Senator LUNDY (10:12 PM) —I rise this evening to talk about the role of government in Australia. It is interesting to observe the way in which this government approaches its responsibilities with respect to the administration of the government and government services. First of all, I believe that the role of government needs to be addressed in the most basic and fundamental way.

In Western social democratic societies, the government serves a role in ensuring that a redistribution of wealth occurs to provide the necessary infrastructure for human habitation and active participation in society. The degree to which the government turns its mind to those who have a disadvantage in the way wealth is distributed has traditionally been a determinant of how progressive a government is.

I believe that there is always a role for government in providing for those in need, both in the community and at a level of functional infrastructure. What happens when this fundamental role of government is rejected by the party in power—in this case, the coalition—and it starts dismantling the administrative structures that provide the means and the tools by which they give effect to policies?

This administrative deconstruction does two things. First, it reduces the ability of the government of the day to effect change. If the tools for change are disabled or locked up in long-term potentially litigious contracts, then governments and political parties, despite their intentions, may not have the means to deliver their policies to effect change, to achieve their social goals, or to put in place their election commitments.

The second impact takes this first point into the body politic. Paradoxically, the worse that government services become the more this aim serves to reinforce to voters that governments are unable to deliver effective and meaningful services and to support those in need. This downward spiral works against those parties such as Labor that advocate a reasonable and caring role for government and for government to provide a level of services to society. In other words, the voter perception of that party advocating a supporting role for government is that those services are in fact not effective. Conversely, the very party that advocates a further reduction and diminution in government services creates self-serving reinforcement by underfunding critical services, outsourcing with poor contractual management, privatising and generally withdrawing public accountability processes from taxpayers' expenditure.

This scenario paints a very bleak picture, and this picture is Australia. Under the successive budgets of the coalition government, we have seen them shirk their responsibility to the nation to provide for those in need. For the first time in Australia's history, we have a coalition government that is not committed to the good governance and good administration of this country. We have a government so blinded by their own economic rhetoric that they are prepared to diminish their ability to be effective agents of change by deconstructing the administration and giving free rein to the market.

We know the market has not got a reputation for compassion and commitment to social justice; we know the market is not known for its concern for countries that contribute barely a percentage point on the global stock market; we know the market is not known for consideration of people who are geographically dispersed; and we know the market is not committed to the growth of new business in industry development. Is this the type of government we want? Are we happy to let the market determine what the agents of change and what the progressive nature of our country will be?

I believe this government have abdicated their social responsibility. I think there are three main indicators for this: firstly, the budget; secondly, their priorities; and, thirdly, their activities in silencing their critics. Let us have a look at the successive budgets and the accompanying legislative changes. There has been $1 billion in cuts to higher education and a similar amount to child-care services. There have been legislative and structural changes and cuts to aged care, legal aid, social security, the common youth allowance and the shifts with public schools funding—all of these areas dealt with over the last successive budgets demonstrate that this government has little compassion.

The priorities of this government are another indicator as to the neglect of their social responsibility: advocating a GST; conspiring with employers to sack workers on the waterfront; condoning divisive and racist comments and allowing them to be a catalyst for their own policies; the total negligence with respect to new and emerging technologies and the social inequities that come with negligence in that area; and the privatisation of public assets—all of these things represent the priorities of this government. They are not about compassion; they are not about social equity; and they are not about fairness.

In relation to my third point about the government silencing their critics, I turn first to the slashing of funding to the ABC. This and the consistent attacks by Senator Alston more than anything else demonstrate that, rather than spend their time on policies which take the country forward, this government spends a disproportionate amount of time trying to silence those who present a fair view. I think the most disappointing thing about the position that Senator Alston has taken with respect to the ABC is that he has become the spokesperson for the attacks on the credibility and unbiased position that the ABC has taken. The fact that he has the executive power to control funding to the ABC demonstrates a classic conflict of interest.

It is so interesting that this government decided to place Senator Alston in this invidious position. Why didn't John Howard take the lead in attacking the ABC? Why didn't Peter Costello? Why didn't any of the other ministers—perhaps their consumer affairs minister—take the running on their appalling campaign against the ABC? Why was it left to Senator Alston to wear both hats? It does nothing to support their arguments, and I believe that this conflict that the minister has to deal with in the conduct of his duties as the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts will come back to haunt him.

Other examples of this government silencing their critics can be found in the cuts in funding in the first budget round to many women's groups that received grant funding through the Office of the Status of Women. These groups by their nature were collectives of women who came together to advocate specific causes. Some of the groups were quite broad and represented women across a particular sector. They at least got six months notice of their funding cut. I cannot say the same thing for AYPAC. This peak youth body received notice of their funding cut only a short time ago. In fact, they had half an hour's notice that they would no longer receive funding for their secretariat, for their administration, for their future. I think the silencing of these outspoken people in the community is a great demonstration of what this government have to hide.

So we can see within the budget, within its priorities and within its exorbitant efforts to silence its critics that we do not have a government that can hold its head up and say it is socially responsible. We have a government that is not about the good governance of this country; it is about deconstruction. That will undermine not just its ability to effect change and progress but from here on in it will undermine the ability of other governments to do that. That is why it is so important to rectify this situation and get rid of this neglectful government.