Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Senator McKim, I'm sure, would agree that some of the policies brought in in the last four years have been good—us being the last state in Australia to have schools that went through to year 12, kids dropping out at year 10 and often not going on to do anything else. Thankfully, now we are seeing students in these schools going on to finish their secondary education—about time. It is good, and the feedback has been good—from the students, from their families, from the communities in which these schools exist and from the staff as well. I know it's not convenient when the staff take a different line to the AEU in Tasmania, but they are welcoming it. They are embracing it.

Mr O' Byrne also goes on:

Inequality is the look on the face of Tasmanians who are forced to wait 12 months to get in to the RHH after testing positive to a bowel cancer screening because they can't afford to pay to see a private specialist.

There's been a lot of talk of cuts. The last government, the Labor-Green government in Tasmania, oversaw massive cuts. This is something that we see them try and sweep aside—put under the rug—so no-one can deal with it. They cut 250 nurses from our hospitals statewide. How does cutting those supports, those vital frontline workers—which, I might add, the Hodgman Liberal government have reinstated and then some—reduce the inequality that Mr O'Byrne is now concerned enough about that he's written an op-ed about it three years after he lost his seat in the Tasmanian parliament? Words are great, but back it up with actions. He went on, finally, to say:

An interventionist government—

aka big government, with lots and lots of public servants in nice big office blocks in Hobart, is the way to go—

lifting all boats on a rising tide through a strong vision and targeted action …

That sounds great, but to me it sounds like cutting down tall poppies, shaming those who do well, work hard and take a risk, and that is something I think we need to be aware of.

On the specifics of this bill, I heard Senator O'Neill mention in her contribution that the bill will enable the Productivity Commission to do something that it doesn't currently do. But, as I understand it, the commission under the current legislation isn't precluded from doing that. I feel that, in directing it to study something that it already can, this legislation is not entirely necessary. No-one is stopping it from doing that. It can do that, so, in that sense, it seems mildly superfluous. The bill provides for a report in the end; it enables the Productivity Commission to study, evaluate and compile a report on inequality. It doesn't change anything. The government still needs to do something after receipt of these reports.

Again, I'm pretty sure those seven people across the country who are listening to this debate, if they haven't tuned out already—