It has hit manufacturing, it has hit tourism, it has hit agriculture and it has hit other sectors of the economy. But what we have is a plan that federal Labor has put forward, and it is remarkably similar to one put forward by state Labor, which represents a shift in industry policy. They are plans which put the needs of workers first and are focused on converting the massive pipeline of investment into jobs. We have got, still, a $268 billion pipeline of investment in this country, and we need to make sure that we maximise the dividend from that investment into Australian jobs.

We have been focused on working with business, industry, unions, government, researchers, and the education and training sector so that we can have a plan for what to do. We have a significant plan, the first principle of which is to back local industry to win more of this work. What we are asking—in fact, requiring—of our big corporations and our big projects, whether they be government projects or industry projects, is to map out plans for local industry participation. We are doing that through our Australian Industry Participation Authority and the proposed Australian Jobs Act. We will also be focused on local industry precincts, and you can see this through Labor's commitment to establishing some innovation and industry precincts.

In contrast, how are those opposite responding to this situation? They do not have a plan. They voted against Labor's Skilled Jobs (Benefits from the Boom) Bill in the state parliament in WA. And Sophie Mirabella has committed the opposition to opposing our jobs plan. You can see the ideological divide here. Labor wants to make sure that Australians and local companies doing local work here in Australia have the opportunity to tap into this massive pipeline of investment. Those opposite want a far more laissez faire approach to this where corporations can just contract out at any cost to businesses overseas, and you can drive a truck through the industry participation plans as they currently exist.

So where is the coalition in standing up for ordinary Australians? Where is the coalition when it comes to standing up for Aussie jobs? I know that the resources we are digging out of the ground are finite. They can only be used once. What we need in this country is a plan to develop a skilled workforce that can create new industries and new jobs for the future. This has to be achieved long, long after the construction and mining boom has gone.

We need a government that is prepared to stand up for all ordinary Australians, just as the Gillard Labor government is committed to doing.

What else are we doing to govern in the broad interest of all Australians? There are important things like making sure that families can make ends meet. We have our Schoolkids Bonus. We are preparing Australia for the future and delivering on Labor values that are inclusive of the needs of all Australians such as reforming aged care, introducing the National Disability Insurance Scheme, committing to changing education funding in this country through Gonski, planning for dental care, planning for skills training, and planning for infrastructure. As the government we know that we are going to have to make some difficult and tough economic choices in order to deliver these priorities. When you talk about needing to govern for all Australians—and you cast out those who do not get the care and support that they need when they are in aged care, who do not get the care and support they need when they have a disability, who were in impoverished schools that are not getting the targeted funding they need, who are locked out of education skills and training, who are living in communities without adequate community infrastructure—you know that these are all national priorities that we will not solve overnight. You can only solve them with a plan. You can only solve them with a commitment. You can only solve them as part of a national agenda where you are prepared to work with the states and, at times, be tough with them.

If, as a country, we are going to solve these significant problems we cannot just leave the states to figure it all out for themselves. These are national problems and require national support to help resolve them. I have respect for the role of the states. I am a former state MP and I have been involved in state politics. We are a country that desperately needs to tackle some of these issues at a national level such as things like disability funding, the inequities in our education system, the fact that dental care has been missing from the health system as if it does not exist, and the need for a national infrastructure plan. We know that we will need to make tough choices to deliver on policies that truly deliver to all Australians. We will need to understand the people's priorities, the nation's priorities, to deliver on things like Gonski and the NDIS, and to deliver on job creation.

From those opposite we have relentless negativity that is aggressive and destructive. I would like to stand up an optimistic Australia— (Time expired)