Thank you very much Senator Guy Barnett, to Michael Ferguson the Liberal candidate for Bass, to my other Senate and parliamentary colleagues, to the Mayor of Launceston, ladies and gentlemen.
As always, it';s a great pleasure to be back in this beautiful city and to be back in Tasmania, and hasn';t Tasmania been a great example of Australia';s economic vitality and economic strength over the past few years? I am delighted, as somebody who has visited your state regularly in the almost 30 years have been in federal parliament, to observe the stronger economic conditions in Tasmania. And that is due to a number of factors, but is due overwhelmingly to the national economic strength of the entire Australian nation.
I found it very interesting over the years to gauge the reactions of state governments to various developments. When the national economy is going badly, it';s all the fault of the federal government : when the national economy is going well and the state economy is going well, it';s due to the brilliance of the state economic policies. The reality of course is that national economic management is the responsibility of the Federal Government and when the national economy is down, the Federal Government has got to cop the blame, and when the national economy is up, the Federal Government is entitled to say well it has been the result of our economic policies. And I think that has been the outstanding achievement of the Government I have led for almost eight years.
We had an unemployment figure yesterday of 5.7 per cent. We now have what I call the golden double. For the first time in 35 years, we have unemployment below 6 per cent and inflation below 3 per cent. The unemployment rate in Tasmania is now 2.2 per cent lower I think than what it was two or three years ago. The tourist industry is reviving. The Regional Forest Agreements have brought balance and security and predicability to industry in this state. The passenger subsidy that Senator Barnett referred to has been a massive shot in the arm for the tourist industry. And I am delighted to say that there will be many benefits for Tasmania from the free trade agreement that we have negotiated with the United States.
That free trade agreement will bring great long-term benefits to this country. It';s the most important trade agreement that Australia has signed in more than a generation. Sixty-six per cent of our agricultural exports to the United States will be immediately duty free. There are benefits for our seafood industry through the removal of American tariffs. There are benefits for our manufacturing and our mining and our service industries. We have protected the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. We will continue to have a world class Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Its security and continuity is not in question. We have also guaranteed a proper measure of local content so that for years into the future, indeed for all time, so far as I am concerned, we will continue to hear Australian voices, Australian culture, Australian views and Australian residences on our television screens and in our movie theatres.
And what we have been able to negotiate came about because of a once in a generation opportunity. We would never again, if we had turned aside from that opportunity, we would never again have had the confluence of circumstances that have led to this free trade agreement being negotiated. And I know from my discussion with President Bush last Sunday morning how committed he is to getting a free trade agreement through Congress.
The American political system is different from ours. The administration might sign a free trade agreement, but he';s got to have that agreement ratified by Congress before it can be given effect. Whereas in Australia, the only changes that need to be ratified by the parliament are those that involve particular alterations to certain pieces of legislation. And the biggest issue by far in national politics in the months ahead will be whether or not we can give full effect to the free trade agreement. And this not something that we can put and take on, we can';t say well we';ll take 90 per cent of the advantages but we';ll reject these little things that we don';t like.
We must either ratify the whole thing, or reject the whole thing. And I of course will be spending a great deal of time explaining to the Australian people on every occasion that I can that it is in the national interest that we ratify the whole agreement. Why on earth would Australia give up the opportunity of linking itself with the strongest economy in the world? Why would we pass up the opportunity of gaining benefits on many fronts? We didn';t get all the benefits we wanted. We didn';t get access for the sugar industry, but let me say even a modest amount of access to the sugar industry would not have gone anywhere near solving the problems of that industry. We didn';t get all we wanted on beef, but we got a lot. We got more upfront on dairy than many people expected, and as I mentioned earlier we gained some very significant benefits in other areas.
Now I';ve spent a few moments talking about the free trade agreement because this is something that';s very much about Australia';s future. Australia is a country that needs as many trading opportunities and trading partners as we can lay our hands on. Eighteen months ago we signed an enormous natural gas deal with China. China has been a very fast growing market for Australia. We have continued to maintain our great markets in Japan and Korea. Australia is a country that will trade anywhere if there is advantage for this country. I have a very simple philosophy when it comes to trade. I will do what is in Australia';s national interest. It';s as simple as that. I';m not hidebound by some strict ideology or theory when it comes to trade. I';m neither a multilateralist or a bilateralist. I';m an Australian first Prime Minister who is prepared to put the national interest ahead of any other consideration. That';s why we';ve negotiated the agreement and it to me beggars belief that anybody – that is the Federal Opposition, trade union movement or anybody else – could oppose a deal which is so clearly in the interests of this country.
That of course is not the only issue that we have on our plate nationally at the present time. We';re still trying to negotiate through the Senate, might I say strongly supported to date and I';m sure into the future, by all of the Tasmanian Liberal Senators, we';re still trying to negotiate through the Senate the introduction of a Medicare safety net. Now we introduced some changes last year. One of them was to increase the Medicare rebate for bulk billing of concession cardholders and children under 16. That was done by regulation. It didn';t need an act of parliament. And the higher amount started to be paid to doctors on the 2nd of February, just a little over a week ago. We';ve also introduced a lot of other measures that over time will bring more doctors, more practice nurses and more assistance into the medical practices in the regional and outer metropolitan areas of Australia. That didn';t require any legislation either.
But what does require legislation is the introduction of a Medicare safety net. We are proposing for the first time to introduce a Medicare safety net. This is a very simple safety net. What it says is that if you are a concession cardholder or if you are a family in receipt of Family Tax Benefit A, and that is families with about three out of four children in Australia, then if your out of pocket out of hospital medical expenses exceed $500 in any one year, then you are reimbursed 80 per cent of that excess over $500. If you are anybody else in the community that is not in that category, then the threshold is $1,000, not $500.
Now out of pocket expenses can either be if you';re not bulk billed when you go to the GP, can be the difference between the Medicare rebate and what you pay the doctor, or if you go to a specialist out of hospital it can be the consultation fee, if you go to a radiologist, if you get a tissue biopsy, if you get a whole range of other services – diagnostic services – which are out of hospital, and the expenses you incur over and above the Medicare rebate. So it doesn';t just cover the surplus from the doctor';s visit. It covers all those others. And we all know from our experience – you break your leg, you go the see the doctor, you go and get an x-ray, you go and see a specialist doctor, and it all mounts up. And particularly in a family situation, you can pretty quickly get over that $500 in any one year.
But I can';t for the life of me see why our opponents should be against this. I mean I can accept that they have a slightly different philosophy on this whole issue than we do, and if they were elected to government, they';re entitled to bring in their policies. But there is nothing inconsistent between this and what they are advocating. It seems to me to be negative dog in the manger politics to say well because we';re not in government, we won';t let you bring in something that is beneficial to the Australian public. So we';ll be pushing very hard because this is something that concerns people. This is something that affects their daily capacity to fund their living expenses. And I can';t for the life of me see why we can';t sink our political differences for the sake of Australian families and put this measure through. So I am still saying to our opponents in the Senate – we understand our differences on certain issues, but passing a safety net would never compromise the capacity of some other government into the future bringing about further changes. So for the sake once again of the interests of Australian families, we ought on this issue to sink our differences and to put the measure through.
But ladies and gentlemen, the last thing I want to say is that I';m delighted to be here with Michael, to congratulate him on being chosen by our party as the candidate for the seat of Bass. I know something of his contribution as a teacher, as a Young Achiever of the Year, as a family man, as somebody who stands up for what he believes in. He';s not afraid to express his views, he';s not going to bend in the face of criticism in relation to something he believes in very strongly, and I am very proud to have him as part of my team. I wish him well and I assure him that he will have the total and strong support of his federal parliamentary colleagues.
Thank you very much for having me back. It';s great to see you.
[ends]