I declare that at 1.30 pm today the following bills stand referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration: Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2014-2015, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2014-2015, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2014-2015, Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2013-2014 and Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2013-2014.
by leave—As I was previously saying in this debate, one of the other elements of this budget that is making health care less affordable and less accessible to people is the changes to the Medicare safety net. In a somewhat tricky move the government have put forward a reasonable proposition—they are starting to say, 'Let's have some better targeting of the Medicare safety net,' and it is true that a number of people will reach that safety net earlier—but there is $270 million of savings in that measure, which means that when people hit the safety net they will get less back than they currently do. So the devil is in the detail when it comes to the safety net changes. As I said, whilst we would support better targeting, there are many, many Australians that never ever reach the safety net threshold. Indigenous Australians would never in a million years get to the sorts of costs in terms of access to services that are involved in the threshold for the safety net.
Another area that is affected is the freezing of the MBS items for two years. In essence, this is a measure that translates into more out-of-pocket costs for people trying to access specialists. So again you have to look at the detail of the budget to see where, in every element of it, the government is increasing out-of-pocket expenses for people trying to access health care.
In dental care the government is cutting $229 million by abolishing the dental Flexible Grants Program. That is a program for regional and rural communities in particular to build better dental clinics, to improve access to dental chairs and to improve access to dental training and clinical training spaces. The government has also cut $391 million by deferring the national partnership agreement for adult dental services. Again, this affects some of the most vulnerable Australians in our community. Having opposed the abolition of the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme, the government now seems to be cutting the very scheme that was designed to help low-income people access public dental care. Again, no notice was given to the states and territories about this deferral. Public dental waiting lists are already well beyond what we would expect them to be. They will blow out even further. In every community where those public dental waiting lists have started to stabilise, they will now start to blow out because of the decision this government has made to defer and cut $391 million out of that dental scheme.
The budget also contains structural changes and savings, such as those made through the abolition of the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency. We remember that a huge amount of work was done to undo some of the damage that the Prime Minister had done as health minister when he capped GP training places, along with the lack of planning and investment that had gone into developing Australia's health workforce. We will have a bit more to say about that in a subsequent debate. But there is great concern about the $142 million which has disappeared out of workforce planning in this budget.
The General Practice Education and Training program has been abolished, and something that has been condemned by the Rural Doctors Association and rural doctors at large is the abolition of the Prevocational General Practice Placements Program. We have also seen the abolition of all of the Medicare Locals, when the Prime Minister directly said that there would be no Medicare Locals closing. Every one of them is abolished under this government's plans.
And replaced.
Every single one of them is being replaced? All 64 of them are being replaced, are they? You might want to check that statement with the health minister.
So there are cuts right across the entire health system, and it all translates to more costs for people out of their own pockets to pay for accessing a doctor; increased costs for accessing pharmaceuticals and medicines that are increasingly expensive; cuts to public hospitals, which means a reduction in services for people; cuts in dental care; and the abolition, pretty much, of the Commonwealth's entire role in preventative health. How short-sighted is that.
What we know from this budget is that this government has its priorities absolutely wrong when it comes to health. Its priorities when it comes to health are all about transferring costs onto patients—making people pay more to see a doctor, making people pay more to access medicines and gutting the agreements with our public hospitals. Shame on the government for this budget on health.
This budget sets the framework for a sustainable future for our country, and it is absolutely the budget we need at this time. The previous six budgets delivered in this place simply drove us ever further and further away from that fundamental requirement: sustainability. Labor's entire approach to public finances was fundamentally unsustainable. Their expenditure was out of control, and Labor did not care. They remain completely unrepentant for the legacy of intergenerational debt that they have left behind. They show no signs of regret for the legacy of debt that they are leaving to future generations. They show no signs of being prepared to adopt a different path, were they ever to be entrusted with government again.
Each and every budget from those opposite raised hopes and raised expectations, but in reality it was all based on unfunded spending that could not sustain those hopes and expectations. Labor was turning Australia into la-la land, where the cornerstone idea was that everybody could have everything they wanted when they wanted it and they would never have to pay for it. It was the most socially, culturally and economically irresponsible government in the history of this country.
The result was debt and deficit on a massive scale, stretching off way beyond the forward estimates. It put the stupidities of the Whitlam era—and some of those were extraordinary—deep in the shade, and we could consign the Whitlam era even deeper in the shade if the member for Lilley had ever been able to find himself someone like Mr Khemlani! Australia simply cannot sustain the kind of government spending that the member for Lilley directed without a Khemlani. That took the federal government from having $70 billion in the bank in 2007 to having a rapidly looming gross debt, without any remedial action, of $667 billion.
When we came to office, the most fundamental task confronting us was to restructure the public economy, shifting the balance away from recurrent expenditure to investment in infrastructure and skills and the things that drive productivity growth. That is the best safety net there is: an economy in which there is a job for everyone who is capable of holding one and where the need for a safety net for those who cannot gain employment is at a level that those who have a job are able to sustain indefinitely. That is not where we are today. It is where we have to be as soon as we can reasonably manage it. As an inevitable result of that necessity, there are hard decisions in this budget, and there had to be plenty of them, given the way this country had been governed for the past six years. Now, some of the measures will not impact immediately. Several are designed to trim expenditure growth by freezing indexation or tightening eligibility in the welfare sector.
Australia has been drifting too far, too fast towards more leaning and less lifting, under the mistaken impression that we could always afford it. But we cannot, and the proof of that is that this drift was occurring on borrowed money. According to Labor—still in denial—debt in this form of unproductive, unsustainable government does not really matter. But of course debt does matter. Everybody managing a personal budget knows that. The debt projection in this country is a crisis. Labor's debt bill is costing us $1 billion a month just in interest. The first billion dollars raised in revenue each month goes to paying Labor's debt, and that would have kept going until the $1 billion became $2 billion and then $3 billion if Labor were still entrusted with the treasury bench. But, if you do not think that is a crisis, Labor wanted to add to the amount they borrowed to pay interest on the debt while lifting spending even further. The Gonski reforms meant billions more; the NDIS, billions more; foreign aid, billions; defence, billions; health, billions—and none of this expenditure had been provided for. Spending was just going up ever and ever higher, way out beyond the forward estimates.
To make it even sillier, the sources of revenue for this spendathon were works of fiction or worse. King amongst them of course was the mining tax, the magic pudding that never was. It was sliced and sliced and sliced again, all to deliver absolutely nothing. The pudding simply never existed. The carbon tax was even worse, putting a burden on all Australians but not delivering anything that was going to improve our national economy.
The International Monetary Fund recently confirmed that, for the six years from 2012 to 2018, Australia was forecast to have the largest percentage increase in spending of the 17 IMF advanced economies profiled. Labor promised to limit real spending growth to two per cent a year. Instead, during their time in office, they delivered real spending growth of 3½ per cent. Now 2017-18 is coming into the forward estimates for the first time, the medium-term projections from MYEFO show real spending growth between 2016-17 and 2017-18 would have been nearly six per cent—nearly three times what Labor promised they were going to deliver.
So we made some tough decisions in this budget, but they are the right decisions. We will reduce the budget deficit from almost $50 billion in 2014 to $29 billion by next year and to just $2.8 billion in 2017-18. And we are doing it the hard way by reducing expenditure, not the Labor way of raising taxes. Peak government debt will be reduced from $667 billion to $389 billion in 2023-24. That number is still too high, but it does represent a substantial improvement on where Labor would have taken us.
You have not heard very much from our critics over recent weeks on this, but the budget will actually reduce taxes by $5.7 billion in the coming financial year—$5.7 billion less in taxes. The company tax rate has been cut by 1.5 per cent and we intend to honour our election mandate to get rid of the carbon tax and the mining tax. By comparison, Labor lumped an extra $107.3 billion in taxes on Australian families and businesses while they were in government, introducing 944 new revenue measures over that time, more than 90 of which they never even legislated. Around 80 per cent of those measures were increased taxes or increased compliance costs on enterprises, while 77 per cent of our budget improvements come from reduced expenditure and only 23 per cent from higher receipts. So we are moving to make substantial changes. We are moving to make sure that our budget can be secure in the future. We have to make the safety net in our welfare system secure and capable of catching people who need it in the future. We were elected to fix Labor's mess, to deliver better management and to start turning the budget around. We did not hide the fact that it would be tough, and this budget gets on with the task.
We have made some significant reforms to the age pension to make it sustainable. Young people with the capacity to work will be required to be earning, learning or participating in work for the dole. Businesses will receive $10,000 for employing workers older than 50 who have been on income support for six months or more, meaning there will be stronger incentives to hire older workers. The budget takes steps to ensure the government is living within its means and to rein in the age of entitlement. More than 830,000 Australians now receive the disability support pension and that number is growing at 1,000 per week. Some recipients under 35 will have their entitlement reviewed as we want to help everyone who can make a contribution to our society to do so. There will be a temporary budget repair levy. From July, individuals with a taxable income of over $180,000 will pay an extra two per cent. That levy will raise an extra $3.1 billion over the forward estimates period and will help ensure higher income Australians contribute to the budget repair.
But what I think is the most exciting part of this budget is the government's commitment to infrastructure. The government has announced a program of more than $50 billion to build the infrastructure of the 21st century. Our record budget investment will support more than $125 billion of construction activity as part of the government's infrastructure investment program. The key message of this budget is that Australia must contribute and build. This budget calls on everyone and every business to contribute, to join together, to grow the workforce, to boost productivity and help build a stronger economy with more investment.
The road building program covers every state and every territory. It includes a major boost in expenditure, spending real money for real productivity improving roads and rail projects. It will make our transport system much more efficient. There is $6.7 billion to fix the Bruce Highway which is the main artery of Queensland commerce. There will be funding for 45 new projects in this budget and continuing funding for 16 already underway. There is $5.6 billion to complete the duplication of the main eastern states artery, the Pacific Highway. Importantly for right across regional Australia, there is a $2.5 billion extension to the Roads to Recovery program, one of the most important ongoing inputs to regional Australia. This was set in place originally by the coalition government and we remain totally committed to it.
Augmenting that program there is the new $300 million Bridges Renewal Program. There is $450 million for more four-laning of the Princes Highway West in Victoria, $480 million for the North-West and Great Northern Highways in Western Australia, $400 million for the Midland Highway in Tasmania, $90 million for the Northern Territory's Regional Roads Productivity Package, up to $1.3 billion towards the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing, $509 million for the Warrego Highway and $229 million for a new national highways upgrading initiative. This is a massive start to the Prime Minister's promise that we will build the roads of the 21st century.
And those roads are on top of the big capital city project like Gateway North in Brisbane, the WestConnex in Sydney and the $2.7 billion commitment to Western Sydney roads. There is the East-West project to which the Commonwealth will contribute $3 billion in Victoria. There is the South Road in Adelaide and of course the Roe Highway and Swan Valley Bypass in Perth. This is a major roads program.
I have heard some criticism from members opposite that there was no investment in rail in this budget and that in fact as a result of our investment we would be distorting state expenditure away from rail projects and urban public transport onto roads. The facts are that the evidence denies that allegation. There is $3.6 billion in this budget for rail, significantly, for example, for freight rail projects including the beginning of the Melbourne to Brisbane railway line which will make such a difference to east coast freight movements. On top of that, the states have committed or recommitted to $25 billion of urban public transport projects since this government came to office. So our big investment in roads is not taking money away from urban public transport; it has indeed supported substantial investment in urban rail.
The other nonsense we have heard is that this is only a tiny increase, that there are only one or two additional projects. There are dozens of additional projects that Labor had not even thought of including billions of dollars in areas like Western Sydney and the like. Labor has been asleep at the wheel when it comes to infrastructure. There has been plenty of talk but over the last two or three years in particular their actual expenditure on roads was in decline. We will reverse that. There is a substantial 55 per cent increase in road and rail funding in this budget and that will make a difference to our nation's infrastructure.
There are also significant commitments to local regional projects. This is a good budget. It is a rebuilding budget. It is the budget that will ensure that we will be able to get our economy back on track with real money and our national priorities being achieved. This is a change of direction for Australia which will make a big difference to the future of our nation and our capacity to walk proudly with balanced budgets in the future.
Unfortunately, I am genuinely appalled by the measures which are contained within this government's budget and which we now see in the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2014-15 and related bills before this parliament for debate.
Of course, it is not unusual for people on either sides of the chamber to have slightly different priorities—to have some different ideas about where we should place emphasis and funding. But it is unusual for us to see a budget of the level of cruelty which we see in this budget: a budget which has so many proposals outlining just how out of touch this government is and a budget that is so full of wrong priorities, of inconsistencies and of short-sighted vicious measures which will affect those who are most vulnerable in our community.
There are many measures in this budget which will have a devastating impact on the area that I am lucky enough to represent in this parliament, being the great seat of Adelaide. I will be taking other opportunities to outline specifically some of those measures that will affect our community, that will affect our local pensioners, that will affect our local families and that will affect all of those who are sick and in need of our fantastic universal healthcare system.
But during this particular contribution I want to focus on one area of this budget where I think it outlines as much as any other just how short-sighted this government are and just how deceitful this government were in the lead-up to the election, saying one thing and now doing the complete opposite. That is in the area of education, because education gets absolutely smashed in this budget. This is from early childhood education—where those opposite are now refusing to commit to ongoing federal funding for our preschool system, despite all of the research and all of the evidence that shows that this is the most effective way to make a positive impact on the life of that individual—to our school system, which I am going to address in some detail in a moment, and right through to the higher education system, where what this government proposes is to lock out those from low- and middle-income families—'Let's shut the doors to our universities'—by pushing fees to skyrocket up and by ensuring that debts increase faster than they previously would have on these now massively increased fees and, to top it all off, to make sure that those massively increased fees that are increasing even quicker due to their indexation changes, need to be paid back more quickly. That is the proposal that we have from those opposite to try and make this nation the smart country that we can be.
When it comes to early childhood education, when it comes to schools and when it comes to higher education I will tell you very clearly what our side of the parliament believes. We absolutely believe that investing in education and having a quality education system is the No. 1 most effective way that you can make sure that children have greater opportunities than their parents had and their grandparents had before them. This is the way that we transform our nation; this is the way that we make sure that we are a smarter, more productive and prosperous nation into the future.
But those opposite clearly take a different view. When it comes to education, this is a budget that very clearly fits the Abbott template. That template is: step No. 1—say whatever it takes to the Australian population before the election; step No. 2—break each and every one of those commitments after the election; and, step No. 3—unfairly punish the people who can least afford it. That is what we have seen all throughout this budget when it comes to education.
Just to refresh: before the election we heard some very different messages from this government when it came to education. We saw the now Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, publicly claiming to be on a 'absolute unity ticket' with Labor on school funding. We heard the now education minister saying to the Australian public, 'You can vote Liberal or Labor and you will get exactly the same funding for your school.' And we saw on polling day at the election booths around this nation huge oversized posters making sure that the last thing that voters learnt before they went into the polling booth was from these posters, which said, 'Liberals will match Labor's school funding dollar for dollar.'
Well, what a disgrace! What a disgrace for you to deceive the Australian public to that extent. Tried to convince everyone of the unity ticket and tried to convince everyone that there would not be major changes and cuts to our schools, to our early childhood services and to our universities, because we were all on the one ticket of believing that we needed to improve our education system. Instead, what do we see just months later in the very first budget from this very same government and these very same individuals, who were out there saying this? What do we see in their first budget? We see the biggest cut to schools in this nation's history! We see the $30 billion to be ripped out of Australian schools, making sure that, in fact, every school and every student will be worse off as a result of the fact that they trusted this government to stay to their word and to improve our schools.
What we have seen is that years five and six of the Gonski funding have been dumped, leaving schools $6½ billion worse off in federal funding alone. This comes on top of this government's earlier measure to rip a billion dollars out of the trades training centres program, building trades training centres in our schools so that we could make sure that this nation was equipped with the skills that we need for our future workforce—a billion dollars already gone, the program scrapped entirely.
Now what we see in this budget is very clearly why when this government has been asked to repeat the guarantees that they were happy to make before the election—when they have been asked in this parliament if they will repeat the guarantee that no school will be worse off—they have absolutely refused to do so.
In this budget we see the reason why they had no choice but to walk away from that guarantee. In this budget we learn that they have not only thrown aside the Gonski reforms, the biggest review into Australia's school system in over 40 years. They have just tossed that aside because, apparently, Education Minister Pyne knows better than all of the experts, all of the academics, all of the principals, all of the teachers, all of the students and all of the parents who took part in the biggest review we have got to find the solutions for our education system. But they have not just thrown aside the Commonwealth commitment. What they have also done is that, whilst they promised they would honour the agreements that were made before the election, they have now come out and said, 'Well, actually, we're throwing away those conditions that said that in order for the states to receive federal funding they had to guarantee that they too would boost their funding to their education systems.' In fact, under those agreements the states had to put in an extra $1 for every extra $2 of federal funding they received. No more—meaning every school is worse off.
They have also let the states off the hook when it comes to guaranteeing indexation rates. So what we see right now is that right across Australia this government, this Prime Minister, has given every state and territory government a green light to start cutting school funding. When we were meant to be in a situation where principals were looking at how they were going to use additional resources to improve their schools, we now have them sitting around scratching their heads and trying to work out what they are going to cut as a result of this government's ridiculously short-sighted measures.
Not content with that, they also want to give a bit of provocation to make sure that those cuts start soon and that they start hard. Just over 12 months ago the now education minister was out there saying that indexation of schools at three per cent was a frightening prospect. He was saying that that it could not possibly assist our Australian education sector to be of the quality that it deserves to be. But what has this budget done? This budget has now set in stone an indexation rate at just CPI, which is currently at 2.5 per cent. The education minister who said the prospect of three per cent indexation was 'frightening' has now outlined just 2.5 per cent indexation for our schools. What that means in real terms is a very real cut. We know that the cost of delivering education is running at over five per cent. So what the education minister described as frightening he has outdone by something that is truly terrifying.
In particular I want to outline one of the measures which I think is the most appalling by this government as it betrays some of the most vulnerable Australians, and that is children with a disability. I know from my discussions with principals right around Australia that one of the most immediate challenges they face and the most common funding concern raised with me is support for children with disability. We know that more and more students with disability are moving into our schools right across the community. This is a wonderful change and one which I hope will continue to accelerate in coming years. But, to date, our school systems have largely failed to properly and consistently identify students with disability, let alone provide them with the equal educational opportunities that they absolutely deserve.
When Labor set out to define the needs based funding loading for the students, adequate information was simply not available. We were up-front with the community about that. How many children need additional support? What level of support do they need? How many teachers are appropriately qualified to deliver this support? What training is needed to get them there? And exactly what resourcing is required to ensure that every student gets the support that they need in every school in Australia? These questions could not and, sadly still, cannot be accurately answered. But in government we set out to come up with a solution to this problem, working with school systems to fix it. We set out to collect the data, to standardise the definitions and implement a properly formed loading to support students with disability from 2015, and in the meantime interim funding was put in place.
Those opposite have said that they support this. They have said it was a bipartisan commitment to the 2015 time line and to delivering the necessary resources once that need had been properly defined. So a new loading was supposedly to be rolled out from the beginning of the school year in 2015 with additional resources. It is interesting to ask: what additional funding did this government then put in this budget to support this? Absolutely nothing. In fact, what they did was they cut the more support for students with disability funding that was in the budget and now they have delayed those crucial time frames, meaning that many of the students out there who most need this parliament to be standing up and fighting for their access to quality educational support have been cruelly left behind by this government that has just placed it in the too hard basket.
Get on to higher education!
Those opposite apparently do not want to talk about schools and are asking me to go on to higher education. I am not surprised that you do not want to talk about schools because you know that schools are angry, you know that parents are angry, you know that teachers are angry. And it is not just because of the Prime Minister's duplicity and deliberate deception, although of course those are reasons enough for a great deal of anger, but it is because of the very real impacts that this government's budget will have in classrooms right across Australia: cuts to extension programs, cuts to literacy and numeracy programs, subject choices gone, sport and music options gone, remedial support gone, support for students with a disability just not there. And not in four years time, as some on the government backbench seem to be reassuring themselves: 'None of this is real yet. It is just something we are saying we'll do later.'
The Prime Minister is goading state premiers into making cuts to our schools right now. Those opposite do not have to believe Labor spokespeople on that, you can listen to your own Liberal counterparts. In New South Wales, Mike Baird described the budget as a 'kick in the guts'. Campbell Newman—not somebody that I would readily quote to agree with much that he has to say—has come out publicly warning that ratings agencies are on the phone looking at state budgets now and that they need to look at the savings they will make. States are being pressured to cut early and to cut hard by this Prime Minister and by all of those that sit opposite defending this disgusting budget. The Prime Minister has helped the states and territories put aside their differences and band together because they have common enemy, and that is this government that is walking away from school funding reform, that is walking away from the opportunity for us to implement the solutions that we know our school system needs.
This is a cowardly, low-rent, hard-cutting and unfair budget. On this side of the House we will not stand for it. We believe that circumstances of birth should not determine destiny. We believe that it is the size of a person's brain, not the weight of their wallet, that matters. We believe that country kids should not be allowed to continue to fall behind city kids when it comes to their schools and their educational attainment. We believe that the two-and-a-half-year gap between the least well-off and the most well-off students is a blight on our country and a threat to our future. We absolutely believe in needs-based funding; that, no matter what school, no matter what schooling sector, no matter what state or territory, every child in this nation should be able to rely on this parliament to make sure that their school is a great school.
This would not be so appalling if we did not have the solutions; but we do. We have just gone through that process. This government can offer no excuse for throwing away the educational opportunities of young Australians and doing so while still putting aside over $20 billion to give to millionaires to have a baby. This is wrong priorities, and we oppose it every step of the way. (Time expired)
Obviously every business has to account for itself, hopefully on an annual basis. Whether you are a government or a private business or a public company, there has to be an accounting. Unfortunately, it was left to us upon assuming government to have to do that accounting because it was a long time since the Australian people—the Australian government on their behalf—had done that.
In business terms, if you were starting off in business and were handed a company which was very much in the black, showing around about a $25 billion profit for the year with about another $60 billion in the bank in various forms, you would think: 'How marvellous is this! We can really build on this.' Unfortunately, what the Australian people were left with six years later, and what our new government had to pick up, was an incredible turnaround. Australia, like New Zealand and like Brazil, is basically an economy based on resources. But Brazil and New Zealand did not do a GFC borrow; those two countries pretty much came through unscathed without plunging their country into debt because of the GFC. I have always felt that the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government basically saw the GFC as an excuse to borrow money and throw it around.
After six years we are faced with the kind of debt we have now—it is estimated to be heading towards $670 billion. If we are paying $1 billion interest every month now, which we are, by the time we get to $670 billion, we will be well north of $2 billion a month. For a country that seven years ago or thereabouts was in the opposite position, that is quite remarkable. In fact I have always felt it was not easy to borrow and blow the money that the previous government under their various leaders managed to blow—and that includes the current Leader of the Opposition in a big way and most of his frontbench.
I am not going to go through this budget figure by figure but I do think some common sense has to come into the current argument about why it is a tough budget—and about the future. I have quite a few daughters and I have quite a lot of grandchildren and I believe they deserve a prosperous future, not one laden with debt and missed opportunity. If we keep going the way we are going, there is nothing surer than that, as somebody said, 'the issue will not be what we trim; it will be what we close'—whether it is hospitals, whether it is schools, whatever it is. So, having to take a deep breath and say, 'we are not going to bust anyone, but everyone has to be involved', is not that big a deal. I think we can get through this, as long as we do not sit and whinge about it every minute of every day.
The ABC had a program called The Hollowmen.I remember it distinctly and it was quite funny. It was a little embarrassing. I guess it was Australia's version of Yes, Minister. I remember one episode in which the Prime Minister of the day wanted something big to go to the people, something impressive, so they came up with this program which was going to be enormous. It is safe to say that they were incredibly excited about it; it was going to end up $100 billion over the forward estimates. And they were excited. Then suddenly at the last minute they had to turn around and say, 'Well, what is it?'—because the Prime Minister was wrapped; he was really impressed—and they suddenly realised they had not actually worked out what the program was. I honestly think that is how we ended up with the NBN. I think the government of the day watched the show and they were impressed too. I am quite sure that they decided they were going to do this, and they came up with the NBN and Gonski. We all like it, in its intentions, but you do have to be able to afford these things. I do not truly believe that they knew what they were doing. One hopes they were doing it in the best interests of the country, but you do have to have a measure of responsibility about fiscal reality and about business. I guess that is what we have really missed.
I would like to talk for a minute about some of the things in here and why I do not think they are unreasonable. I will go to universities for a start. Universities are incredibly necessary. We have to have people who do the intellectual thing. We need people with university degrees not to build rockets but to come up with better ways of doing the NBN and to do all sorts of things we need. I am quite willing as a taxpayer to fund them to an extent. Only 30 per cent of people who leave school actually go to university and to say that they themselves should fund 50 per cent of that seems to me to be eminently reasonable. The majority of the 70 per cent who do not go to university will get a job and start paying tax almost from the day they leave school. They are paying taxes to give assistance to those who essentially at the end of the day jump the job queue and get far better paying jobs. Having said that, the most successful men and women I know actually did not go to university; they are self-made people—but that is another issue. My point is that I do not think it is unreasonable to expect those who get a leg up in life to pay back half the costs of doing that on behalf of those who have been paying taxes for them from a much earlier time in their lives. I do not think that that is unreasonable at all.
The school issue is that we committed to the four years of funding that Labor committed to. Despite what the member for Adelaide said, they did not commit one cent past those four years. I do not think anyone has ever disagreed that the way schooling is funded could be refined. But to say, 'Simply because we want it, we have to have it,' is like a child in a lolly shop, and that is pretty much what happened for six years.
I am really upset about the way many people in the community, particularly the opposition, have deliberately gone out to frighten pensioners about something they do not have to be frightened about. We have not taken money away from pensioners. We committed that we would not do it and we have not. When you consider that in July when we get rid of the carbon tax and get rid of those things they will get to keep their compensation, I think it is quite desperate lying to try to frighten a lot of people who are past the stage in life when they should have to suffer that kind of fear.
When I talk to people in the electorate and generally everyone acknowledges the need for a responsible budget, a tough budget that is not that tough on any one particular section of the community. I have found that they will acknowledge that, but they say, 'Aren't you being a little bit tough in my area?' I think we all have to be responsible. I actually do find the vast majority of people are incredibly mature about it—more so than I expected. I am very sorry that pensioners have been frightened. They should not have been. They absolutely had no reason to be. The real downside is pensioners were frightened when they should not be.
I have not heard anyone on that side talk about the fact that for the first time in six years—and the ex infrastructure minister, who is at the table, should hang his head—not one cent was put into mobile phones and we have just committed $100 million to mobile phone towers. I do not hear him talking about that. From the day the Labor Party got into office not a cent was spent on mobile phone coverage. It obviously was not an issue. You do not live in the right place to find out where it is an issue.
I want to talk about The Hollowmen broadband—the $100 billion that was such a great spend. I want to talk about that for a moment. I am now referring to my own responsibility in Australia, Calare. Do you know that Calare was not even on the horizon with mobile phone and broadband. It was not mentioned in dispatches for broadband and now we have fixed wireless. We already have about nine towers on their way up and more are to come. Suddenly there has been a little bit of responsibility and suddenly getting better broadband is a priority, not for the middle of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane but for regional people who need it. Those who do not already have usable business-type broadband are actually going to get it. They were not even on the horizon. I actually think Calare is quite happy about that.
Then there is the Black Spot Program. If you drive in country areas you think that is pretty good too. There is extra money. It is rather appropriate for the then minister for roads and infrastructure to walk in at this time. He is trying to say that $50 billion is not any money at all. He is trying to say it is not a huge extra spend on what he was doing. Let me tell you that it is a hell of a lot more in regional Australia than he ever dreamt of spending. The extra money going to Roads to Recovery and the extra money going to Black Spot is way above anything he ever dreamt of. Getting out of central Sydney is not a bad idea—I tell a lie; he did give me a lift to Bourke one day, and I appreciated it.
The Orange bypass.
The Orange bypass is interesting. We shamed the Labor Party into funding that because we promised to fund it and then you had to match it.
You're an idiot. You did nothing. I should have made you walk!
Do not tell me that that is not true. It is. Before I run out of time and the shadow minister runs out with a heart attack, I want to say that Calare is a dynamic area. We have had some knocks lately but we will come through it. While I do not like seeing agribusinesses taken over by foreigners, I am very happy to have foreign companies like Nestle, Mars, Ferrero and Thales, who are not coming to government demanding money. They are getting on and investing in themselves. With a new dam in the region, they, with us, will see this through. For my children and grandchildren and everybody else's children in Calare to have a future this budget is necessary because of the last six years.
The coalition had a plan to get into government, but no plan to govern. In opposition the current Prime Minister's only aim was to say no to anything that was proposed by the then Labor government. Knowing that Labor faced the difficult circumstance of a minority government, Mr Abbott sought only to create the impression of chaos by rejecting any government initiative. But during this period, as he wandered around declaring that the sky was falling, the now Prime Minister failed to prepare for government by crafting alternative policies. The first Abbott budget is the result of this extraordinary policy lethargy, this absolute preference for putting politics first and policy second. This is a government budget of ideology. This is not the budget of a government with a well thought out program to build a better nation; it is a mean-spirited budget of cuts and broken promises. It is an attack on fairness; it is an attack on economic growth. It is notable for its lack of any policy narrative beyond scorching the political earth of any trace of the previous Labor government. It is a reactionary budget from a reactionary Prime Minister who lives in the past, in an age of knights and dames.
The real problem is that he wants the rest of the nation to go back there and keep him company. This budget asks us to return to a bygone era where people's access to opportunity, security and even good health depended on their parents' bank balance or what school they attended. The budget smashes the universality of Medicare by adding a $7 co-payment for people to see their doctor. It abandons the Gonski education reforms, which were explicitly designed to ensure equity of opportunity. It cuts $80 billion in Commonwealth grants to states for health and education. It walks away from federal investment in public transport, despite the fact that Commonwealth leadership to deliver an integrated approach to urban transport can significantly boost the nation's economic productivity. While encouraging motor vehicle use instead of public transport, it places even more of a burden on Australian families by increasing fuel prices. It slows down the implementation of the National Disability Insurance Scheme and limits future access to the age pension. Yet before the election the Prime Minister told the voters of Australia there will be no cuts to health, education, pensions or the ABC. His promises were worthless.
The starting point for any examination of this budget is its economic context. When this government took office it inherited a growing economy with low inflation, low interest rates, low unemployment and with AAA credit ratings from all three of the nation's top agencies. But, despite this, the government has justified its cuts and broken promises with the claim that the nation faces a budget emergency. Let us look at the facts. The latest budget update shows that net government debt for 2013-14 is $191.5 billion, the equivalent of 12.1 per cent of GDP. According to the IMF, the average debt level in advanced nations is 74.7 per cent. It is also claimed that the budget is burdened by unsustainable spending. The budget deficit peaked in 2009-10 at $54.5 billion, or 4.2 per cent of GDP—less than half the average among advanced nations. In Labor's final year in office, the deficit was $18.8 billion or 1.2 per cent of GDP.
The use of the term 'budget emergency' to describe our budget dates from Mr Abbott's relentless campaign of negativity when he was Leader of the Opposition. Having been too lazy and cynical to create a policy program, the now Prime Minister chanted three-word slogans so loudly that people began to believe them. Anyone prepared to be honest about recent Australian history knows that our spending and debt levels increased in the past few years because the previous Labor government borrowed money to fund an economic stimulus package that protected our economy during the global financial crisis. In 2009 the Rudd government was grappling with a crisis—a global crisis, not a pretend crisis of the type confected by the current Prime Minister so that he could impose these mean-spirited cuts. Our stimulus package saved Australia from the recession that enveloped the rest of the developed world and we chartered a path back to budget surplus. Treasury analysis says that our package saved 200,000 Australian jobs. We did not create a crisis, we dealt with the crisis.
The real deficit problem in this country is the honesty deficit in the Prime Minister's office. The only crisis in Australian politics today is the integrity crisis of those opposite and the fact that people were misled by a party that said one thing before the election and another thing afterwards. And if the government had any serious ability to put forward its position in a consistent way, it would not be proposing to deliver an unaffordable paid parental leave scheme. While families struggle to get their children to the doctor, the Prime Minister will give millionaires up to $50,000 to have a baby.
This budget exposes this government's true colours. It attacks the weak, but favours the top end of town. I am all for business prosperity—it creates jobs—however, like most Australians, I expect that prosperity should be shared. Take as an example the proposed $7 co-payment that will apply to visits to the family doctor. It will not affect people like parliamentarians, but it will affect many in my electorate who will choose to go to a public hospital emergency room because they cannot afford to take their kid to the doctor. Labor believes that Australians have a right to the same level of health care regardless of their income, and we will defend Medicare and its universality, which is at the point of its principles.
On education, before the election the Prime Minister said he was on a 'unity ticket' to implement the Gonski education reforms. These were designed to deliver a needs-based funding model to schools and ensure equality of opportunity—and to end the decades-old debate that has occurred around schools funding in this country. But he has walked away from this undertaking. The same goes for university funding, with the government proposing a US-style deregulated system where money matters more than a student's potential. Education is not just about the individual; the nation benefits by being a smarter, more skilled country.
Let me turn to the budget as it affects my own shadow portfolios of infrastructure, transport and tourism. Before the budget the government inflated expectations about infrastructure to divert attention away from cuts to services and broken promises. Under examination their claims collapse. The majority of the government's infrastructure spend was not new but a collection of re-announcements of projects funded by the previous government. Anything new in this budget was funded by cuts to existing rail and road projects: cutting all public transport funding not currently under construction; cutting existing road projects, including the M80 in Melbourne and Tasmania's Midland Highway upgrade; and cutting nearly $1 billion to financial assistance grants for roads through an end to indexation, which will hurt councils in rural and regional communities more than any others. The government has taken the axe to existing projects so that it can falsely claim it has new money for different projects. Indeed, in its glossy, when you look at projects like the Pacific Highway in New South Wales, it is exactly the same graphic that was produced by the former government, with the same projects listed with funding there.
The fact is that Mr Abbott also said that a full cost-benefit analysis would occur for every infrastructure project worth more than $100 million. But none of that has occurred. There is not one single project that has been recommended by Infrastructure Australia as a priority project funded in this budget—not one. In the case of the East West Link in Melbourne, the Senate budget estimates committee heard yesterday, extraordinarily, that the government will give the Napthine government $1 billion in the next month that will sit in a bank account because stage 2 is not due to commence until not this year, not next financial year, but the financial year after that! They say they have issues with finances but they are giving a billion dollars in the next month for something that is not due to commence for another two financial years. Today they say they will ask the Victorian government to pay back some of the interest that they get from that billion dollars—absolutely absurd! It is clearly a favour to help their mates in the Victorian government prop up their budget.
If the fiscal situation is so dire in the national government, why are they propping up their mates in the Victorian state government through this billion dollars for stage 2, for which there are no traffic projections, for which there is no business case, for which there is no forecast, and for which there has been no assessment made whatsoever? Absolutely extraordinary.
In March the assistant infrastructure minister, Mr Truss's errand boy, the member for Mayo, attacked these payments. The errand boy said this:
This represents a massive abuse of taxpayer dollars, with money lying around in state government accounts collecting interest, scandalously underutilised at a time of scarce public funds.
He said that should never happen. And let me tell you that nothing like that happened under the previous administration and, to be fair to the Howard government, I have not heard of any such circumstance occurring like this ever in the whole time that I have been in parliament.
At the same time, of course, Minister Briggs, Assistant Minister Briggs to give him his correct title, the errand boy for the actual minister, spent some $70,000 in public money attempting to kid Australians into believing its infrastructure spend was new.
Mr Chester interjecting—
Order!
I withdraw. He actually breached a budget embargo, releasing the presentation well before the budget speech. Yesterday we heard that 2½ thousand people have looked at that video, so it cost almost $40 per viewing. There is value for taxpayers!
The budget also created a $5 billion incentive fund. But the problem with that is that it wasn't new money either. The $5 billion came from the Building Australia Fund and the education infrastructure fund. Paying someone else to do the heavy lifting does not constitute investing in infrastructure. The fact is that the infrastructure package in this budget is a con—a collection of already funded projects and cuts to fund other projects, which have not even been tested by experts to verify that they represent value for money. There are other cuts in there as well, such as the upgrading of remote and regional airports—gone, that program, from the next financial year. The previous government, of course, was concerned about addressing funding in our cities for public transport as well as for roads. The fact is that this government has walked away from those commitments.
I have heard the Treasurer say before that the core of his approach to economics is the idea that if you increase the tide all boats rise. I was reminded of the words of Indian politician Rahul Gandhi, who once said: 'A rising tide doesn't raise people who don't have a boat. We have to build the boat for them. We have to give them the basic infrastructure to rise with the tide.'
That is the problem with this budget. It is a budget which helps those who have and punishes those who have not. It puts in place policies that expose all the prejudices of the existing government. My message to the government is that it is not the fault of the Labor Party that the Prime Minister was too lazy to frame genuine policy when he was the Leader of the Opposition. Nor is it the fault of the poor, the disabled, the sick, state premiers or young people—all of whom are bearing the brunt of the budget decisions. As opposition leader, Mr Abbott clearly took a conscious decision to turn the coalition into the noalition. (Time expired)
I rise today to speak on the appropriation bills currently before the House. This budget confirms the worst for ordinary working Australians, it confirms the worst for families already battling to make ends meet, and it confirms the worst for people on the age pension, the disability support pension and the carer payment. It confirms the worst for our young people trying to find work in an ever-changing economy. It also confirms the worst for all Australians who believe in a fair, tolerant and compassionate Australia.
In this budget the Abbott government has revealed to the Australian people their plans for our country: savage cuts to our existing safety net, the roll-back of social and economic reforms like the Gonski school funding and an attack on the core pillars of the Australian way of life.
The budget is made up of cruel measures from a government that can only be described as cruel. They have shocked many, many people and they have broken promises—the lot of them. The impact of this budget on social and economic disadvantage will be far-reaching and hard-hitting. It will also have implications for the investments we make in the future—the future opportunities that we would like to see for our people.
Over the last 100 years a social contract in this country has taken shape. It is based on the pillars of the Australian way of life—access to universal health care and education, a fair and secure pension system, support for people who cannot work due to disability or caring responsibilities, and support for people when they need help to get into work.
This social contract did not just magically appear. It took more than a century to get to where we are today. Successive Labor governments have led the way in strengthening it over the years, making it fairer and more inclusive for all. We have developed a very different approach to the approach of Europe or the United States, and Australians are rightly proud of our smart, fair and uniquely Australian approach. Shamefully, not only does this budget disregard the government's responsibility to maintain and further strengthen these pillars of the Australian way of life, it goes out of its way to tear those pillars down.
Australia's economy is strong. We have low inflation, low interest rates and net debt well below comparable countries. We have AAA credit ratings from all three credit rating agencies. And since the election all we have heard from the government is false claims that Australia's spending on welfare is out of control. We have heard senior ministers cry that Australia is on the same path as countries like Greece or Spain. These claims are just not true.
Earlier this year, independent analysis from NATSEM found that in the last 12 years Australia's welfare spending has, in fact, decreased as a share of total expenditure. Treasury's Intergenerational Report 2010 shows that welfare spending as a proportion of GDP will remain steady over the next three decades. None of this is to say we cannot do things better but it does confirm the current budget's whole platform is based entirely on a lie.
One of the glaring examples is the $7 Medicare co-payment. In the prebudget sell, the government proclaimed that the current universal health system is too expensive and requires a greater patient contribution in order to help prepare the budget bottom line. Yet the budget reveals that not one dollar of the Medicare co-payment will go towards the budget bottom line—nor will it be returned to recurrent health spending. The co-payment will undermine universal health care in our country and, as many health experts have said, co-payments will not increase efficiency. They will hurt the poor and the sick the most.
This budget is a savage attack on ordinary Australians families. It includes cuts of $7.5 billion to family payments. For the first time since Peter Costello introduced them, this budget contains no family impact analysis in the budget papers.
In the last fortnight, expert analysis from independent modelling agency NATSEM has put to shame the government's claims that the burden of this budget is shared by everyone. Overwhelmingly, analysis has demonstrated that those at the bottom are hit the hardest, while those at the top are spared. NATSEM found that around 1.2 million families will be on average $3,000 a year worse off by 2017-18. In contrast, the top 20 per cent of households will have either no impact or a negligible positive impact. Low-income couples with children and single parents will suffer the most.
This budget is also incredibly bad policy. Because of this budget, single-parent families are faced with a huge disincentive to work. This budget creates a new single-parent supplement, which single parents will get when they are kicked off family tax benefit B when their youngest child turns six. This measure actively discourages single parents from work. Once a single parent earns just one dollar more than $48,000 a year, they will lose this supplement completely. These single parents will pay an effective marginal tax rate of around 80 per cent for every dollar they earn above $48,000, taking home just 20c of each of the extra dollars they earn. According to NATSEM, if a single parent's income increases from $45,000 to $50,000 a year, their disposable income will increase by just $1,706. NATSEM has described this as a 'sudden-death drop'.
The impacts of the budget get worse and worse over the next four years. By 2016, a couple with a single income of $65,000 and two school-aged children will lose over $6,000 a year. Six thousand dollars a year is going to come out of the pockets of these single-income families on budgets of around $65,000. That is around 10 per cent of their entire family budget. Nationals Senator Ron Boswell summed it up pretty well yesterday when he remarked to the media, 'There's an equity problem that's falling on the low-income earners more so than the high-income earners.' What an understatement! National Party members and senators certainly should be protesting much louder than that. Many of the low and single-income families hit hardest in this budget live in country and regional Australia.
This budget also makes savage cuts to pensions. All of the people on the age pension, the disability support pension, the carer payment, bereavement allowance, the parenting payment single and the wife, widow and veterans pensions are going to have their pensions cut. The government's decision to increase the pension age to 70 was made on the run, without any evidence and without any policy case. It will disproportionately hurt low-income earners who do not have much superannuation, women and those in manual jobs like labourers and nurses.
Yesterday in this House, senior members of the government—the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Social Services—repeated the falsehood that this budget does not make cuts to the pension. Australians know this is not true. The changes to pension indexation arrangements in this budget are a cut. They are a very direct cut to the living standards of Australia's 3.2 million pensioners. That is how many pensioners will have their pensions cut.
The pension is benchmarked to wages for a reason. It is so that pensioners' standard of living keeps pace with the standard of living of the working population more broadly. John Howard knew that; that is why he legislated for it. If this Prime Minister's indexation arrangements had been in place for the last four years, pensioners would today be around $1,500 worse off each year. That is what this pension cut means in real money. This is a cut in anyone's language and it is about as big a broken promise as you can find. It is clear that the Prime Minister's only plan for older Australians is to make them to work longer and retire with less. And the short-sightedness does not end there.
The Abbott government's policies will see more people reliant on the pension in the future. How else can you explain its decision to abolish the low-income super contribution—a measure that reduces the tax burden for 3.6 million Australians who earn $37,000 or less a year, two-thirds of whom are women? How else can you explain the government's decision to further delay the increase in superannuation from nine to 12 per cent and, at the same time, reverse the proposed changes that we made to the top, to tax earnings over $100,000?
Another cruel cut to pensioners in this budget, one which is relevant to the appropriation bills we are discussing, is the Prime Minister's decision to cut the Commonwealth's $1.3 billion contribution to concessions for pensioners and seniors. Because of this coalition government, the National Partnership Agreement on concessions will be axed from 1 July this year. These cuts will start in just 34 days. This is yet another attack on so many pensioners, who will have their concessions cut for public transport, electricity, water bills, council rates—and the list goes on. You can add that to the $80 billion in cuts this government has made to health and education.
The changes in the budget to Newstart and young people are the most brutal and cruel measures of all. The government is sentencing our young people to potentially an endless cycle of poverty—six months without any support at all, with no explanation of how our young people are supposed to house and feed themselves during these extended periods of time. On top of these cruel measures, there are cuts of around $130 million a year to programs like the youth education programs, including Youth Connections, even at a time when youth unemployment is so much higher than the general unemployment rate, at a time when we need to provide more support for our young people.
Over the last two terms of government, when we were in government, we saw a renewed focus on social investment: the National Disability Insurance Scheme, better schools reform, the development of a comprehensive framework for closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. These were all important investments in our people. If we are to make sure that every Australian can participate fully in our ever-changing economy, we have to make sure that we target our investment in people to those who need it most and where we will get the best value. We need to step outside the neo-liberal view of welfare that those opposite hold and take an integrated view of social and economic policies, to make sure that social policy contributes to our future prosperity in the way that previous Labor governments have made sure it would. Then, of course, we will be able to develop a comprehensive set of policies that support our modern economy and the people within it.
I have spent so much time since the budget with people in Tasmania, South Australia and Victoria talking to pensioners and families and young people about the impact that this budget will have on them. I have spent time with compassionate, hardworking, smart people who want to spend time helping those who are disadvantaged. I have spent time with hundreds of age pensioners who are now very afraid for their future and who are upset about having been betrayed by this Prime Minister. The message they had for this government was loud and clear: this budget is based on broken promises and lies. It seeks to destroy the smart, fair and compassionate Australia that they know and love.
The appropriation bills that are before us fit in in a very unusual section under the standing orders where, similar to the adjournment debate and the address-in-reply, a broad-ranging debate well beyond the relevance of the legislation before us is allowed. This is for a very good reason. The bills that are in front of us are what is often referred to as supply. It allows us to be able to understand that, while not bringing the nation to a standstill and not going down the level of irresponsibility that occurred in 1975, it allows there to be a full parliamentary debate that allows the governing of Australia and the bills of Australia to still be paid, without the opposition being in a position where we are compelled to argue anything other than the fact that this is a shocking budget; that this a shocking budget built on lies; that this is a budget that is the opposite of what people were told was coming; that this is a budget that is a result of a confected emergency that does not exist. Even the head of the Commission of Audit acknowledges that there is no immediate budget emergency. Even he acknowledges it, and those opposite should acknowledge it too.
In total, the bills that are in front of us seek parliamentary approval for around $1.3 billion in the current financial year and $88.4 billion for the next financial year. These reflect the ordinary, continuing operations of the government as well as new measures in the 2014-15 budget. Obviously, the ordinary expenditure that is in front of us is not the issue that is of most concern to the opposition in dealing with this budget.
I will start with the confected budget emergency. Peter Costello, to his credit, brought down a principle that we all know as the Charter of Budget Honesty. It was to make sure that governments would never again be able to create a situation where, on coming to office, they could claim, 'Oh, look, the books are in a completely different state to what we thought.' He set that up and guaranteed that the final statement of the economic legacy of a government would be produced and released and signed off on by the Secretary to the Treasury and the Secretary of the Department of Finance, and no politicians would have anything to do with the document. The Treasurer, the shadow Treasurer, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition would all see the document at the same time that it was released publicly—no-one would have advance copies of it.
The new Treasurer pretended that the Charter of Budget Honesty was meaningless. He effectively pretended that everything that Peter Costello, to his credit, had put in place in the Charter of Budget Honesty was of no economic value whatsoever. He changed budget parameters, abolished revenue measures that had been put in place—including measures to clean up a whole lot of international tax avoidance—and sent an extraordinary sum of money across to the Reserve Bank. In doing so, he himself more than doubled the deficit. Then, at the end of last year, he released a new document with the deficit having more than doubled, with spending trajectories going through the roof, and said, 'This document is the one that is Labor's legacy'—notwithstanding that it is the one that is signed off with the names Hockey and Cormann.
The level of deception was used to confect the budget emergency is nothing short of breathtaking, and those opposite who choose to back those figures in should really hang their heads in shame if they want to attach themselves to any of the economic legacy of Peter Costello. The Charter of Budget Honesty was one of the key election promises when the Howard government first came to office. They said they would bring it in and they did and—credit where credit is due—election after election, it has been a good document that has stopped governments from being able to play the game that this government is seeking to play.
Let us make it clear that every time we hear the Treasurer refer to $123 billion worth of deficits or $660 billion worth of gross debt, he is referring—
Shame!
I agree—shame!—because they are the rorted figures.
Mr Whiteley interjecting—
If ever there were a strategic shame possibly confected from our side—and, if the member for Hunter set that one up, good on you—that was that moment. It is an extraordinary thing. Those debt figures are based on the removal of an expenditure cap, a cap on growth in spending. If you remove the cap on growth in spending, what happens? Spending goes up—of course, it does. They are shifts in the change of budget parameters that were put in place by the Treasurer and the finance minister.
In the same way, the Treasurer and the finance minister pretended that unemployment would never return to trend. But, in fact, in years three and four, they have got unemployment under this budget presuming that, for years three and four of this budget, unemployment will actually go up to 6.25 per cent in year three and then to six per cent in year four, notwithstanding that it is running at 5.8 per cent now. So the actual plan that this budget has is a plan for higher unemployment, because, by putting figures like that in, it meant that they could argue that there was a debt problem.
What they did with that budget emergency is completely transparent. They have used that confected budget emergency as an excuse to break promises that they knew that they were going to break. No-one opposite should think that they will get a single week for the rest of this term without hearing the words: 'no cuts to health'—which was a lie; 'no cuts to education'—the same; 'no changes to pensions'—the same; and 'no cuts to the ABC or the SBS—the same'. Each and every one of those has come to nothing. Those opposite claimed that the one thing that they would bring to Australian politics was a capacity to deliver on promises. That ended the night this budget was delivered. Those on this side know that the worst thing is not simply the way they broke the promises but who will be hurt by those broken promises. Those promises that have been broken are levelled squarely at those who can least afford it. They are levelled squarely at those on the lowest incomes. They are levelled squarely at people who will now pay the GP tax and who will now suffer in every way.
Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43 and the debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
Young people in the Hunter are amongst the many who have been betrayed by the Abbott government's first budget. It is not just changes to youth allowance. Youth Express and Joblink Plus are two exceptionally efficient organisations based in the electorate which deliver the Partnership Brokers National Network. Last year 10,000 young people in the Hunter benefited from the Partnership Brokers program.
Partnership Brokers is a diverse program which has helped young people to reconnect, to re-engage in education or to secure employment opportunities. Partnership Brokers work with schools, business and the broader community to assist our young people to achieve another chance in life—a chance to learn and a chance to work and of course all the benefits that come with obtaining a job. Partnership Brokers also help local economies by addressing skill shortages and making sure people are being trained in the areas where job opportunities exist or will emerge.
You can understand my disbelief when this government in its budget decided to abolish this program. This is a backward step, a short-sighted step, one which will affect many youth around the country, particularly youth in the Hunter Valley, and of course it will have adverse impacts on economies right around Australia.
I rise to recognise the efforts of a number of our local schools who were recently recognised in the Queensland government Showcase Awards for Excellence in Schools. The awards program is designed for Queensland state schools and has seven categories that aim to: recognise, celebrate and reward excellent teaching practice in state schools; foster a learning culture that supports sharing excellent practices; create professional development opportunities; and promote public education.
I am proud to say that out of the seven categories, schools in our local community walked away with awards in four of those categories. For the south-east region, Norfolk Village State School won the award for excellence in the early and primary years. We had two schools take out the award for excellence in inclusive education. Eagleby Learning College was awarded for the program It all STARTS here, and Pimpama State School was awarded for the Multi-Tier Model: Improvement for All. Eagleby State School took out the award for excellence in community or industry partnerships.
These are fantastic achievements that bring much joy to all involved. It is a great credit to the schools in formally recognising their achievements. It has been heartening over the past few months to catch up with our local school principals and to see the wonderful programs that are occurring in all our local schools, and I wish them all the best for the future.
I rise today to recognise Rebecca Brown, a young woman from my electorate who is in Canberra this week taking part in the National Indigenous Youth Parliament. The youth parliament is a week-long leadership program for 50 Indigenous Australians aged 16 to 25. The youth parliamentarians will learn how government works and how laws are made and will practise public speaking and how to engage the media.
Rebecca is a Worimi woman, originally from Forster, but now a Novocastrian, living and working on the lands of the Awabakal people. She is a project officer with the New South Wales Department of Family and Community Services, working with Ageing, Disability and Home Care, and has developed and coordinated the Hunter region's first cadetship program for Aboriginal early childhood students with the University of Newcastle.
I met with Rebecca earlier this month in Newcastle and discussed her goals and aims of participating in the program. Employment and education opportunities are high on Rebecca's agenda for debate, but a major focus for her is on using her experiences to help build leadership skills in our community and to encourage higher participation of Indigenous people in leadership roles and government.
Perhaps it is time to reconsider dedicated Indigenous representation. It has, after all, been a feature of the New Zealand parliament for more than 150 years. I look forward to following the deliberations of the National Indigenous Youth Parliament this week and the work of Rebecca Brown in particular.
Last week, 39 music students from St Patrick's College in my electorate of Bass competed with great success in the Bands and Orchestras Division of the Australian National Eisteddfod held here in Canberra.
This was the 60th year of the National Eisteddfod and I am told that about 3,000 students participated. I am delighted to say that St Patrick's College Launceston won a gold award in the Jazz Band Section, held at the Lyneham High School Performing Arts Centre. They also won gold and platinum awards in the Concert Band Section, held in Llewellyn Hall at the ANU School of Music.
Bands from St Patrick's College regularly tour and compete at interstate competitions and have enjoyed considerable success over the years; however, this was the first national gold award for the school's big band, which comprised 17 young musicians, and the first platinum award for the school's concert band.
During their tour this year St Patrick's College students also performed at a number of schools in New South Wales and the ACT and enjoyed music exchanges with schools in Canberra. And I am sure they will also long remember their performance in the Great Hall of Parliament House last Wednesday.
I congratulate the school's director of bands, Fiona Mowat; tour manager, Cathy Ford; and teachers Darryl Tuppen and Roger Tattersall, who accompanied the students on their most successful tour. What a wonderful achievement by these committed and talented musicians, who have added their accomplishments to Northern Tasmania's proud history.
On Sunday a walk for respect was held in the suburb of Lakemba in Sydney. It was the largest community action that has ever taken place in the Canterbury area, and it was in response to the plans of the current Attorney-General to change section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.
It was, I have to say, the best way to protest against that action, because what the community did was show the government what harmony looks like, what multicultural Australia looks like at its best. We had people from every continent. We had drumming groups from every continent sounding their drums together. We had a welcome to country ceremony. We had representation from across the entire local community—businesspeople, workers, pensioners, children, people of every age and every faith and with heritage going back to every continent, from throughout Australia.
That is the way that modern Australia should deal with racial discrimination: to see ethnic diversity as something to be celebrated and not as a threat. In referring to the community leaders there, I should note that Rugby League greats Hazem El Masri and Steve Mortimer were both there, with the rest of the community.
One in two Australians will be diagnosed with cancer before the age of 85. This is an alarming statistic. As part of the national fundraising initiative of the Cancer Council, Australia's Biggest Morning Tea is a fabulous opportunity to connect and join our communities together to fight this terrible disease.
I was very privileged to have been able to host a Biggest Morning Tea at St Marys Rugby League Club on Thursday last week. It was wonderful for me to have Suzi Ji there, a woman who is currently suffering from cancer. I note her bravery in being able to talk through her journey—what she has encountered through her time with cancer. My friend Gina Costa was also there. Yesterday marked one year since Gina lost her beloved mum. It has been such an emotional journey for Gina, who still, every day, mourns the loss of her mother.
Today I would like to thank everybody who attended. I would like to thank the St Marys Rugby League Club, who funded the entire event, putting on the morning tea for everyone, and particularly Warren Smith, who is a patriarch in my community. I would implore members to also host their own Biggest Morning Tea. For anyone who chooses to donate, please go to biggestmorningtea.com.au. Thank you.
Last night, in the Federation Chamber's grievance debate, I spoke about the radical and retrograde higher education policies that are contained in the Abbott government's budget of broken promises. I spoke about how they will deter disadvantaged and low-income Australians from attending university. Today I am inspired to return to this topic after the National Tertiary Education Union released modelling that demonstrates that it is women who will be most disadvantaged by these changes. We already know that women shoulder the majority of the caring burden in Australia, which means time away from their careers, whether it is taking time off after the birth of a child or to care for sick and ageing relatives. This already financially disadvantages women, especially when it comes to superannuation.
Under the changes to higher education proposed by the Abbott government, a female accounting graduate who takes a three-year break from her career could still be paying back a student debt well into her 50s, with about $45,000 in interest. During that period when she is not earning, she is accumulating debt on which interest is compounding. By contrast, an accounting graduate with the same debt who does not take time out from their career would repay it in 23 years, with only $24,000 in interest.
We already have a gender pay gap that sees women paid less than men, even from the graduate level. These changes will shoulder women with even more debt and further entrench the fact that women are less financially secure than men in this country.
I rise to speak about an extraordinary constituent of mine, Levi Bartlett, a nine-year-old boy who attends Bakewell Primary School in Palmerston. I want to place on record my admiration for Levi. He carried out a tremendous act of bravery that saved his sister from drowning.
On the morning of 23 December last year, Levi's grandfather took Levi, his brother, Lukas, and his younger sister, Kaylah, to feed the ducks at a local park. During December, Darwin received a lot of rain, which meant the duck pond had gone over the containment wall and up the grass. Kaylah was eager to feed the ducks and get as close as possible to them. Unfortunately, she slipped on some moss and fell into the water. Four-year-old Kaylah had started swimming lessons, but she was not a strong swimmer and started to panic. Luckily for Kaylah, Levi jumped into the murky pond without hesitation and pulled her out. It is amazing that a nine-year-old had such a courageous spirit. He saved the day.
Levi received a Brennan Bravery Award from local Territory MLA Minister Peter Chandler. I join Minister Chandler in congratulating this extraordinary young man. Well done, Levi.
On budget night, I received a phone call of the kind that many in this House may have received—and this was before the budget had even been delivered. It was from a concerned family member. His wife had just returned home. She works at the Australian Emergency Management Institute at Mount Macedon in my electorate, and they had just been informed that their facility would be closed as a result of federal government funding cuts. It is a call that no MP likes to take and it is a call that no MP should have to take, where people who work hard in their electorate are facing funding cuts because of a federal government decision. And it is a dumb decision. Why on earth would you cut funding to the Australian Emergency Management Institute, the very facility where the top people across governments, across communities, get together to make sure that we are ready to respond in the case of an emergency?
In country Victoria, we know only too well that we need to be ready—ready when there is a bushfire, ready when there are floods. And where our top people go to make sure that they are ready, to make sure that they have the skills and expertise, is to the Australian Emergency Management Institute. This is a dumb decision by the government. They should meet with the people involved in the institute and they should change their minds on this decision. There are 45 jobs at risk, 60 including contractors. The government should change their minds on the Australian Emergency Management Institute.
Last Saturday night, I had the pleasure of attending the Tasmanian Women in Agriculture's Women on Farms Gathering in the beautiful far north-west coast town of Smithton, in my electorate of Braddon. This event marked a milestone of particular importance, as those present celebrated the organisation's 20th anniversary. Since that first meeting in 1994, Tasmanian Women in Agriculture has gone from strength to strength. It plays a vital role, highlighting the important contribution all rural and regional women make not only to their farms and families but to the general wellbeing of our rural communities. Every two years the Women on Farms Gathering is held different regions of the state. The women come together to learn new skills, network and share their ideas.
Women are often the silent partners—that is correct, Mr Deputy Speaker, the silent partners. They accept little recognition for the tasks they perform. But ask a rural woman what they did today. They are: the chef, the taxi, the accountant, the vet, the HR manager, the nurse, the shepherd, the mother and the wife, and for many they completed all of this work after working all day off-farm to supplement their income. They really are the unsung heroes of many farming communities.
I was delighted to learn that since inception, the Tasmanian Women in Agriculture are participating far more on high-level boards and committees and their numbers across the leadership of our communities have increased. I would like to congratulate Angela Saunders, state President, as well as Susan Wigg, Gathering Committee Chair on a successful Women on Farms Gathering.
Yesterday we saw the Abbott government introduce changes to the Migration Act so that Australians will no longer have priority of employment in offshore gas and oil projects. Resource companies will no longer even have to try to find Australian workers. Last night I was contacted by a gentleman called Kevin. He said, 'Thanks for your support for Australian jobs for seafarers. I myself work on the Wheatstone Project at Onslow at WA soon to be completed—'
Government members interjecting—
It might be funny for the coalition that there are people unemployed in Western Australia, but I can tell you that for Western Australians it is not funny. Kevin continued, 'I am a 51-year-old seafarer. My chances of getting another job in the industry are bleak. It amazes me that the coalition wants to deregulate 457 visas in this sector.'
Kevin is one of hundreds of workers on the Wheatstone Project that are working on pipelaying vessels and on supply tenders. These workers would normally have expected to go on to the next WA project in the Ichthus, but the Italian company subcontracting that work for INPEX is now indicating that they will be using foreign crews. There are already hundreds of qualified and experienced seafarers looking for work in WA. Soon there will be hundreds more. This legislation most unfairly undermines their chances of work. Let us hope the Senate blocks this ridiculous legislation.
Lyons is indeed by Tasmanian standards a large electorate of 36,000 square kilometres. It includes many small communities and on Anzac Day 2014 there were more than 50 services held around my electorate. It is interesting to note also that Lyons, according to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, had more applications for funding for the Centenary of Anzac grants in 2015 than any of the other 150 electorates around Australia.
I was able to attend the dawn service at Railton run by local RSL sub-branch ably led by President David Moles. It was indeed an honour and a privilege to address the large gathering at the 9 am service in Perth. My thanks to Bryan Harper, President of the Northern Midlands RSL Sub-Branch for the invitation. Finally, again, it was an honour to be asked to address the 11 am service at Avoca, held only for the second time in 40 years due in no small part to the work of local councillor Mary Knowles who was instrumental in resurrecting the Anzac Day service last year.
My thanks also go to those people who were able on my behalf to present wreaths at the following services: Don Morris at Beaconsfield, Glamorgan Spring Bay Mayor Bertrand Cadart at Bicheno, Helen Roetman at Campbell Town, Richard Chugg at Evandale, Don and Susanne Ives at Longford, Matt Hochman at New Norfolk, Break O'Day Mayor Sarah Schmerl at St Helens, Ross Young at Westbury, and year 10 Latrobe High School student Maddison Wall at the 11 am Railton service.
I noticed at the weekend a number of our football clubs once again speaking out against racial vilification, defending their players, their colleagues, from attacks based on race from members in the crowd. It is a very, very good thing to see. On the weekend I attended a Walk for Respect in Lakemba where literally hundreds of people did the same thing. They walked through the streets of Lakemba, trying to show the government that racial vilification is not acceptable and that 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act should stay exactly as it is.
We stand up for our colleagues and our neighbours and other family members in a range of ways. Sometimes we stand up for them because we were there when an incident happens, but we also do it through our laws. For the last 20 years we have protected our neighbours and our families and our colleagues from racial vilification through section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.
I thank everybody in my community and beyond who got to their feet and walked, or who took the time to make submissions, or spoke to their neighbours, or wrote to the minister, or said to anybody that 18C is incredibly important because our citizens should be able to live free of racial abuse. I thank them all and I urge the government to pay attention. It is not acceptable and the community is speaking incredibly loudly in support of 18C.
I rise to thank John Casey, Hotham resident and Qantas employee who made the journey to Canberra several weeks ago to talk about the real impact of changes to the Qantas Sale Act. John is a diligent and proud employee of the Qantas call centre in Camberwell. He is part of a very highly skilled customer service workforce, many of whom working in this call centre for more than a decade. There are 280 employees in Camberwell, 280 in Brisbane and 220 in Hobart.
The staff have been told that Qantas will 'review' call centre operations. We have all heard this before and we all know what it probably means—that right now Qantas management is weighing the pros and cons of off-shoring customer support. Employees like John offer a first-class service to Qantas flyers all around the world.
I raise this because I want Australians to be clear that off-shoring of Qantas jobs will affect services delivered to us as Qantas flyers. We can expect to see more of this as the Abbott government pushes ahead with changes to the Qantas Sales Act and these changes will affect all of us that love to travel with our national carrier. These employees—and John was very clear about this—love working for Qantas. They are so proud to work for an airline that plays such a significant role in the life of our nation, and our challenge as MPs is to represent our constituents by keeping it that way.
I am a bit slow off my feet today, but I am not slow to talk about the great township of Mildura and what the National Party, both state and federal, have been doing. The state National Party have delivered $10 million in natural gas to put energy into that town. The state government have now committed $220 million to take the products that we produce there down the rail and out to the port, and the federal government, in conjunction with a lot of hard work, are now going to deliver the $103 million project to modernise the irrigated infrastructure.
If we get the fundamentals right for a small country community, we can grow a small country community. So if we get gas, we get water and we get the ability to take what we produce out of the town, that is a great thing that we can achieve.
The other thing we are also doing is investing in the skills. In the federal budget we gave a strong commitment with trade support loans for apprenticeships. This is a great initiative, because our people need investment in their capacity, and that will then help them. Also, our government has not taken a backward step when it comes to trade. When we are producing products we need to have markets for them, and the markets that we have found in Japan and Korea through the free trade agreements will greatly assist our producers.
The National Party and the federal coalition are delivering on the fundamental infrastructure for jobs and growth in Mildura.
The coalition government's budget of broken promises and twisted priorities has signalled the end of support for Queensland flood reconstruction and the cutting of national flood mitigation works. This will increase costs to the Commonwealth government in future in relation to flood reconstruction. At the same time it puts pressure on the cost of living for households in Ipswich and Somerset in my electorate and in Queensland across the board.
Eighty-three million dollars has been scrapped from flood mitigation funding that would lower the pressure on insurance premiums for households in flood-prone areas. When in government, the former federal Labor government put $100 million for flood mitigation projects into last year's budget, and the National Insurance Affordability Initiative. Now, the Prime Minister has cut this to $17 million—$10 million for Ipswich and $7 million for a flood levee in Roma. That finding which he cut could have gone towards new projects around Australia, including for the Somerset region and Ipswich—further works in my electorate.
But this has been done without warning. This comes on top of the Abbott government's savage local government cuts, ripping nearly a billion dollars from their bottom line, meaning less funding for local roads and services, and future flood work. Certainly, when it comes to local government and flood reconstruction, this is a budget of wrong priorities which will make Queenslanders pay for his broken promises.
I rise today to speak about an issue that has been raised with me directly in my own community. It relates to Australia's level of foreign aid.
The budget delivers on the government's commitment to strengthen our relationships with key partners and refocus our foreign policy on the advancement of Australia's core strategic and economic interests. In government, Labor made grandiose announcements about increasing the aid budget, but then they clawed almost all of that money back. Labor's trick was to push aid figures out beyond the forward estimates, putting them on the never-never. To the extent that they did spend more it was a case of borrowing money from overseas to turn around and send it back overseas as aid. That is unsustainable.
The 2014 budget will support a sustainable, affordable and accountable aid program that invests $5 billion next year to promote prosperity, reduce poverty and enhance stability in our region, the Indo-Pacific region. It will be stabilised at $5 billion in 2015-16, thereafter increasing annually by CPI. And, thank heavens, foreign aid is now in the capable hands of the member for Curtin, Australia's new foreign minister.
Australia's aid budget will be spent where we can make the most difference. The aid program will be guided by a new aid policy and performance framework to better promote Australia's national interests by contributing to economic growth and poverty reduction.
Following comments made by health minister, Peter Dutton, on the ABC News Breakfast program yesterday morning, I would like to clarify that at no stage during my time as Speaker of the House of Representatives did I ever use or make the Speaker's office available for party political fundraisers.
Speaking to host Michael Rowland, Mr Dutton suggested that the practice of holding political fundraisers in the Speaker's office has been commonplace for many Speakers. He said:
I think the Speaker has, as is the case with previous Speakers, conducted these sort of events not at taxpayers expense and I think that is appropriate …
This statement is false and misleading. I and my Labor predecessor never used the Speaker's office for party political fundraising. To do so would have been highly inappropriate. The only functions held in the Speaker's office during my time as Speaker were for the purposes of official business and the annual Christmas drinks for members of parliament.
When pressed to nominate a Speaker who had held a fundraiser in the Speaker's office, Mr Dutton could not, simply stating:
I can't rule out that past speakers haven't done it because it is common practice across both parties across the parliament.
If Mr Dutton has any doubts about the conduct of previous Speakers then I am happy to clarify. He can rule out the possibility of political fundraisers previously being held in the Speaker's office during the previous Labor government.
The office of the Speaker is bequeathed by the parliament and the Australian people. It is not an institution owned by the government of the day or a political party; it belongs to the parliament and to the people. The independence of the office of the Speaker is paramount to the dignity and respect which that office holds. Maintaining this independence was my guiding principle and governed every decision I made. (Time expired)
This government is getting on with the job of building a strong and prosperous economy which supports local job growth.
Recently, I was fortunate enough to attend the launch of the Local Employment Access Program, otherwise known as LEAP, at Blue Haven in my electorate of Dobell. LEAP delivers training to the long-term unemployed who are actively seeking employment. This program demonstrates how job service providers can successfully collaborate with training providers and prospective employers to link job seekers with training and employment in high-need skills areas.
Locally, LEAP, along with Central Coast organisations ET Australia and Better Futures Local Solutions are delivering training for 17 long-term unemployed people from the Blue Haven area who have experienced barriers to employment. These eager job seekers are ready for training and employment. However, they have experienced difficulties in gaining access to necessary training required for employment. Upon completion, participants will receive certificates in home and community care and disability care before being connected to local job providers.
It was a pleasure to meet with the participants and witness their commitment and enthusiasm for the program. Through LEAP the participants experience firsthand employment pathways generated through their training, and they are determined to complete the program and gain employment.
I wish all the LEAP participants every success with their training and look forward to following their progress.
I rise to talk about the disproportionate impact of the Abbott government's first budget on rural Australia.
When you put fuel taxes up it hits rural Australia hardest. When you put a GP tax on, it hits rural Australia harder. When you cut hospital funding to the states, it will first hit rural hospitals. When you cut university funding it will hit regional universities hardest.
Government members interjecting—
Those on the other side apparently do not understand rural Australia. And those on the coalition backbench—those marginal seat holders who represent rural seats—should be in here defending their constituents. They should be in here on the budget debate, defending their rural constituents. Yet we learn every day that they are missing in action. They are compliant with their leader and it is time they stood up for their constituents. It is time they stood up for rural and regional Australia.
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
There has been discussion for some time about the role of the Speaker and about the place of a so-called independent Speakership. I think it would be helpful to provide members and others with some perspective from the House of Representatives Practice.
The Australian Speakership has evolved in its own way since Federation in 1901 and now differs in significant ways from the office of Speaker of the United Kingdom House of Commons. I quote from the Practice:
… in the House of Commons the Speaker abandons all party loyalties and is required to be impartial on all party issues both inside and outside the House. In concert with this requirement the principle has been well established that the Speaker continues in office, regardless of a change of government, until ceasing to be a Member of the House.
In contrast, practice in the House of Representatives has been to change the Speaker with a change of government … This provides a Speaker who is politically affiliated but who is required to be impartial in the Chair, rather than a Speaker who is both independent and seen to be independent. Historically, the Speaker has not been required to sever his or her connection with the governing party. Speakers have attended party meetings and have not, of necessity, refrained from election campaigning.
Previous Speakers have certainly attended party meetings. The only reason for nonattendance in the 43rd Parliament was a condition of the 2010 Labor-Greens agreement to facilitate minority government.
Opposition members: That's not true!
You will be quiet. I am making a statement. Again quoting the Practice:
In 2010 changes to the standing orders explicitly permitted the Speaker and Deputy Speaker to participate in private Members' business. It is otherwise unusual for a Speaker to participate in a debate. Although there is no standing order which prohibits such participation and there have been instances where this has happened, such action in the modern House would be regarded as out of character with the status and role of the Speaker unless the matter under debate was of a peculiarly parliamentary nature falling within the responsibilities of the Speaker
I trust this provides some perspective on how I see my role as Speaker in light of the proud Australian tradition of Speakership which is in conformity with the House of Representatives Practice.
Madam Speaker, on a point of order: given that it was unclear when the quotations began and ended in that statement—
I intend to release the statement. You will see where the quotation marks are.
Thank you. Given that the statement also involves ideas that are factually incorrect in terms of the agreement, we will reserve our time to respond.
The member will resume his seat.
I inform the House that the Minister for the Environment will be absent from question time today to attend a funeral. The Minister for Foreign Affairs will answer questions on his behalf.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Why is his government prepared to use the $80 billion that he has slashed from hospitals and schools to run an advertising campaign to promote his broken promises and election lies?
The Leader of the Opposition knows full well that the word 'lies' is unparliamentary. He will withdraw and he may rephrase the question.
I withdraw.
Point of order, Madam Speaker: the Leader of the House also used a word which should be withdrawn. I think it was 'grub', but I am not sure, and he should withdraw it.
It was: stop being a grub—and a bad mannered one at that!
The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition can rephrase his question.
I am sorry, Madam Speaker, I did not hear the withdrawal.
I am happy to withdraw.
My question is to the Prime Minister—
Speak louder, Bill, speak louder.
The member for Herbert!
Your voters are speaking pretty loud. They're not happy.
Mr Ewen Jones interjecting—
The member for Herbert is warned!
Mr Ewen Jones interjecting—
The member for Herbert will remove himself under 94(a) for one hour.
Opposition members: At last!
The member for Herbert then left the chamber.
We will have some silence. The Leader of the Opposition is rephrasing his question.
I certainly will now! My question is to the Prime Minister. Why is his government prepared to use the $80 billion that he slashed from health and education budgets to the states in order to promote an advertising campaign to promote his broken promises and election fairytales?
There are three false statements there. First of all, this is the budget that Australia needs right now to face Labor's debt and deficit disaster. Second, there were no $80 billion of spending in any budget that has been reduced by this government.
That's not what the budget papers say.
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will desist.
I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to point to $80 billion in Labor budgets that were going to be spent on health and education. Finally, no advertising campaigns have been undertaken by this government. That contrasts with when the Leader of the Opposition was in government. Seven hundred million dollars were spent on political advertising by the former government.
Madam Speaker, on a point of order—
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. All those members on my left who were using those placards will put them down, if they appear again. You know the ruling: they are not permitted to be used. And if that was condoned by the Manager of Opposition Business, which I presume it must have been—
Opposition members interjecting—
Now you can have your point of order.
Madam Speaker, given that when that incident occurred I had wandered down and got a piece of paper and wandered back, what on earth are you making up?
Madam Speaker, obviously the opposition has forgotten that in the previous last two parliaments I used to have to listen to a lot of epithets and comments from the member for Chisholm and the former member for Scullin and the former member for Fisher, but I never reacted in the rude and ill-mannered way that this man does. I would ask you to apologise to the Speaker for the way you just reflected on her in the chair. If you were a gentleman, you would do so.
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister asked me to table what I was talking about. Here it is in my hand: the budget papers. There is $80 billion of cuts in the budget.
I made a ruling yesterday and indicated that there would be no request allowed if it is already on the public record. An invitation does not make a difference. The honourable member for Robertson has the call.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the House why it is necessary to fix the budget now rather than leaving it to future generations to deal with Labor's debt and deficit legacy?
I thank the member for Robertson for her question. I can point out to her that this country has a fundamentally strong economy, but under members opposite we had a fundamentally weak budget. The government is fixing the budget to strengthen our economy. This is exactly what we were elected to do. I said until I was blue in the face during the last election that we would do four things: we would stop the boats, we would scrap the carbon tax, we would build the road to the 21st century, and we would get the budget back under control.
Opposition members interjecting—
I can understand a certain amount of excitement from members opposite, because members opposite did not think the budget needed to be brought back under control. None other than the Leader of the Opposition said—he likes to talk about advertising, well here is a bit of false advertising that the Leader of the Opposition put out—he claimed, in a dodger distributed to his electorate, that the budget was—
An incident having occurred in the chamber
The Prime Minister will resume his seat. I have already said that those placards are not to be used. If you wish to act in defiance of the chair in that way—I would ask the Manager of Opposition Business to ask his members to abide by the ruling.
On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I ask that the same rule will apply to the Prime Minister who is waving a document around on that side.
Should the Prime Minister again wave it around, he will be asked to desist from that action, but I would ask you to inform your members to comply with the ruling.
I will go and talk to them now.
Good. The Prime Minister has the call.
The Leader of the Opposition claimed back in 2012 that the budget was back in surplus, on time and as promised. I know why he is turning his back; he is embarrassed by this. He said, 'in these uncertain global times, there is no clearer sign of a strong economy than a surplus'—the surplus he never, ever delivered, the surplus Labor never delivered and was incapable of delivering.
What did we get from members opposite? We got the six biggest deficits in Australia's history. We got 200,000 more unemployed at the end of their six years than at the beginning. We got $123 billion of cumulative prospective deficits, $667 billion of projected debt and $1 billion a month in interest payments—every single month—just to pay the interest on the borrowings. They were paying the nation's mortgage on the credit card. It just could not go on; and it will not go on, thanks to this government.
We are taking the tough decisions now to avoid even tougher decisions in four or five years time. We are taking the tough decisions now to set up the prosperity of the future. This is the first honest budget in six years. This is the budget our country needs.
My question is to the Prime Minister. In light of the Prime Minister's previous answer to my question, why did his Minister for Finance outline the details of a taxpayer funded propaganda campaign being planned by this government to sell this budget of broken promises?
On this issue, as on so many others, the Leader of the Opposition is simply incapable of telling the truth. This is the Leader of the Opposition who could not be trusted by either of his two previous leaders. Kevin Rudd could not trust him; Julia Gillard could not trust him; and the Australian people should not trust him either.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline how getting the budget back on track allows Australia to best prepared for future economic challenges?
I am very grateful to the honourable member for Lyons for the question. He is actually asking about the details of the budget, and I am happy to respond—
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The member for McMahon will desist.
and focus on the fact that, if no action were taken, Australian government debt would increase to $667 billion within a decade—that is, $25,000 for every man, woman and child in Australia.
You fudged the figures.
The member for Parramatta will desist.
Our interest bill alone in that time would be nearly $3 billion a month—$3 billion a month for the legacy of debt left by the Labor Party in just six years. In just six years they managed to lock in expenditure that left us with a trajectory of debt to $667 billion, with an interest bill of nearly $3 billion a month. And now the interest bill is over $1 billion a month for what Labor did over a six-year period. The fact is they have left us with the fastest growth rate in spending of the top 17 surveyed IMF countries in the world. They have left us with the third fastest growth in net debt of the 17 surveyed countries in the world.
Labor say there is no problem—'No tragedy here; no problem here'—because from their perspective they did nothing wrong. Well, they did. The first act of wrongness is their denial. We have heard about the War of the Roses, but I want to tell you about the 'War of the Bowens'—I want to tell you about the 'Battle of the Bowens'. The Bowen in the Labor Party seems to think that there is really no problem here, just a little budget repair job, but the Bowen who is the Parliamentary Budget Officer, appointed by the last parliament as the independent arbiter in these matters, said:
It is time to start coming out—
of debt and deficit—
otherwise the longer you leave it the more exposed you become and the harder it is to wind it back.
That is the independent Bowen, the Bowen who knows what he is talking about. That Bowen—Phil Bowen, the Parliamentary Budget Officer—has belled the cat. He has proven the fact, as has every other independent analyst, that we need to act now to stop the debt getting out of control. The only way to do that is to back a budget that is honest. That comes as a rude shock to Labor—an honest budget! The fact is we have delivered an honest budget and we will fix the economy.
I wish to advise the House that we have with us on the floor of the House a delegation from the Parliament of Malaysia. We make them most welcome. I think many in the House have had an opportunity to meet with the delegation and have seen good ties grow between the delegation and members of this House.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Prime Minister. Before the election the Prime Minister said:
… a government which is taking money off schools and hospitals so it can spend it on ads and this is absolutely the wrong way to go.
Why is the Prime Minister spending money on a propaganda campaign while cutting $80 billion from schools and hospitals?
Again, two falsehoods. We are not cutting $80 billion from schools and hospitals. There was no $80 billion in any Labor budget. There was no $80 billion in any Labor budget to be cut.
The Budget Overview says on page 7—
There is no point of order. Resume your seat.
So there was no $80 billion in any Labor budget, no $80 billion that Labor ever set aside in any Labor budget, that has been cut. All that is happening is that the rate of increase has been reduced because the rate of increase that members opposite were proposing is simply unsustainable. Let me make it crystal clear to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who cannot contain her excitement—
That is why Mike said it is a kick in the guts.
The member for Jagajaga! That is unparliamentary.
Ms Macklin interjecting—
Correct, but not in this place.
Hospital funding increases by nine per cent this year, nine per cent next year, nine per cent the year after that and six per cent the year after that. What sort of a cut is a nine per cent increase? What sort of a cut is a six per cent increase? I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition: what sort of a cut is a nine per cent increase?
Opposition members interjecting—
There will be silence for the answer.
That is falsehood No. 1. Falsehood No. 2: there is no government advertising campaign, so please stop having the vapours about something that is not happening. Stop wasting questions. Members opposite are supposed to be so excited about this budget and they are already off the budget and onto a piece of confected fantasy. That is what they are doing.
Given that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is incapable of asking a serious question in this place, let me offer a serious point and say thank you to our friends from Malaysia. Let me say how pleased I have been to work with the Malaysian government and how pleased I have been to work with Prime Minister Najib of Malaysia on the hunt for flight MH370, a search that goes on and a search that this government will continue to prosecute. We owe it to the families of the 239 people on that flight not to rest until we can solve this mystery.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline the importance of the structural reform contained in the budget? Can the Treasurer also outline what are the lessons that can be learned from past experiences in this regard?
Mr Husic interjecting—
The member for Chifley will desist!
I thank the member for Mitchell for his question because he knows how important it is to remember experiences from the past. Of course, the fact is that the experience that we are dealing with is that Labor left $667 billion of debt and $123 billion of deficits. When the Labor Party are challenged about what they would do about this very significant structural problem, they say: 'Don't worry. When we were in government we had $180 billion of savings.' I thought: 'Wow, $180 billion of savings. Let's go a bit into that,' because you have to peel it apart like an onion to find out what it really is. In fact, nearly half of it is increases in taxes—not savings, but actual increases in taxes.
Ms Owens interjecting—
In fact, their definition of savings is about taking more savings from the Australian taxpayer.
Ms Owens interjecting—
The member for Parramatta is warned!
That is the Labor Party's definition of savings. And then the second part of the $180 billion—
Mr Bowen interjecting—
I'm coming to you, china, in a minute—just a second. With the second part of the $180 billion, I thought, 'Wow, they saved $180 billion'. But they spent $152 billion of it on new expenditure. The problem was the expenditure kept going up and up and up, and that is why we are facing $667 billion of debt.
The fact is Labor once upon a time believed in structural reform. You know, Bob Hawke and Paul Keating, they believed in structural reform. In fact I went to the member from McMahon's book and found that he said:
The Hawke Government was introducing tough and controversial reforms to modernise the economy. … I knew that Labor was trying to make the economy grow so that kids like me could get better jobs.
If that is the case, then he should now be rusted on to our structural reforms that deliver a stronger economy. Instead, the Labor Party cannot hold a policy from week to week. They terminated the carbon tax, but now they are voting to keep it. Three weeks ago they said they were totally opposed to the deficit levy, now they are going to support it. And yesterday they were backgrounding that they were going to allow through the government's proposals in relation to the family tax benefit and then, today, they come out and say, no, they have reversed their position. So if Labor cannot hold a position from day to day and if Labor cannot hold a position from week to week, there is no chance, no chance on earth—
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
I tell the member for Rankin that he is warned!
that this Labor Party, which has no soul and has no principles, is ever going to deal with the structural challenges facing the Australian economy. The Labor Party of today has no principles, has no values, has no leadership.
Madam Speaker, my question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, a senior Liberal has described the budget as 'a stinking carcass hanging around the government's neck'. Why are the Prime Minister and the Treasurer taking money from schools and hospitals—taxpayers' money—to promote their stinking carcass of a budget?
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The Leader of the House will resume his seat. When the member from McMahon phrases his question in those terms, I think it reflects more on the asker of the question. It certainly could never be described as an elegant question, but it will stand.
Madam Speaker, my objection to the question is not so much the argument but the fact that a quotation needs to be sourced. A quotation that is simply an anonymous statement could be merely speculative; it could have been anybody at all. It is not a question that is in order. The opposition has a myriad of opportunities to find quotations that could be in order, that one is not.
I think it is a moot point. I am going to allow the question to stand.
I thank the honourable member for McMahon for the question. If he is concerned about a stinking carcass, he only needs to look in front of him at the Leader of the Opposition. And why so? Because it is the Leader of the Opposition who is the custodian of the legacy—
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order: there is a difference under standing orders between using that language with respect to a budget and using it with respect to another member of the House, and in that way it should be withdrawn.
Yes; disgraceful. Hopeless.
There is no point of order.
Well I think—
Madam Speaker—
It is the same moot point. I allowed the question to stand. There is no point of order.
So it is parliamentary to use a phrase like that about a member of the parliament? Is that what—
Stop! I would ask the honourable the Treasurer: when he used that expression, was he in fact reflecting on another member of parliament? If he was, he will kindly withdraw.
I withdraw. And it is not terribly dignified at all, is it? But of course they asked the question. And it was a former Labor Prime Minister—
Mr Shorten interjecting—
I'm sorry—what are you saying?
Mr Shorten interjecting—
The honourable Leader of the Opposition will desist.
Are you okay? Are you coping? Are you all right?
Mr Shorten interjecting—
The Leader of the Opposition will desist.
Mr Shorten interjecting—
Calm down. I know it's a bit tough for you—
Mr Shorten interjecting—
I warn the Leader of the Opposition!
I could not hear what you said over Joe's interrupting you.
I will repeat it.
Good.
You will desist.
It is not terribly edifying, but it was a former Labor Prime Minister who stood at this very dispatch box and used that term and it is now the current Labor Party that chooses to repeat that term.
Opposition members interjecting—
The cacophony will stop!
I will tell you why: if we are dealing with legacies, the greatest legacy Labor has left is 200,000 more Australians unemployed. The greatest legacy Labor has left is $123 billion of deficits. The greatest legacy Labor has left is $667 billion of debt. And now that they are in opposition they are trying to create a new legacy, because they are opposing $40 billion of savings that are going towards fixing the mess that they created. They started the fire in the kitchen, and now they are trying to stop the fireman from putting it out.
Of course they think it is funny, they think it is humorous; they think it is clever politics. You see the Labor Party's response to the entire budget has been about politics and process, not about policy—and why? I will tell you why. They were the architects of the co-payment in Medicare, they were the architects of the co-payment for the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, they were the ones who first introduced university fees—the Labor Party were when they actually did have principles. The coalition supported them in those reforms because we knew we had to do what was right for the country even when we were in opposition.
But now the modern Labor Party has no principles, it has no values, and it has no leadership. That is reflected in the fact that the modern Labor Party does not know what to support and want to oppose from day to day. That is the legacy of the modern Labor Party. I say to you: the people who should be most concerned about that are the Australian people, because there has always been a bipartisan approach to fix and strengthen the Australian economy. The only obstacle today, the only thing swinging in the breeze, is the modern Labor Party.
My question is to the Minister for Social Services. Can the minister outline to the House changes in the budget to make the age pension more sustainable? Can the minister confirm that pensions will increase every year?
I thank the member for Banks for his question and for his representation of his constituents in the seat of Banks. I can say to the member for Banks that I came across an interesting observation just recently. Let me quote:
In terms of life expectancy, 70 is the new 64.
Indeed, the person who wrote this went on and said:
And in terms of health, 74 is the new 64.
… … …
Yet to look at many of the statutes on our books, you would think that none of these changes had ever occurred.
So I was wondering, who made this prescient and astute observation about 70 being the new 64? Who could it have been who made this observation? Well, he is here in the House. Not on the side of the House but the member for Canberra.
Fraser.
I thought: what an astute and prescient observation about the demographic changes that are occurring in society. Andrew, come on over! The reality is that there is a major change in the demographic patterns in Australia. People are living much longer. When the age pension was introduced in 1907, average life expectancy was less than 60. Today it is well over 80, as the member for Canberra pointed out.
The member for McMahon will resume his seat. I remind the minister that he is the member for Fraser.
The member for Fraser. I apologise to the member for Canberra. And I would say to the member for McMahon, at least the member for Fraser's books sell more than yours do. There is a great demographic change occurring and that is reflected in the fact that this government is going to ensure that the age pension remains sustainable.
The member for Banks asked, 'Is the age pension going to continue to increase?' Yes, it will—twice a year. In March of this year the age pension increased by $15.70 a fortnight for singles and it increased by $11.90 fortnight for each of a couple. Again in September of this year the age pension will increase, as it will in March and September 2015, and 2016, and 2017. The nonsense that the Labor Party is going on about the age pension is simply, once again, factually incorrect. Under this government the age pension will be sustainable and will continue to increase.
The minister will resume his seat. The member for Jagajaga on a point of order?
Point of order, Madam Speaker, on relevance. Why are you taking $450 million—
The member will resume her seat. There is no point of order. Leader of the House?
I point out that the member for Jagajaga is a serial offender in coming to the dispatch box and pretending to take a point of order and then just shouting—in fact, shrieking really quite unpleasantly—across the chamber at the government. I would ask you to draw her to order.
Before I call the member for Kennedy I would simply say that those who are watching question time, those who are in the gallery, are trying to listen to the questions and the answers and we have nothing but a cacophony of noise. I would ask for silence so that we may hear the splendid words of the member for Kennedy and that whoever he is going to direct his question to is given silence in which to answer. The member for Kennedy.
Madam Speaker, I seek some clarification before asking this question.
Opposition members interjecting—
Please, please, you have heard the Speaker—would you shut up and listen!
The member for Kennedy will withdraw that. It is unparliamentary.
I withdraw it. Madam Speaker, am I permitted to address the Treasurer as a North Queenslander, an identification I am sure he will be relying upon on Wednesday night late?
If the member for Kennedy is referring to the State of Origin, I have a definite bias for blue. You may refer to the Treasurer. I think you just best refer to him as the honourable the Treasurer.
Could I refer to the member for Leichhardt as the excellent member for Leichhardt?
No, you can ask your question—the clock is about to start.
My question is to the Treasurer. Acknowledging Duncan Fysh and Shannon Siebel, insurance on an Innisfail house in 2007 was $792 and is now $3,700; and in Julia Creek it was $2,300 and is now $22,000. Julia Creek is not noted for floods, cyclones or tidal surges. Since pre-Cyclone Tracy code houses are gone, Treasurer, surely the government must red-line insurance areas by regulation, or extend a modified health insurance approach to cover dwellings, or provide partial government underwriting to deliver real future actuarial costing. (Time expired)
I thank the member for Kennedy for his question. I do declare an interest: I do pay insurance up there and the insurance has gone through the roof, particularly since Cyclone Larry.
The insurance premiums—which are being compounded by the insurance taxes, GST and so on, on the top of insurance—have risen enormously over the last few years, particularly in relation to body corporates. This is something that the member for Leichhardt has been incredibly aggressive about. He has belted down the door to my office. Perhaps I will temper that by saying he has been assertive rather than aggressive. He has been ringing the bell on this for some period of time.
This is something that the Assistant Treasurer has been working through with the insurance industry. There are some challenges, particularly in relation to reinsurance. Ultimately, the costs of reinsurance end up being directly linked to events that occur in a region. The fact that insurance premiums have risen so dramatically, particularly in North Queensland has unquestionably been linked to increased reinsurance costs. Also, obviously, one of the reasons reinsurance costs have increased is because of the very significant events that have occurred up there, including recent cyclones.
The net impact of that is that people either underinsure or do not insure. Australia, unfortunately, has a fairly high level of under-insurance.
I rise on a point of order. The question was about the actuarial. All the old houses are gone. There is no justification, now, Mr Treasurer, for an increase. All the old houses are gone.
That is not right, because the insurance premium increases are applied across the board—effectively, right across North Queensland. So it is not isolated to a particular class. For example, body corporate insurance has increased so significantly in the last six years, but other classes of insurance have also increased due to the increased cost of reinsurance but also because of market concentration up there. Market concentration is an issue particularly in relation to body corporate insurance.
Having said that, I want to be able to report to you, in the next few weeks, exactly what has come out of the discussions between the Assistant Treasurer and the insurance companies in relation to this matter, because it is something that has been raised repeatedly by my colleague the member for Leichhardt and the member who was recently ejected from the House, the member for Herbert. The fact is that this affects the whole of Queensland and it is a serious issue.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the statements made by the member for Mallee that the GP tax was mean spirited and that he does not support the increase to the pension age because life expectancy in his electorate, which is a country electorate, is 4.7 years less than for those Sydney. When the Prime Minister's own MPs do not support this mean spirited budget why should the Australian people?
The truth, which members opposite are in denial about is that we could not go on borrowing $1 billion every single month just to pay the interest on Labor's borrowings. We simply cannot go on like that. The budget is this government's attempt to deal with Labor's budget mess. Where is Labor's?
I rise on a point of order. It is not possible to be directly relevant to this question without referring to the member for Mallee, who has threatened to cross the floor on this issue.
There is no point of order. As I said before, when you use the mantras that you are using it opens the question right up.
There were a lot of tough decisions in this budget, and it is good that members opposite have noticed that there are some tough decisions in this budget. There is no easy way to deal with the debt and deficit disaster that Labor has left this country. In the budget this government has carefully explained to the Australian people what we propose to do to deal with the mess that Labor created, and now it is up to the Leader of the Opposition to say how he will fix the mess that he helped to create. Let's face it: the Leader of the Opposition was a senior minister for almost six years in the government that gave us the six biggest deficits in history. He was the kingmaker who put Julia Gillard into the prime ministership. Then, when that was not good enough for him, he was the kingmaker who put Kevin Rudd back into the prime ministership. So if he was good enough and Machiavellian enough to make and unmake prime ministers, please tell us, Leader of the Opposition, what you would do to fix the debt and deficit disaster.
The Leader of the Opposition helped to make the mess. He should explain how he is going to fix it. We have been absolutely upfront with the Australian people about our solution for Labor's mess. It is time for the Leader of the Opposition to be equally honest with the Australian people. They are the fire; we are the fire brigade. I refuse to be impartial as between the fire brigade and the fire.
My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister update the House on the government's commitment to hospital funding in the recent budget. How does this differ from alternative approaches?
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
That is not very parliamentary, either!
I thank the member very much for her question. All of the members on this side are very proud that in this budget we increase hospital funding every single year. And we increase it by a record amount. The fact is that in this budget hospital funding increases by over $5 billion or around 40 per cent over the next four years.
I am very proud that we have been able to deal with Labor's debt and deficit disaster, that we have been able to pay down Labor's debt, and that at the same time we have been able to increase by record amounts the money that we put into our public hospitals. The reality is, as the Prime Minister said earlier in question time: each year over the next three years we will increase hospital funding by nine per cent and, in the fourth year, we will increase it by over six per cent. We inherited enormous debt when we came into government and, as has been rightly pointed out, we are borrowing $1 billion a month just to pay the interest bill. If we did not make changes over the course of the next 10 years, that monthly interest bill would grow to $2.8 billion.
If we did not get Labor's debt under control, it would mean we would have to take tough decisions and it would mean that in future years we would have had to cut hospital funding—which, in this budget, we do not do. We are increasing hospital funding each and every year as we go forward. I am very proud of the fact that we have been able to manage Labor's debt and deficit disaster and that we will increase by $1.3 billion the funding that will flow to state hospital services over the course of the next year. In 2015-16 there will a nine per cent increase or more to $1.4 billion in that year. In 2016-17 we are increasing hospital funding across the country by nine per cent or $1.5 billion. We will increase hospital funding going forward on a sustainable path.
In this country, 10 years ago we had 2.5 million people over the age of 65. In 10 years' time there will 4.5 million people over the age of 65, and we have to make the changes today to make sure that our hospital system and our health system are strengthened into the future. But, if we do not deal with Labor's debt and deficit now, we will not be able to provide the $15 billion a year that we are providing this year, and which is growing each and every year, toward our public hospitals around the country. The coalition was elected to clean up Labor's mess not just in relation to the boats and the economy but in relation to the health portfolio as well. We will take money away from those great big new health bureaucracies that they created. We will put it back into front-line services. That is why we have put the health system on a sustainable path as our population goes forward.
My question is to the Prime Minister. The Australian Medical Association and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners have warned that the government's GP tax could threaten immunisation rates for children. Can the Prime Minister guarantee that childhood immunisation rates will not drop because the government's GP tax discourages parents from taking their kids to the doctor? Why should families suffer because of the Prime Minister's broken promises?
Again there were many falsehoods in that question. Let me quote from someone—I am not sure that he is a wise man but he has certainly said some wise things:
But there's a better way of operating a health system, and the change should hardly hurt at all. … the ideal model involves a small co-payment—not enough to put a dent in your weekly budget, but enough to make you think twice before you call the doc.
And the idea is 'hardly a radical idea'. It is an idea which certainly appeals to Labor's shadow Assistant Treasurer. I can understand that the shadow Assistant Treasurer could be fairly uncomfortable, but come on over! If you don't like it there, come on over!
Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order on standing order 104. When there is a question about immunisation rates, direct relevance does matter.
I would remind the member for Watson that when the mantra is added the question is broadened enormously. The Prime Minister has the call.
Labor's shadow Assistant Treasurer is not the only person who supports the government on this issue. Labor's former prime minister, Mr Hawke, the father of the co-payment, supports what this government is doing.
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The member for McMahon will desist or is warned.
There are a whole range of ways to get immunised. Yes, a GP is one way, but there are also community health centres and other ways of being immunised. It is very important that immunisation rates stay up, and this government certainly supports that.
My question is to the Minister for Education. What benefits will flow to students as a result of the government's higher education reforms?
I thank the member for Wright for his question. I can tell him that the higher education budget is all about spreading opportunity to more students to get a higher education qualification. How are we doing that? We are doing it through the biggest Commonwealth scholarships fund in Australia's history, through the extension of the Commonwealth Grants Scheme to non-university higher education providers, through lifting the cap on diploma and associate degrees so that it is a demand-driven system so that tens of thousands more students will have the opportunity to go to university and do pathways programs, and through abolishing the loan fees for VET students and for students in non-university higher education providers to access the Higher Education Loan Program.
Through these measures we will create 80,000 more places at university, and most of those will be filled by low-socioeconomic status students, by students from disadvantaged backgrounds and by first-generation university goers. And, yes, we are also deregulating fees. Every single dollar of those deregulated fees will be able to be borrowed by the student from the Australian taxpayer at the same interest rate as the government borrows that money on behalf of the student; they can pay it back after they earn $50,000 a year and they cannot pay back more than two per cent of their income at the lowest threshold. Imagine going to the bank and saying to the bank manager, 'I'd like to borrow a credit card for $16,800'—which is the average HECS debt in 2012—'but there are a few conditions that I am going to put on this loan. I'm not going to pay it back at greater than the 10-year government bond rate, I'm not going to start paying it back until I earn over $50,000 a year, and I'm only going to pay back two per cent of my income.' The bank manager would look askance at the customer, but that is exactly what the taxpayer provides right now for students at universities around Australia. For the 750,000 students, that is the loan that the taxpayer gives students so that they can go on to higher education and so they can earn 75 per cent more than the 60 per cent of Australians without a university degree. It is the best loan that a student will ever get.
The Leader of the Opposition, in responding to this, reminds me of Thurston Howell III. He is wandering around Gilligan's Island offering champagne to all his friends and saying, 'We can provide champagne to everyone.'
Mr Shorten interjecting—
The Leader of the Opposition will desist.
But just like Thurston Howell III, he does not have champagne to give. He did not have it in government and he will not have it in the future. We are being honest with the Australian public and honest with students; whereas Thurston over there thinks that he can have his cake and eat it too—but, unfortunately, he cannot.
My question again is to the Prime Minister. I refer to his government's $3.5 billion so-called price signal to deter Australians from visiting their GP and using pathology and medical imaging services. Does the Prime Minister know how many pap smears and prostate examinations will be avoided because the government's GP tax discourages patients from seeing their doctor?
It is very important that we make Medicare sustainable for the long term. That is what we are trying to do. It is very important that we make Medicare sustainable for the long term. What this government will not do is do what members opposite have done for far too long and pretend that we can continue to borrow at unsustainable rates to provide services that simply cannot be afforded.
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It was a very simple question: how many pap smears and prostate examinations?
The member for Ballarat will resume her seat. Once you use the mantra in your question it opens it right up. The Prime Minister has the call.
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Madam Speaker, on a question where there is some sort of argument at the end, I respect that ruling. But there is no argument in this question—absolutely none.
The mantra was at the end of the question. There is no point of order. The Prime Minister has the call.
There is nothing wrong with a co-payment.
Ms King interjecting—
The shadow minister who is yelling across the table thinks that it is perfectly fair to have a co-payment for the PBS, does she not? Suddenly, for once, that shadow minister is silent. For once that shadow minister is silent. It is perfectly fair, is it not—
Ms King interjecting—
The member for Ballarat has asked her question. We will have some silence.
Ms King interjecting—
There is no provision for you to be asked a question—until you are on this side.
It is perfectly fair to have a co-payment for PBS drugs. Members opposite introduced a co-payment for the PBS. They introduced a co-payment for Medicare. If a co-payment for the PBS is perfectly fair enough, why is there something fundamentally wrong with a co-payment for Medicare?
Members opposite do not like me quoting the Labor Assistant Treasurer on one subject. Let me quote him again:
FAR too often ... proponents of social change call for a return to old-style tax and spend policies, large government handouts and government intervention in the economy … Unfortunately, this brand of well-intentioned social and economic Luddism would visit yet more suffering and exclusion on those very people in need of assistance.
Government members interjecting—
There will be quiet on my right.
Madam Speaker, he is right about co-payments and he is right about the economic policies of his own colleagues—economic Luddism. We cannot afford to go on in this way anymore—and, as far as this government is concerned, we never ever will.
My question is to the Minister for Communications. What impact does the NBN have on the debt burden faced by the government? How have previous approaches to the NBN impacted on the budget?
I thank the honourable member for his question. For six years the Labor government worked not towards the light on the hill but towards the great liability on the hill. That was their effort—six years towards that big liability. One of the major components of that was the delusion that the National Broadband Network would be a wonderful investment. Indeed, when it was first announced by Prime Minister Rudd, he said it was going to be so fantastic that mums and dads would be lining up to invest in it. You could just imagine the government bringing in the crowd control barriers and training the Australian Federal Police to link arms to hold back the hordes of anxious investors desperate to get their stake! But Prime Minister Rudd said, 'No, no; you can only have 49 per cent.' Well, that fantasy did not last very long.
But even as recently as the middle of last year, Senator Conroy and Senator Wong were out there claiming the project would generate a rate of return of seven per cent and they said—
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister knows that he is required by the standing orders to be directly relevant, and he has not yet even attempted to be directly relevant.
There is no point of order. The minister has the call.
Better not go back to the bar!
Speaking of the bar, Education Minister, it reminds me again of the late Neville Wran's great line: 'Anyone can go to jail if they get the right lawyer.' We are constantly reminded of that every time the member for Isaacs gets up.
The Labor Party's NBN, had it been continued with, would have had a peak funding requirement of $73 billion—
Rubbish! You're a liar!
which would have amounted to more than 10 per cent—
The member for Greenway is warned!
Government members: Withdraw!
I would ask the honourable member to withdraw, Madam Speaker. I am wounded! She has offended the House!
The member for Greenway will withdraw.
I withdraw.
Thank you. I am feeling a bit better now, thank you, Madam Speaker. I am very sensitive!
Had the Labor Party stayed in office, within the decade we would have had $667 billion of debt—
Tell the truth! Try it!
The member for Greenway is warned!
and more than 10 per cent of that would have been contributed by their misguided National Broadband Network project. So what are we doing? Well, we cannot recover most, if any, of the billions they have wasted to date, but what we can do is finish the project sooner, cheaper and more affordably. It will be cheaper for consumers and over $30 billion less expensive for taxpayers. The government is very much in the position of Mr Wolf in that great movie Pulp Fiction, cleaning up the mess—but the difference is that, in that movie, John Travolta and Samuel L Jackson helped clean up the mess they made and did not, like the Labor Party, get in the way of the clean-up.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Treasurer's assertion that Australians with a number of chronic diseases are not affected by the GP tax. There are one million Australians with diabetes. Someone diagnosed with the disease must visit the GP every week for a number of months and then at least four times every year. Can the Prime Minister confirm this patient would be billed using GP consultation item B23 and the GP tax would apply?
How can members opposite seriously say that a modest co-payment for visiting the GP will stop sick people from visiting the doctor, when they do not contend that a modest co-payment for the PBS is no such disincentive?
Opposition members interjecting—
There will be silence on my left, and that includes the member for Moreton!
I ask you, Madam Speaker, how can they say that co-payments for Medicare are wrong and co-payments for the PBS are right? They simply cannot sustain the logic of their position. Their position is simply untenable. Now we have this slightly sad attempt by members opposite to say that people are going to be deprived of vital health treatment because of the same modest co-payment on Medicare that people have always faced in respect of the PBS. Let me read something: 'Is anyone seriously suggesting that, in the circumstance you're talking about, where there is the possibility—'
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question was completely without mantra.
I did notice that. It was an improvement.
It was capable of being answered with a yes or no. The question is whether the Medicare item number would apply.
The member for Throsby, if he reads the standing orders, will see there is no provision to demand a yes/no answer. The Prime Minister has the call.
I am quoting something that is very relevant: 'Is anyone seriously suggesting that, in the circumstance you're talking about, where there is the possibility of breast cancer, that is going to stop them going to the doctor? I mean, that is emotionalism being played at the lowest level.' That was Prime Minister Bob Hawke, a real Labor leader, unlike this tawdry excuse for a leader sitting opposite.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Opposition members interjecting—
Once again the House is descending to a noise level which makes it impossible for those who are in the chamber listening and those who are listening on the airwaves. They are interested in what happens here. They are interested in how their individual member behaves. That includes the member for Melbourne Ports. I would ask that we have silence for the question and silence for the answer.
My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Minister, what benefits will flow to taxpayers because of the government's success in protecting our borders?
I thank the member for Longman for his question. I know taxpayers in his electorate will be pleased to know that it has been 159 days since the last successful maritime people-smuggling venture to this country and they will also be interested to know that, over the same period last year, there were 157 such successful ventures to Australia and over 10,000—10,396—arrivals. The dividends that have flowed from this government's successful policies are both the humanitarian dividend and, of course, the economic dividend.
Madam Speaker, I just need to raise with you that the member for Herbert has returned to the chamber in less than an hour. Under those circumstances, there is significant precedent over the actions that are now required.
I will ask the Clerk whether or not there has been an infringement. I am advised by the Clerk that he is of the opinion that the member came in within the right time. I call the honourable the minister.
The humanitarian dividend is of course important because over that same period of 159 days there have been no deaths at sea by people seeking to come to this country. I note that it is important to be across the facts of this issue, particularly if you are operating in this portfolio area. I notice that the shadow minister today, speaking at the Press Club, made the statement that there had been no deaths at sea since 19 July. That is a false statement because he should know that there have been 79 deaths at sea since 19 July. He should know that. I think that calls into question this shadow minister's ability to get across the facts, to understand the issues and to be competent in the portfolio. On all those criteria, under the previous government he would have sat satisfactorily as a minister for immigration, based on their performance.
There is also a $2.5 billion boat-stopping dividend in this budget. Those opposite remain in denial about the problem, as we heard today. They also remain in denial about the solution to the problem. They deny their culpability in border protection failure, that they started the boats, and they deny the fact that this government has been successful to date in stopping the boats. But there is method to their mad denial because they know, if they accept the fact that this coalition's policies are doing exactly what they said they would do, then they would have to adopt them and they would have to keep them. We know, if they were ever to return to these benches, they would turn back on turnbacks, that is for sure. They would turn back on turnbacks. They would roll over on offshore processing. It would only be a matter of time because they had to be dragged kicking and screaming to introduce it. They would be rolled over by their backbench before long and they would continue to honour the promise of people smugglers for those who had arrived illegally by boat by giving them permanent visas.
This government has a plan to stop the boats which is working and is opposed by those on the other side of the House. We have a plan to fix this budget, which is opposed by those sitting on that side of the House.
Madam Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Madam Speaker, you would remember that yesterday in question time the Manager of Opposition Business asked you a number of questions about so-called 'fundraisers' in the Speaker's dining room. Following those questions and your answers, I have a question to you. In light of the fact that Mr Brian Toohey in the Financial Review on Wednesday, 9 August 2000, wrote:
The former Labor speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr Leo McLeay, acknowledged that he held a fundraising lunch with about eight business executives on one occasion in Parliament House.
He said Mr Keating may have dropped in at the beginning or end of the lunch, which was held in the Speaker’s official dining room. His recollection is that Mr Keating was treasurer at the time or had moved to the backbench before becoming PM.
My question to you, Madam Speaker, is, in light of this revelation, that in fact former Speaker McLeay held fundraisers in his Speaker's dining room and given the extraordinary motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business yesterday, would it be in order for the Manager of Opposition Business to now rise to the dispatch box and apologise to the Speaker for reflecting on her yesterday?
In a word, I think it would be suitable if the member for Watson did so rise and apologise.
Madam Speaker, I note that former Speaker McLeay subsequently resigned.
I think that had more to do with $60,000 for a bicycle accident.
Madam Speaker, I move:
That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the House from moving forthwith:
That the Manager of Opposition Business, the member for Watson, be required by this House to immediately apologise to the Speaker for grievously reflecting on her in this place, most particularly yesterday in a motion of referral of the Speaker to the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests.
Yesterday in this House, the Manager of Opposition Business moved the motion to refer you to the Privileges Committee for what he described as 'one of the most grievous breaches of parliamentary practice in the history of the world'. His hyperbole attacking you was unprecedented and it was disgraceful. It was based around the concept that holding a fundraiser in the Speaker's dining room was somehow grossly in breach of the rules of the parliament. At no point was he able to name any of those rules in the parliament that govern the use of members' offices. In fact, you had already indicated during the day, at 9 am and again at question time, that the rules are that Parliament House offices be used for any purpose so long as it is not an illegal purpose. At the time, the Manager of Opposition Business reflected most grievously on you in the chair. He said things like:
Your predecessors, Madam Speaker, whether they be Labor, Liberal or National, have not done this.
That was untrue. In fact, the former member for Watson had done so.
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask for a ruling as to whether this motion moved by the Leader of the House is in order and whether, in fact, a motion before a motion before the House attempting to demand certain action of a member for referring a matter to the Privileges Committee, or seeking to refer a matter to the Privileges Committee, is, in itself, a breach of privilege and an attack on the right of the member for Watson to raise issues in an appropriate way.
There is no point of order.
Have you seen the motion, Madam Speaker?
Yes, I have.
Madam Speaker, I read the motion very clearly to the House.
And I have a copy of it.
The motion did not reflect on the member for Watson attempting to ask the Privileges Committee to investigate the Speaker. It was a motion to ask him to apologise to you for reflecting on you as Speaker—
Correct.
on the basis of a falsehood. He also said in his speech yesterday:
I have asked you, Madam Speaker, to answer questions about the extent to which the Liberal Party has cashed in on you being in that chair.
He said:
… Madam Speaker, this one reflects on you. This one reflects personally on a judgement call that you made that previous speakers either had parties that were decent enough to not ask or speakers who had integrity enough to say no.
But the fact is, Madam Speaker, the former member for Watson, Mr McLeay, had held fundraisers in the Speaker's dining room. The Manager of Opposition Business, if he was a gentleman, would apologise to you for reflecting on the speakership, because reflecting on the Speaker is one of the worst crimes that a member of parliament can do in this place.
The pattern since you were elected Speaker has been to denigrate you as Speaker and to denigrate the speakership, whether it has been dissent motions moved from the day that you were elected Speaker, calling you a witch on the first day that you were elected Speaker, moving a no confidence motion in you as Speaker, and yesterday, of course, the grotesque reflection on you as Speaker, accusing you of wrongdoing and accusing you of holding a fundraiser in the Speaker's dining room, in breach of rules unable to be named and in an unprecedented way. But, in fact, the precedent occurred under the predecessor of the current member for Watson's seat—Mr McLeay as the Speaker. This has been a pattern from the first day that you were elected to that office. There has not been a moment that the Manager of Opposition Business and the Labor Party frontbench have not been trying to badger and harass you in this role. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the level of shouting at you as Speaker is bullying you in that role.
Therefore, I do move this very serious motion. It is a motion to require the Manager of Opposition Business to do what he should have done as soon as I pointed out in my question to you at the end of question time that the basis of his motion attacking you yesterday was completely wrong and based on a falsehood. Perhaps his staff should have done better research. Perhaps before he had come into the chamber and feigned this mock outrage for the umpteenth time, his staff should have done better research. Rather than getting a tip-off from the Leader of the Opposition's office that this had occurred and racing out using the Labor Party's dirt unit, their smear and innuendo unit, to try to get these stories up in the papers and in the chamber, perhaps he should have paused and thought carefully about whether this might ever have occurred before. If he had done the research that my office did today, he would have thrown up the article that I quoted from before—that was in 2000, Wednesday, 9 August, when Brian Toohey wrote in the Financial Review under the headline 'Guess who's coming to dinner?':
The former Labor Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr Leo McLeay, acknowledged that he held a fundraising lunch with about eight business executives on one occasion in Parliament House.
He said Mr Keating may have dropped in at the beginning or end of lunch, which was held in the Speaker's official dining room. His recollection is that Mr Keating was treasurer at the time or had moved to the backbench before becoming PM.
Why is this so important? It is important for two reasons. It is important because the opposition have to understand that they cannot keep trying to belt the umpire. They have to accept the fact that the government is in power and, as you correctly pointed out at the beginning of question time, Madam Speaker, we have the opportunity to appoint the Speaker. We have done so. When you are in the chair, you are exercising the impartiality that any Speaker should exercise. That is not an excuse for Labor, who lost the election, to decide that attacking the umpire is a better past time than actually addressing their own failures as a government for six years and now as an opposition.
That is one reason why this is an important motion. It is important to restore integrity to the role of Speaker. When an egregious falsehood has been made against the Speaker, when a gross calumny has been visited on the Speaker and has been proven to be a gross calumny, the right course of action is to come into the House and immediately apologise, explain that you may have acted under incorrect information. Now that the information has been provided to you, you withdraw and apologise. That is the way that you maintain integrity in the umpire. If the opposition are allowed to continue to denigrate and to bully the speakership then they denigrate the entire parliament. So I am trying to give the Manager of Opposition Business the opportunity in this motion, Madam Speaker, to apologise to you and to demonstrate that he has some respect for the office of Speaker and for the parliament.
The second reason this motion is important is because I was a Manager of Opposition Business for almost five years. The relationship between the Speaker and the Manager of Opposition Business is somewhat symbiotic. When I was the Manager of Opposition Business, I always tried to maintain a cordial relationship with the Speaker, to treat them with respect in the chamber, whether it was the member for Chisholm, the former member for Scullin or the former member for Fisher. If the relationship breaks down between the Manager of Opposition Business and the Speaker to the extent that this relationship has broken down, or is in the process of breaking down, then the Manager of Opposition Business's position becomes entirely untenable. So I am giving him the opportunity to apologise to the Speaker. I am not asking him to apologise for all the other insults and offensive statements that he has visited on you in the last nine months. But he should apologise to you for falsely accusing you of something and trying to refer it to a Privileges Committee, and for not having done his homework. He should apologise to you and if he does not apologise to you then he should resign. If he does not resign then the Leader of the Opposition should show the strength of character and leadership that is required in the leader of a great political party and sack him, and replace him with someone who does know how to hold the high office of Manager of Opposition Business.
If ever there was an example of overreach in a government behaving as though they are in opposition, it is what we are seeing right now. Sorry, do not expect me to get really angry about a stunt like this. This is silly, from the Leader of the House—really silly. A large number of things was said yesterday. The Leader of the House has not been willing to give me a copy of this in advance. If one of the details that is referred to is whether this happened under Leo McLeay, and if that occurred and if that detail is true—he has given me no evidence he has allowed me to read—then I am sorry that that particular statement was made. Of course I am. Of course I am willing to say I am sorry for that statement if it is inaccurate. Of course I am. But the Leader of the House waited until the end of question time and said, 'Here's the gotcha moment,' read it out, did not provide the material across the chamber and did not acknowledge the critical point: the then opposition, following that, called for the resignation of Leo McLeay and ultimately—
Sixty thousand dollars for a bicycle accident.
he did retire and he did stand down from that role. What we see here is something that you almost never see from a government. You see, there is a reason why governments do not normally move a suspension of standing orders to debate a political issue of the day. The reason, complex as it is, is that normally they are governing. Normally on that side of the chamber they have government business to get through. Normally on that side of the chamber they have a budget that they are proud of. Normally on that side of the chamber they actually want to talk about their own agenda. But such is the embarrassment of those opposite that they have decided it is more exciting to try to get a gotcha moment on one point in a 15-minute speech.
As I said earlier, if that detail was wrong then I apologise for that. But it was only one of the many issues that I referred to. What I do not resile from for one minute is that this issue should have been referred to the Privileges Committee. What I do not resile from for one minute, Madam Speaker, is that you should have done what other Speakers would do, and that was actually reflect on the issue, get advice from the clerks and then report back to the House. It was completely open to you, Madam Speaker, after that resolution yesterday, at that opportunity yesterday, to reflect on it and to come back—even if the clerks had said that they did not believe there was a matter of privilege—and to say that, given it referred to you, you would give it to the committee anyway. They would do a quick inquiry and report back.
Why don't you stop digging and just say sorry?
I have said it three times. Calm down over there. What no-one, no observer of this chamber, should apologise for is the claim that this Speaker is biased. What no person in the chamber should ever apologise for is stating that this is a government without an agenda. Look at it at the moment. We have all these ministers who are meant to be in charge of things, who are actually meant to be governing, hanging around for the debate, hanging around because they think it is fun. Why do they think their entire backbench has stayed here for my speech? They are not ringing their local radio stations to talk about the budget. They are not actually getting out in their electorates to talk about anything that the government is doing. It is much safer for them to be in here because then they do not have to talk about the cuts to schools, they do not have to talk about cuts to education, they do not have to talk about anything on the government's agenda.
I just saw it from you then: as I speak you give that slight shake of your head, and when government ministers speak you give them the constant nod. The subtle rallying is something that has characterised your speakership.
If the words of this resolution before the parliament are serious, given what I have said in this speech, the Leader of the House will withdraw the resolution, because what he is requesting here has already been done. It has been done in the course of this speech. It has been done repeatedly in the course of this speech. If he is just playing politics, this resolution will go to the vote. Let me make this clear: having said a number of times during this speech that if a fact was incorrect then I am sorry that occurred, do not think I am going to say it again because the Leader of the House uses his numbers in this House. If that means you name me straight after this vote then so be it. If that is what this House has come to then so be it.
I am not going to be in a situation where a government uses its majority to demand members of parliament to make particular statements. I am not going to be in that situation. Sure, there are some parliaments in the world where this happens. North Korea probably does stuff like this. There are some parliaments of the world where they think, 'Oh, we've got a majority. Let's make someone say something that they don't want to say.'
These are the same people who in the debate on 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act talk about freedom of speech. They talk about freedom of speech. For a whole week, whenever we raised a point, you said, 'This is the week of freedom of speech.' Well, what is today? What is today, when we have the Leader of the House moving a resolution to demand that particular words be said by a member of parliament? What has happened to Australian democracy if the parliament is such that elected members of parliament get told what to say by Christopher Pyne? What has the parliament come to? What sort of democracy or freedom of speech credentials can those opposite claim if they actually think it is smart, if they actually think they are sending a clever message to the community, by saying to the Australian people, 'We'll use our parliamentary majority to demand that members of the Labor Party will say what we tell them to say'?
Well, Madam Speaker, be on notice: I won't. Be on notice, Madam Speaker. I am not going to be in a situation where a vote of this parliament demands me to make comments. I have already said everything that this resolution requires in this speech. All those words have been said. If they continue with this resolution, do not forget what this parliament has become. If they continue with this resolution, do not forget the extent of the political games that are being played. What is happening here by any definition is an embarrassing bad story for a party that wants to talk about freedom of speech. No matter how bad it is for them, it is better than talking about the budget. No matter how bad or embarrassing this is for them, they think this is better than talking about cuts to health, cuts to education and what they are doing to the pension.
I know the Leader of the House has had a bad day. I know the Leader of the House has had one of his closest factional colleagues become a minister in the Labor government of South Australia. I have some sympathy for the Leader of the House in that regard. If the Leader of the House wants me to say how sorry I am for him, he will not need a resolution of the House; I will happily offer those words to him.
The member for Watson will resume his seat. I think I have been enormously tolerant, listening to the member speak to the motion or pretend to speak to the motion without even touching on the question of the suspension. Because it has involved me, I have allowed you to speak anything you like against me. If you consider that is an apology, I do not. Nonetheless, I have let you go freely and speak, and you can have the rest of your time. But I would ask that you refer, at least once, to the motion before the chair.
Madam Speaker, I appreciate your comment and I appreciate that intervention that would normally be made by a member from the floor. I also appreciate that every reason I have given in the speech I have made, and I do not think I have been too subtle, was to explain why standing orders ought not be suspended. If you think this is a really dumb idea, you would vote against the motion. We think this is a really silly thing and a silly, childish game from the Leader of the House.
I reckon there are university councils and student representative councils around the country where they say, 'Let's suspend standing orders on something like this,' and people look and say, 'Oh, what a clever idea, Christopher.' I am sure that there are places where that would be the view. But let us take this all the way back to what is actually happening in the parliament right now. People are elected to represent their individual seats.
Those who form the majority are being told by the Leader of the House to vote to demand that a member of parliament make a particular statement. While I am willing and have been during this speech to say, 'If that detail was wrong, then I am sorry that that statement was made,' under no circumstances will I allow, and be part of a travesty of an Australian parliamentary system, a majority to be used to silence a member of parliament or, worse still, a majority to be used to tell a member of the Labor Party to jump to the call of a member of the Liberal Party. I will not do it. It should not happen in Australia and this motion should be voted down.
Standing orders should certainly be suspended, because this motion goes to the very decency of the Manager of Opposition Business and the very decency of the Leader of the Opposition. Because if he were a Leader of the Opposition of any standing, if he were a real leader, he would require the Manager of Opposition Business to apologise for the denigration of the role of Speaker, to stand here at the dispatch box and apologise unequivocally rather than hiding behind weasel words.
The role of the office of Speaker is of absolute importance in this House. The office of Speaker deserves the respect of members opposite. It is a long tradition in this place that members of this House respect the role of the Speaker, the position of the Speaker and the standards of this House. But, unfortunately, members opposite have form for disrespecting the Speaker and the office of Speaker. We have only to look back at the last parliament to see the way in which the Australian Labor Party treated a very fine Speaker of this House and that was former Speaker Jenkins.
Former Speaker Jenkins, a highly regarded figure in this House, was swept aside for the political convenience of the Australian Labor Party and was replaced by who? Who did the Labor Party install in place of the respected former Speaker Jenkins? No-one other than Peter Slipper. Peter Slipper was desperately defended by the Australian Labor Party, for their own political convenience, despite the fact it was revealed that he had been sending messages, which would have been considered disgusting by anyone on this side of the House but, apparently, acceptable by members opposite, because they continued to defend him.
If the Manager of Opposition Business had any decency whatsoever, he would apologise to the Speaker, he would stand up right here, right now, and apologise unequivocally rather than camouflaging his words in and around a whole range of lucid statements. He should stand and apologise.
I would like to bring to the attention of the House the factual incorrectness of the statements that were made. In fact, former Speaker Leo McLeay resigned as Speaker as a result of an accusation with regard to a false compensation claim for $65,000 for falling off a parliamentary bicycle. That is the reason why Speaker McLeay resigned. The Manager of Opposition Business should check his facts before attempting to compare the situations.
The current occupant of the chair, the Speaker, is a highly regarded member of this House, of longstanding experience, who has served both in the House of Representatives and the Senate, and who demands your respect, not the contempt that you are showing towards the position of Speaker.
Members opposite are showing their blatant disregard for that office, which has served the Australian parliament well since Federation. Members opposite seem content to place this office in disrepute. Madam Speaker, this House certainly supports your speakership. We certainly support the execution of the role of Speaker, as you have done it, as opposed to the rather poor performances we have seen from the Manager of Opposition Business.
I think it is important that standing orders be suspended so that we may have the matter decided by this House. The role of Speaker should be shown the respect that it is required to receive from members of this House rather than the disrespect that is shown over and over again by members opposite. Members opposite on numerous occasions have failed to respect the office of Speaker. Members opposite replaced a previous Speaker, Speaker Jenkins, who was held in high regard by both sides of this House. The office of Speaker and respect for the office of Speaker should be upheld. That is why standing orders should be suspended and it is why the member opposite, the Manager of Opposition Business, should apologise.
The question is that the motion be agreed to.
I thank the House for agreeing to the suspension of standing orders and, as a consequence, I move:
That the Manager of Opposition Business, the member for Watson, be required by this House to immediately apologise to the Speaker for grievously reflecting on her in this place, most particularly yesterday in a motion of referral of the Speaker to the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests.
In the member for Watson's defence on the suspension of standing orders, he made the rather extraordinary claim that when it was discovered that the previous member for Watson had a fundraiser in his Speaker's dining room the then opposition demanded his resignation and he resigned over that matter. Just to indicate how bad the Manager of Opposition Business's position has become, let me explain some of the facts and the timing of what actually occurred in that decade, because, as you know, Madam Speaker, you and I were both in the parliament.
The member for Watson might like to check the record, because he has now made another false statement to the parliament. In fact, former Speaker Mr McLeay resigned as Speaker because he was accused in 1993 of falsely making a claim for $65,000 of benefits from the Commonwealth for falling off a bicycle. Subsequently it was found that his claim was within the guidelines, but by that stage he had resigned and was no longer in the Speaker's chair. In the year 2000, seven years later, this article appeared and that is when the then government—the Liberal Party—discovered that in fact the former member for Watson had held a fundraiser in his Speaker's dining room.
So it is quite chronologically impossible for the member for Watson's previous claim, made only 30 minutes ago, to be true. How could the so-called then opposition, which was now in government, have demanded that the member for Watson resign over fundraising in the Speaker's dining room when we did not know about it until seven years after the former member for Watson had resigned from the Speakership?
What this points to of course is that every day the Manager of Opposition Business comes into this place and seeks to find some fig leaf with which to attack the chair. This has been a pattern from day one. Today it is confusing the years in which Leo McLeay was Speaker and when the revelation was made about him fundraising in the Speaker's dining room, and I have made that very clear to the House. But every single day the member for Watson seeks to denigrate the chair, whether it is calling you a witch on the first day of your election, whether it is moving a dissent motion on the first day of your election, whether it is moving a no confidence motion within weeks of the parliament starting to sit in November last year. Every day the Manager of Opposition Business tries to distract the House by attacking the chair.
Now, it is a fine Australian tradition, particularly in this House, that the chair is respected. All of this bullying, all of this dissent, all of this denigration, these no-confidence motions and these insults are usually reserved for the people who are sitting on the floor of the House, because they can ostensibly defend themselves against those charges or that bullying, those insults. The Speaker's position is raised above the House, and that is why the Speaker should not be attacked and certainly should not be accused of doing something based on a falsehood.
We are asking the member for Watson to apologise for reflecting on the chair based on a falsehood—
According to you.
the falsehood being that holding a fundraiser in the Speaker's dining room was unprecedented and improper. The member for Melbourne Ports interjects, out of his seat, 'According to you.' No, it is not, Member for Melbourne Ports, according to me. In fact, it was the former member for Watson who, in the year 2000, admitted that he had held at least one fundraiser in the Speaker's dining room. So it is not me saying that it is a falsehood. The fact is that the former member for Watson made it perfectly clear that neither is it unprecedented or improper for fundraisers to be held in the Speaker's dining room.
On that basis, the current member for Watson should apologise to you, Madam Speaker, in the House—because he made a false claim based on a falsehood, the falsehood being that fundraisers in the Speaker's dining room are unprecedented and improper. They are neither improper nor unprecedented.
I've apologised five times for that.
No, he hasn't.
The member for Watson has at no time found any rule in any of the standing orders or House of Representatives Practice that would indicate that holding a fundraiser in the Speaker's dining room was in any way improper. That is why he should apologise.
The member for Watson keeps saying, 'I've apologised five times for a technical error.' He misses a vital point, and his colleagues should start thinking about whether he best represents them as Manager of Opposition Business or whether he might be better suited to another role in the parliament, perhaps on the front bench. This motion is not about him apologising for a technical breach, for making an inadvertent error; this motion is about requiring the Manager of Opposition Business to apologise for deliberately trying to cast an aspersion on the Speaker where that aspersion has been found to be based on a falsehood. A proper apology would be for the Manager of Opposition Business to stand up in the chamber and say: 'I was wrong to base my assertion on the false information that I had been provided. It is not improper for the Speaker to have acted in the way that she did, and it certainly is not unprecedented; and, if it suits the House, I apologise to the Speaker.' That would be an acceptable apology, to the government. He has an opportunity to do so now. He could do it at the end of my speech. He could stand up and make that apology to the government, to the House, but, most importantly, to the Speaker. In his defence to the suspension of standing orders—
Why don't you jail him!
The member for Isaacs will desist!
The member for Isaacs loves to shout because he is not very good at argument. He is only really good at bellowing. He is not good at arguing; he is very good at shouting. The problem is: I have the microphone and I am not going to stop just because we have a loud member of the audience in the member for Isaacs.
In the Manager of Opposition Business's defence, he tried to comment on every other subject because he knows how wrong he is. He tried to talk about the Racial Discrimination Act and the changes to section 18C; freedom of speech; South Australian politics; even student politics. He did everything other than talk about the matter at hand, and the matter at hand is that he should apologise to the Speaker for denigrating the Speaker's role, for attacking the chair based on a falsehood. So I would like to give him the opportunity to do the right thing. This motion will be carried because the government—and, I hope, the crossbenchers, but certainly the government—will support it and, if the crossbenchers support it, the government would be pleased.
The Manager of Opposition Business should apologise in order to uphold the dignity of the chair. Whether he likes the occupant of the chair or he dislikes the occupant of the chair is not the issue that is at hand. It is upholding the dignity of the Speakership, which parliaments have done since 1901. It would also show that he is a true gentleman. Gentlemen, when they have been shown to be wrong about something, do the right thing and apologise for it. They are bigger people for doing so. They are limited, quite frankly, when they do not apologise. They show themselves to be bigger men if, when they have been proven to be wrong, they front up and they apologise.
But I am also giving the member for Watson this opportunity because I believe he should try and repair his relationship with the chair. Since the day you became Speaker, Madam Speaker, he has tried to insult and denigrate you in this role. Partisan politics have replaced the dignity of the Speakership from the opposition's point of view. In my view, Madam Speaker, if he does not apologise to you as Speaker today, then his position as Manager of Opposition Business is untenable and he cannot go on in the role. I know the Leader of the Opposition has a very precarious hold on the leadership of the Labor Party and it is very hard for him to discipline his frontbenchers, to stand up to the factions; and I know the member for Watson is a factional warlord from New South Wales and has strong right-wing support, and the New South Wales right wing has strong support in the Labor caucus. The Leader of the Opposition needs to show that he has the bottle, that he has the character and the bottle, to be the leader of the Labor Party—a real leader of the Labor Party, a leader like Bob Hawke, a leader like Paul Keating: they would act against one of their frontbenchers who had shown such a deleterious hold on the position that they held. In fact, very early on in the Hawke government, Mick Young, a leader of the House, was asked to stand down from the front bench over a matter. He was very close to the Prime Minister, Bob Hawke. He was asked to stand down because he had proven himself to be wrong about something. That is the kind of Labor Party that the Labor Party used to be, not the Labor Party of today.
But I will give the Manager of Opposition Business the opportunity to apologise, to take back many of the remarks that he made in the House. He said things yesterday to you, Madam Speaker, in quite an unbridled attack on the Speakership. He said:
… your predecessors, Madam Speaker, whether they be Labor, Liberal or National, have not done this.
He said:
I have asked you, Madam Speaker, to answer questions about the extent to which the Liberal Party has cashed in on you being in that chair—
'cashed in on you being in that chair'. Madam Speaker, that one reflects personally on you. That one reflects personally on the judgement call that you made that previous Speakers either had parties that were decent enough to not ask or were Speakers who had enough integrity to say no.
I could go on, but the government has important business of the day that we want to get on with. I have made an arrangement with the opposition that the former Leader of the House, the member for Grayndler, will apparently respond on behalf of the Manager of Opposition Business. Doesn't that speak volumes? Members of the government, the gallery and the press should take careful note. The former Leader of the House, the member for Grayndler, is going to deliver to defend the current Manager of Opposition Business in the House. And do you know why, Madam Speaker?
An opposition member interjecting—
Of course he can speak twice—the other motion was for the suspension of standing orders, Michael, keep up. The point is that the member for Grayndler has to defend the current Manager of Opposition Business because he is just better at the job. The former Leader of the House is better at the job and the member for Watson, by allowing the former Leader of the House to respond on his behalf, is admitting what we all know already—that he is just not up to it. If he was really up to it, he would be standing up on his two hind legs and defending himself in the chamber. He is not doing that and I will tell you why: because his position is indefensible. The evidence for that is that the member for Grayndler is, admittedly, probably the opposition's best parliamentary performer—the one who should be the Manager of Opposition Business in the House but who gave it up to the member for Watson, probably as part of a cunning plan hatched when he first lost the leadership to the factional choice over the people's choice. But we will listen with interest to the defence of the should-be Manager of Opposition Business. We will listen with interest to his defence of the current Manager of Opposition Business in the House, who, quite frankly, if he had the bottle would be prepared to defend himself. More importantly, if he had the bottle, he would be prepared to apologise and move on.
I am very pleased and, indeed, proud to defend my colleague the member for Watson and the Manager of Opposition Business. They say: why am I speaking on this? This is not an attack on the member for Watson—you attack one, you attack all! This is an attack on the Labor Party. This is an attack on the opposition and this is an attack on the democratic institution of this parliament. If this motion is carried, then any future government by a majority vote can determine that a member of the opposition, who by definition will lose any vote, can be required to come on and take certain actions.
We were in government six years—that never happened. You were in government for 12 years—that never happened. That shows how desperate you are. What you are confirming today is that you had a plan to get into government but you certainly do not have a plan to govern. You would rather talk about anything else than the health cuts, the education cuts, the changes to pensions, the public transport cuts, the attack on economic growth—your pathetic budget of broken promises just two weeks ago.
We were told by those opposite that the adults were going to be back in charge. This is the most childish student-politics stunt that I have seen in this parliament since 1996, a desperate government desperate to defend the Speaker and her right to continue to hold that position. In order to have the confidence of the House, you have to be accountable to this House, Madam Speaker, and what the member for Watson did yesterday was raise, quite correctly and completely in order with the standing orders, a question to you about how many times your office had been used to raise money for the Liberal Party.
You refused to answer that. You refused to be accountable to this parliament and, hence, the member for Watson then went to the next step, which is to ask you whether that constituted a breach of privilege by using the Speaker's office to raise partisan money for the Liberal Party on budget night—and who knows how many other nights it had been raised. We know that extra crockery had to be ordered into your office the night before budget night. We know that was the case. But the Manager of Opposition Business, quite correctly and in accordance with standing orders, raised the question.
Under any circumstances it would have been reasonable to say, 'I am directly involved in this, so I will just refer it off. I will not make a ruling,' but you chose not to do so. You chose to make a ruling and to say that you were not going to refer it. So then the Manager of Opposition Business moved a motion. Under any previous circumstances, it would have been reasonable to say—as we did when we were the government—'Okay, let them have a look at it.' Yet that was voted down. Then the Manager of Opposition Business wrote to the Privileges Committee and they have said, 'We cannot even consider whether we will consider it because of that resolution.' It is absolutely extraordinary.
Today of course we finally saw someone from that side ejected from the parliament. Interesting that it was the same day that this motion has come and I am not clear whether you had advance notice of this motion coming, but I would be surprised if this was a spontaneous outburst from the Leader of the House. The member came in before one hour was up, but that was all okay as well, contrary to all the precedent that is there.
That is rubbish!
The substance of the issue which should be considered is over whether it is appropriate for your office to be used for a fundraiser. That is what the Manager of Opposition Business raised, and it says very clearly—
Madam Speaker, is it appropriate that the member at the dispatch box be disparaging of the Clerk of the parliament?
The member will resume his seat. When I ask someone to sit down, I expect them to. Yesterday you refused to sit down and you went out under 9A, because you once again refused to take a direction.
An honourable member interjecting—
Yes, he is indeed, finally. So I will give the call back. I will answer first on the point of order from the member for Fisher: is it appropriate for the member to abuse the Clerk? No, it is not. But I will give the call back to the member for Grayndler.
Thank you. The substantial issue is that of the Speakership and whether it should be used. The House of Representatives Practice makes it very clear—impartiality of the chair. That is what it is all about.
They raise an issue of whether the member for Watson said, incorrectly apparently, that the office had never been used—and he has apologised for that. He apologised for that at once and he also said sorry twice that that was incorrect. But let us be very clear about where that article comes from. It comes from a response about the abuse of the Lodge and Kirribilli House to raise money for the Liberal Party. That is where it comes from; that is the context of that article.
Should any Speaker, be they McLeay or Bishop or any of them, use the Speaker's office? No, they should not! That is an appropriate debate for us to have. They then say, 'Well, if you got some of the detail wrong then therefore there should be an apology for that.' But there was false information, with respect, Madam Speaker, given from the chair. You said from the chair during this debate that the independent Speaker was an agreement between Labor and the Greens. It was not—it was not!
Tony Abbott:
… I've always supported an independent speakership …
Press comments from him:
I also want to make it very clear that we discussed the issue of a Westminster style speakership …
Over and over again, those opposite—and the Leader of the House signed, in writing, a document.
So, Madam Speaker, I do not hold it against you for the fact that you were wrong. But you were. You were. And we do not ask for you to apologise for that. You got the facts there wrong. And what is their remedy for this? The remedy for this is that the Manager of Opposition Business somehow should be demanded by a majority vote to take certain action. Think about the precedent in terms of free speech!
This is the day after Sorry Day. The irony of those opposite, who for 10 years could not say sorry to the first Australians, coming in here seeking to move by resolution that the Manager of Opposition Business take certain action.
Have a look at all the quotes they have said. The Leader of the House himself:
… the Leader of the Opposition—
Tony Abbott—
… proposed a Westminster style independent Speaker as early as the early part of this decade, in early 2001.
They were all up for it, allegedly, during that period. They signed an agreement but they walked away from it, of course.
But also, what are they asking for here? The same person, Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister who said:
We have never been involved in the business of suppressing free speech …
This attack on my colleague, the member for Watson, is all about, 'How dare he come in here and ask questions on behalf of Australian taxpayers about how much money was raised in the Speaker's office?' the one area of this parliament that should be free from party politics—that should be used in the national interest, that should be used for functions involving foreign guests and that should be used in a bipartisan way in this place.
What you seek to do in doing this is to shut down free speech and debate in this parliament. The fact is that during this very debate, Madam Speaker, the problem is not the member for Watson. The problem is a Speaker who interjects from the chair. The problem is a Speaker who makes partisan decisions. I stand by, and we stand by, all of the comments—with the exception of that factual error that he made—of the member for Watson about the conduct of this parliament because, at the end of the day, it is not about you, Madam Speaker, it is not about the member for Watson, or me or the Leader of the House. It is about how this parliament functions.
The fact is, if you think this parliament has been functioning well since last September then I think you are completely out of touch with what the majority of Australians who watch this parliament see each and every day with this abuse of power continued over and over again by the Leader of the House, who is too immature to hold that job!
I move:
That the motion be put.
The question is that the motion be put.
The question now is that the motion be agreed to.
In accordance with the resolution, I call the member for Watson.
Madam Speaker, You have called me to the dispatch box?
Yes, to answer the motion of the House.
I already dealt with the terms of the motion during my speech. I have nothing to add. If members of the Liberal Party think they can silence a member of the Labor Party, bring it on.
The member has been asked to apologise to the House—to me. He asserts that he has done so. I do not accept that he has. However, the member for Watson has also called me a warrior, and I am; I am a warrior for the people of Australia, for the parliament and for this House. I simply say that I hope that this salutary motion will bring about more decorum in this place where we will indeed work for the benefit of the people of Australia, and put aside some of the things that have transpired in recent times, so that the people of Australia can indeed feel more proud of us. And with that, I think we will move on to the rest of government business.
Might I say, Madam Speaker, that your statement to the House was extraordinarily gracious, and I hope that it will lead to the behaviour you have outlined in your statement.
Thank you.
I have received a letter from the honourable Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The hurt and division caused by the Government’s unfair budget and broken promises.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Despite the shenanigans by the government, who will do anything not to debate the budget, this dreadful budget. It has been two weeks since it was handed down, and the people of Australia have made their verdict clear on this most unfair budget.
Australians from all walks of life, from all parts of Australia and from all sorts of political affiliations have said that this budget is the wrong budget for Australia; it is the wrong budget for our economy; it is the wrong budget for our communities.
Australians and Labor acknowledge that Mr Abbott was given a great chance at the last election, but since then he has got it all wrong. The country that Tony Abbott wants to build is not the country that Australians want to see. The Prime Minister is taking Australians down the wrong path. We do not want the Australia that Tony Abbott wants or the future that Tony Abbott wants for our families. Australians are deeply concerned that the Abbott government is creating a permanent underclass. There is no point to being a mean-hearted government.
This great country of ours has taken decades to create and yet this Abbott government budget will tear it down much more quickly. Australians are generous enough. Australians know that this is indeed a lucky country. They know that it is mean and unreasonable to make Australians who earn less than $50,000 a year carry the burden of this budget. Supporters of Labor and supporters of the coalition all understand that no support for young people under the age of 30 who are unemployed will indeed create a society where more of our young people sleep rough.
This budget should put the government on notice. The reaction of the people is: 'Don't push the Australian people too hard. Don't take Australia where we do not want to go.' Australians do not want a beggar society. We do not want our young people sleeping on crates. Look at the Liberals walk out. The truth is too hard for them to hear. We do not want Australians barred from seeing their doctor or seeking lifesaving preventative care.
We recognise that this budget is a fork in the road and there are choices for this parliament to make. Labor will not allow this budget to do to Australia what Margaret Thatcher did to the United Kingdom in the early 1980s. It is a budget drawn up with no understanding of how this country works. It is a budget that says you can have either a tough society or a fair society but you cannot have both.
Labor understand that we can have a sustainable budget. We understand that tough decisions need to be made, that our terms of trade have decreased and that nominal GDP is falling, but we also understand that, in order to make the budget sustainable, we do not have to challenge the basic pillars of Australian life. We do not need to undermine universal health care. We do not need to undermine the Disability Insurance Scheme and the lives lived by people with disabilities and their carers. We can sustain a decent pension and education for all. We can sustain a fair national minimum wage and full employment, along with compulsory superannuation.
The Liberal Party have only one prescription for Australia—it is that of extreme ideology, the vested interests of the Commission of Audit, written by their friends in parts of big business. The Liberal budget of the last fortnight has a view that says that society should leave people to fend for themselves. This budget, however, makes little difference to some of the very privileged representatives who sit opposite us. The talk by Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey that we are all sharing the pain equally, that there is equality of sacrifice, is a fairytale. At the same time that pensioners are asked to lose payments, supplements and concessions we have this government engaging in self-promotional propaganda and advertising. At the same time that the sick and vulnerable will be taxed to go to the doctor we will have millionaires receive $50,000 extra for having a baby. Hardworking Australians are being told that they can work till they are 70, but Abbott cabinet ministers will be able to retire at 60 with a defined benefit pension. Our universities are being deregulated, with access to higher education consciously designed top-down to discourage children from less advantaged backgrounds and their parents from ever having the hope of going to university. We have even got a petrol tax that is so manufactured that every Australian is going to pay it.
Today we discovered in estimates that Tony Abbott's great austere approach of staying at the police academy is in fact costing $1.7 billion. While the battler Mr Abbott sits with multimillion dollar support in what he is doing he would lecture Australians to do much worse. I understand that Tony Abbott is a fan of Downton Abbeyand I understand that he has butlers himself. The resources going to the Prime Minister are not appropriate for a man who would lecture and moralise the rest of Australia.
We believe in a mature, sophisticated, generous society and community. This budget does divide the country. We in Labor put our faith in three elements for Australian progress: we believe that this nation can have in the future a generous and decent safety net; we believe in encouraging the dreams of Australians to be able to do better for themselves and their families; and we have a practical sense of how this economy needs to adapt in the future. This budget makes the difference in Labor values and Liberal values crystal clear. I know the government have been complaining, 'What is the alternative?' Why don't you test your budget at an election and let Australians decide who has the better alternative? There is no chance of this cowardly mob in the government ever submitting this budget to an election before they inflict their pain on Australians.
The government and some of their friends in the conservative columns in some newspapers have been saying that Labor is being negative and that somehow we are not doing what the government wants to do. Let me tell you what negative is. Negative is a new GP tax. Positive is supporting Medicare. I will tell you what negative is. It is making sure that $30 billion comes out of schools in Australia. Positive is what Labor would do and fund our schools according to need so that every child can get a great education. Negative is doubling the cost of degrees, it is increasing the rate of interest of repayments and it is discouraging the dreams of normal people to send their kids to university. Positive is making sure that universities remain in the reach of ordinary Australians and are not just the preserve of the very privileged. Negative is sentencing Australians under 30 who are unemployed to six months without any form of income. That is cost shifting the burden of Australian society and finding employment from government to the shoulders and the backs of the unemployed and their families. Positive is helping Australians find work. Negative is pushing pensioners by decreasing the rate of their indexation. How dare the Treasurer of Australia say that there is no cut to pensions in this country. The facts speak for themselves: $400 million plus is being treated as a cut to the cost of pensions in 2017 in the forward estimates of this government's budget.
We believe in a better Australia than the government do. We understand that the government do not understand the health system of Australia. We understand that this government do not get education. We understand that this government do not get cost-of-living pressures. We get that this government do not understand the regions. And when will the National Party stand up for the regions of Australia that they claim to love? It is all right for them to say things in their local newspapers, it is all right for them to say things in the privacy of their own caucus room, but when will they stand up for country Australia? But the good news for regional Australia is Labor will stand up for country Australia.
Today there have been two very different party meetings held in this building. On this side of the House we met to stand up for Medicare. We met to stand up for kids at school. We met to stand up for pensioners. We met to stand up for ordinary Australians with cost-of-living pressures. But then there was that other meeting, where you had people either sycophantly saying, 'Thank you, Prime Minister, for the worst budget I've ever seen'—I do not often agree with Senator Cory Bernardi—in fact I never agree with him—but I do note that he wrote to supporters and said that this budget is one of the 'dumbest' in decades. Senator Cory Bernardi proving that even a stopped clock can be right once a day.
Twice.
Twice—well you have never been right twice on this budget, sunshine! And then we go back to what happened in their party room. Look at the member for Eden-Monaro: hundreds of jobs going out of Queanbeyan, nothing to be done for the pensioners. The good news is that the voters will have their desserts. This budget divides Australia and Labor will fight it all the way.
We see an example today of the Leader of the Opposition highlighting the extent to which Labor is prepared to go down a very lowbrow road indeed. We see the man who is meant to be the alternative Prime Minister—
A statesman.
he is meant to be a statesman—outline Labor's approach and their vicious, personal attacks on the Prime Minister. There is one thing that is crystal clear about the modern Australian Labor Party and that is this: Labor would always rather attack the man than they would attack the policy. We have seen a complete policy vacuum from the Australian Labor Party for the past two weeks. For two weeks the government have been attempting to argue why Australia needs structural reform. For two weeks we have been open and upfront to the Australian people about why things need to change. For two weeks the coalition have been outlining why Labor's trajectory was unsustainable and ultimately would mean more pain and more hurt in the future unless small changes were made now. And you would think that the Labor Party, and in particular the man who is meant to be the alternative Prime Minister of the country, would show the slightest bit of statesmanship. You think he might address some of the policy issues that have been at the centre of the debate in this parliament over the past two weeks. But none of that, none of that at all from the Leader of the Opposition. What we had was nasty and tawdry and vicious attacks against the Prime Minister and other members of the coalition.
I say to the Labor Party: grow up; start to learn that the Australian people have rejected the negativity and the barefaced mistruths that we have heard and continue to hear from the Australian Labor Party. And if you would like examples, there is already a myriad of them that were just enunciated once again from the Australian Labor Party. We see the Australian Labor Party talk about how they want—and we just heard this from the Leader of the Opposition—a 'mature and sophisticated debate'. I cannot believe the hypocrisy. Well let us deal with some facts for a change, rather than the personal arguments that we have heard for 10 minutes from the Leader of the Opposition. Let us talk about what is going on in health. Let us talk about what is going on in education. And let us talk about what is going on with pensions. Because those are the three main elements where the Australian Labor Party likes to puff their chests out and say, 'Don't worry Australian people; we'll be the defenders of those three shibboleths when it comes to the Australian society'.
Unfortunately, the truth does not accord with the rhetoric from the Australian Labor Party. Labor's approach in relation to each of those three unfortunately leaves a lot to be desired. Indeed, in the Leader of the Opposition's budget-in-reply speech a little over a week ago he said:
Gone, $50 billion from hospital funding to states.
He has repeated it on numerous occasions since then, and Labor members up hill and down dale like to say that the coalition is cutting funding to health. But it is simply not true. As the Prime Minister outlined today, what we see is that annual federal assistance to the states for public hospitals will increase by nine per cent every year for the next three years and by six per cent in the fourth year: representing a total increase of funding to the states for public hospitals of 40 per cent. But you do not hear those facts from the opposition. They would rather terrify people, they would rather run around spreading mistruths, attempting to manipulate the Australian public into thinking that this was the worst budget ever handed down.
They are telling us!
But the facts are when the Australian public know the facts, and they are quickly catching on to the facts—I tell the member for Richmond they are seeing straight through the Labor Party's manipulation of the truth. They learn that funding for health is increasing by 40 per cent, and overall annual health spending will increase by more than $10 billion over the next four years. And that sets aside to the world's biggest medical research fund. The Leader of the Opposition likes to talk about people's aspirations. We have a collective aspiration for the people of Australia, an aspiration that we as a nation might possess the largest medical research fund in the world—a $20 billion aspiration. Unfortunately, it is only the Australian Labor Party that stand in the way of that happening. So I say to the Australian Labor Party: raise your eyes above the next 24 hours, raise your eyes over the political opportunism, raise your eyes over the knee-jerk reaction and the rank manipulation of Australians' concerns and instead focus on the positives that the coalition are trying to deliver, because that is what Australians expect of us.
When we talk about schools, again we heard the Leader of the Opposition making comments on 20 May. He said, 'He'—that is, the Prime Minister, 'is cutting 80,000 million, $80 billion, from hospitals and schools right across Australia.' He also said, 'These are real cuts to hospitals and schools.' He also said, 'Tony Abbott is taking $80 billion out of hospitals and schools.' Three quotes on the one day—all factually wrong. The fact is that when it comes to Commonwealth funding for our schools it, like health, will continue to increase each and every year.
Students at schools will benefit from the government's record funding investment of $64½ billion over the next four years. What is more, the coalition, when it comes to education, is actually putting an extra $1.2 billion into school funding. I have the privilege of representing a small part, but a great part, of the state of Queensland. That state was left in the lurch by the Australian Labor Party. They did not have the intestinal fortitude to tell Queenslanders that before the election. No, instead they tried to sweep it under the carpet. But we found out in the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook the real truth, and the real truth was that Queensland and Western Australia were going to see $1.2 billion of funding ripped out of their school system. So don't lecture us about a commitment to the next generation of Australians, because it is only the coalition that has a commitment to making sure that there is more funding on the table when it comes to education.
I also want to address the issue of pensions, because we continue to see the Labor Party out there manipulating and attempting to make sure that they can provide as much misinformation as possible to those among the most vulnerable of our community—Australian pensioners. We saw Bill Shorten on 19 May in Bentleigh East say, 'This is a budget which cuts pensions.' That is his exact quote. Jenny Macklin turned around and said, 'All of these pensions, Tony Abbott wants to cut.' Once again it is plain wrong—completely wrong. The pension, for starters, will not change during this term of parliament. It will keep increasing and the indexation of it will not change in this parliament. In fact, the pension will continue to increase twice a year exactly the same as it always has. In March this year the base rate of the pension increased $14.30 a fortnight for single pensioners and $10.80 a fortnight for each member of a couple. In fact, for each year going forward the pension will continue to increase. That is no cut. I know the Australian Labor Party do not understand how mathematics works and do not really understand finances, either. I have a bit of basic information for the Australian Labor Party: if you have an increase in a payment every single time, that is not a cut; that is an increase. I think it is important that the Australian Labor Party stops trying to mislead.
The most fundamental point is this: I have an amazing privilege of being a father of two young Australians. There are many on both sides of the chamber that have got Aussie kids. We owe a duty of care not only to each of our own children but to all the children of Australia, and all the children of Australia rightly expect of us to bequeath to them an Australia that is better than the Australia that we inherited. That is a pledge that we on this side of the House hold solemn—a pledge that we will uphold. We will only achieve that if we as a nation live within our means. Labor's approach of saying, 'There's no need to change'—that multi-year, multi-tens of billions of dollars deficits are acceptable; that a policy approach that saw us on a pathway to reaching $667 billion worth of debt, that has left Australia in a situation where, thanks to the Labor Party, we have to borrow $1 billion a month just to pay the interest on the debt that Labor accumulated—is unsustainable. It is an approach that will mean Aussie kids will have to spend decades paying back Labor's debt.
When we make the tough but necessary decisions to put Australia back on an even keel, to try to live within our means, to start to make sure that the next generation of Australians actually have the opportunity to not have to pay back the debt from last six years, what does the Labor Party do? They stand in the way. So I say to the Australian Labor Party: it is time to grow up.
I am very pleased to be speaking on this matter of public importance today, namely:
The hurt and division caused by the Government’s unfair budget and broken promises.
That is exactly what it is—an incredibly cruel and unfair budget based on a whole series of broken promises. We all remember all those commitments we heard before the election about no cuts to education, no cuts to health, no new taxes. That is exactly what has happened. They have reneged on all those commitments they made prior to the election. How do Australians feel? They feel completely and totally betrayed by the Liberal and National parties.
Seats like my seat of Richmond in regional Australia have been really hit hard. I know looking across the chamber that there are many members who know that their seats are impacted, particularly those in regional areas. This has been such an unfair and incredibly, incredibly cruel budget. I have been inundated by appeals, particularly from many older Australians, who quite frankly are devastated and in total fear about the implications, particularly in relation to the health measures. In fact, they have are so much in fear that we are having a rally very soon called 'Fighting for a Fair Go' on Thursday, 12 June. Indeed, there will be many people coming from Moncrieff, from the previous speaker's electorate, coming over the border to express their concerns. Those concerns are wide-ranging and I will run through some of those.
First of all we are seeing this government dismantling Medicare, pulling apart those very important parts of universal health care with their $7 GP tax. People are very concerned, particularly older people who have complex medical and health problems. We have also seen it with their $80 billion cuts in funding to schools and hospitals. Again, this will impact regional Australia so severely. When we look at seniors, first of all they will be hit with that GP tax. We have the Prime Minister saying today that it is a 'modest' amount. How appalling and arrogant is it that that he speaks like that of the GP tax? People are terrified of this. People are cancelling their appointments to doctors now because they are so concerned about the impact of this tax. Seniors will also have their pensions cut. They will have them cut with the changing indexation rates. They are also worried about the petrol tax. In regional areas the petrol tax will really hurt. We have also seen cuts to seniors' concessions. For seniors who get rate rebates that makes a very big difference. I know, for example, in the Tweed shire their rate rebate is over $400 per year. That is at stake. So add that to the GP tax and the petrol tax and we see seniors very worried.
Families are concerned as well because of the freeze on the rates of family tax benefits. Families are also impacted by the cuts to funding for hospitals and the $30 billion for schools. What sort of values do the people who make these sorts of funding cuts have? For those in regional areas it is a real betrayal by the Nationals. We see that so many times but this is a complete betrayal by them.
I also want to touch on the impacts on young people. Young people in the regions will be severely impacted—not just through the cuts to schools but also through the cuts to training. There have been billions of dollars taken out of youth training and apprenticeships. For kids in the country who aspire to go to university the government have taken that opportunity away. The Liberal Party and the Nationals have taken that away from regional Australia. The changes to university fees will make it almost impossible for those kids to get to university and to afford it.
Government members interjecting—
That is what they are telling me. The families are saying that their children will not be able to access university so I hope those on the other side of the chamber are happy with that. That is what they have done to them. They have taken away their hopes of getting a university education because the fees have been restructured.
There are so many families from my electorate that are very concerned. There are broad based cuts as well. Let's have a look at some of the cuts to councils and their financial assistance grants. In terms of those financial assistance grants over $20 million has been cut from councils from Bellingen to the New South Wales-Queensland border. So they will not be able to move forward on many of the projects they wanted to have.
If you look at regional areas right across the country you will see that this is a cruel, nasty and unfair budget. It is unfair on seniors, families and young people. It is based on the broken promises by each of those members on the other side of the chamber. I say to all those Nationals members from regional areas: shame on you for betraying regional Australia. You walked around telling people that you would not do this, and each of you did it.
Those on the on the other side of the chamber cut education, cut health and cut youth funding. Shame on all of them! These people are hurting and they are terrified. It is unfair and cruel, what you have done.
Mr Pasin interjecting—
The member for Barker will withdraw that comment.
I withdraw.
What those on the on the other side of the chamber have done is cruel and unfair. The Prime Minister was standing up here today and saying things like, 'It is a modest cut.' That shows that he does not understand because he is out of touch. Each of those members on the on the other side of the chamber is out of touch with the concerns people have right throughout Australia. People know how severe the impacts of these cuts will be.
Today I rise to speak on this matter of public importance put by the opposition entitled 'the hurt and division caused by the government's unfair budget and broken promises'. I have listened to the Leader of the Opposition today and I have listened to the members opposite talk about their view of the budget but I have not heard a single word about their plan to address the mess that they created. Let's not mistake the process here. It was Labor who created the economic mess that we sit in, at the moment—this cesspool of mess created by the Labor Party dumping on Australia.
The Labor Party has no plan to fix it. I say this: all of the wishful thinking in the world will not address the budget situation we have. If members of the Labor Party want to talk about hurt for future Australian generations, what about the debt levels that have been put on each and every Australian? If we had not taken these measures the debt level for every Australian would be just shy of $25,000. So I hear members opposite spruik on about how proud they are of their budget but the debt that they leave for each and every Australian is disgusting.
The Leader of the Opposition was born in 1967. But I think he was brought up to a song by Dusty Springfield, which was written in 1964 by Burt Bacharach, Wishin' and Hopin'. He must have been thinking about that song when he put out his brochure just before the election. It said, 'We have returned to surplus.' He was a-wishin', a-hopin', a-thinkin' and a-prayin', but he has been absolutely caught out because those on the other side of the chamber have no plan. The rhetoric of the Leader of the Opposition during the budget reply showed he had no plan at all. He has no means of reducing the debt that the opposition had created. The debt, through to the forward estimates of MYEFO, was $177 billion. But there is no plan at all.
Nobody likes implementing budget measures which do not hand out sweeteners, gifts or tax cuts, but we are not able to hand those things out because of the mess we have been left. I heard members opposite spruik on about the global financial crisis. The global financial crisis did not last for six years. And the Howard government took surplus after surplus after surplus. The Howard government took us through 9-11, through SARS, through the Asian meltdown and through the US recession, and still delivered a surplus and growth for this country.
It delivered tax cuts to Australians. The Howard government was able to deliver cheques to each and every senior Australian without going into deficit. This mob—those on the on the other side of the chamber—inherited a budget with a $20 billion surplus. They inherited an economic position of $50 billion in the bank. That did not last long. As with a kid in a candy shop on a Saturday; it all went in the first five minutes. Those on the other side of the chamber promised surpluses but delivered the highest deficits this country has ever seen, and they are proud of it. They are proud of the deficit and the burden they have placed on each and every Australian, and generations to come.
Even though we have taken these measures at this stage we have only been able to reduce the debt level to $389 billion. More work needs to be done. We need to grow our economy. We need to make sure we get more Australians into work so we can address this situation, because if we do not it will not just be up to my children. I do not have any grandchildren yet but one day I might. And it might be their children and their children and their children who will still be paying off the excess largesse of the former, Labor government.
I have not heard one word of apology to the Australian people by this Labor government for the mess that they have created. I want the members opposite to think about one thing: what you could buy with the $12 billion per annum in interest bills. If we were not borrowing to pay off the interest bill what would $12 billion buy? You could do the school funding—Gonski—two times over. You could do Gonski this year and the NDIS this year and still have change left over from the $12 billion.
The Labor opposition, when they were in government, hocked our future. They stopped the ability to invest in the future for each and every Australian, because they do not know the difference between debt and surplus. They do not understand that a deficit is a negative. That was proven by the Leader of the Opposition in the newsletter that he put out for the public saying, 'We have returned to surplus.' Not once did they return to surplus.
I rise on a point of order. The member for Griffith is constantly interjecting out of her place.
I did not hear her over the level of noise coming from some of your close neighbours.
People in my electorate of Chisholm are angry. People across Australia are angry. Many of them voted for a government—and, indeed, individuals opposite—that, they were promised, would deliver a budget of 'no surprises, no excuses.' What did we get on budget night? Surprise after surprise and, indeed, shock after shock. I could everyone opposite, who were out chanting time and time again: no cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to pensions, no change to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or SBS. What did we see on budget night? We saw cuts to all of these things and more. We had surprise after surprise, shock after shock, and people are angry. People are palpably angry—and not about their own hip pockets but about how it is affecting everybody else. I have quotes from my constituents, and all of them are quite remarkable. It is not like in the Howard days when it was all about 'What's in it for me?' These are real concerns about how this budget is going to affect people who are less well off than others. John from Mount Waverley said:
I would like to let you know that many voters like myself who are relatively well off are dismayed and disgusted by the way we and those wealthier than us have been protected by this present government at the expense of the poor and less fortunate.
Andrew from Mont Albert North said:
After voting Liberal in all but one federal election over the last 30 years, I intend voting Labor at the next election. While I'm not against budget tightening, I don't want Australia to become like America and I believe the Liberals have seriously misjudged many of their own traditional voters by the ideology apparent in the latest budget.
Peter from Burwood East said:
I am a 61 year old accountant and I don't mind paying my share but have seldom been so incensed by a conceited and arrogant government and its war on the vulnerable in our society.
Curt from Box Hill North said:
I am so absolutely furious with disgust about the deceitful way Australians are being treated as is evidenced by the budget presented last week by the Abbott/Hockey circus.
Brendan from Mount Waverley said:
I have a 9-year-old daughter and am terrified about losing my job. I have a $250,000 mortgage and educational expenses to meet. Abbott has killed my future and my family's future—what do I do?
Finally, Diana from Surrey Hills said:
This budget is full of slogans and mantras totally out of touch with the real experience of real people.
Those are just a few of the messages I have received in my electorate, and I would be astounded if anyone opposite is going to be honest about the messages they are receiving in their electorate offices. Again, these people are not talking about what the budget is doing to them but to those less fortunate, and they are asking how we are going to share this pain. We are not sharing this pain; that is the problem. It is the people who are less able to afford these cuts who are going to be hurt the most. It is particularly harsh on anybody who lives on a fixed income, like the many, many thousands of self-funded retirees and full pensioners who live in my electorate.
In my electorate, 79 per cent of all GP visits are bulk-billed. It is not the largest bulk-billing rate in the country but, with the $7 tax added to every visit to the doctor, it will cost the people of Chisholm at least an extra $5.5 million in the first year alone of this cruel tax. That figure is just for the visits to doctors; it does not count the extra millions that families and retirees in my community will have to fork out for pathology services, mammograms and the many other medical services for which they would make a bulk-billed payment; now they will have to make a co-payment.
The Australian Medical Association, the Australian College of Emergency Medicine, the Doctors Reform Society, the Public Health Association, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, the Consumer Health Forum, the Australian Healthcare and Hospitals Association—not many great Labor supporters amongst them—and countless other health academics and economists have advised against this tax, but the government is doing it anyway. How can the family of an ill person feel confident that they can get access to the health care they need? This government's $50 billion cuts to hospital funding will also put pressure back on the hospital system—and that will be a double pressure, because you will not go to the GP but to the emergency ward. That is what is going to happen.
To add to their pain, when sick people need to get their medication they will have to pay an extra $5 for every prescription they need. We all know people who have multiple prescriptions. My mother is an absolute walking pillbox. This is going to cost her a fortune. What part of their fixed budget should they cut? What part of their fixed budget will they cut into? They will lose out. This is an atrocious budget and this government should be condemned.
The Australian economy has suffered from six years of failed Labor fiscal policy, and we need strong leadership to repair the damage done by Labor in government. We hear the rank hypocrisy of Labor members opposite, who complain about this government taking the necessary actions that they were too weak and too incompetent to take. We saw not only the debt and deficit mess but also the chaos of two prime ministers—the tag team prime ministership—three deputy prime ministers, five ministers for regional development, six ministers for small business and nine ministers for education. They were an embarrassment in office but at least they are consistent, because they are still an embarrassment in opposition.
Let us take a look at the legacy of those years of Labor economic failure. We saw five years of cumulative Labor deficits of $191 billion—and uncontrolled spending that has seen gross debt blow out to $360 billion and net debt passing $200 billion. This debt, left to the government by Labor, is costing us $12 billion in interest each and every year. That is $1 billion a month in interest, or $33 million a day, or $1.4 million an hour. This year's $12 billion debt interest bill is equivalent to around half of Australia's defence budget. It really makes you wonder where the nation was heading under Labor.
Had Australia been forced to endure another Labor government after the September election, we were heading for even bigger deficits—a projected $123 billion in the next four years—and big increases in debt, to $667 billion of gross debt. And that is without the further spending that Labor announced and would have engaged in. A prime example of Labor creating a financial mess and then pretending to be ostriches hiding their heads in the sand was the former member for Lilley's response when asked about Labor's obscene debt trajectory. His response—it's a classic: 'That will be someone else's problem.' And don't we hear a continuation of it. What a Labor legend—create a financial mess and then hide your head in the sand!
The debt we have to pay and the interest is due to additional borrowings. It is a prime example, as we know, of paying off your mortgage with your credit card. If debts were allowed to spiral out of control to the levels predicted under more Labor governments, it would take generation after generation to pay back, leaving our children and grandchildren to pay back the current Labor legacy. What we have heard today is typical of them hiding their head in the sand. The West Australian editorial today says: 'We can't wish away a looming budget crisis.' But that is what those on the opposite side would have us do. The article went on to say:
The solution must involve reining in spending and putting in place structures that can ensure the sustainability of the Budget. The problem can't be wished away. There needs to be policy changes and there needs to be hard decisions.
We in this place know that that is something that Labor is incapable of—hard decisions.
There has been discussion about the debt left by the Keating government in 1996, which the Howard government had to repay. That $97 billion debt was looking like being an intergenerational transfer of debt to our children. We had to fix it then, and here we are, after just six years of a Labor government, having to do it all again. But the Australian people know that we are up for the job, because we have done it before. We have done it before and we will do it again. That is one thing that the Australian people can be confident of. We are capable of tough decisions and we will make the tough decisions. We are certainly capable of making the tough decisions to fix the mess that Labor has left us with.
The National Commission of Audit identified that, if left unchecked, government expenditure would explode from $409 billion this year to $700 billion within a decade. The figures are quite frightening. If anybody here inherited a private business with this set of books, what on earth would you do? You would have no choice but to take action—and the coalition is doing just that in government. We are reducing the deficits projected through to 2017-18 by $43.8 billion—something those opposite are definitely not capable of doing. We are reducing gross debt from the predicted Labor outcome of $667 billion by nearly $300 billion. We refuse to simply pass the debt burden onto the next generation, as Labor is so willing to do.
The member for Forrest talked a few times about hard decisions, tough decisions, and the willingness of this government to make them. I think, in essence, that is what is so sad about this budget and this government. They are so eager to impose pain on those least able to bear it; so keen to ensure that those least able to pay are asked to contribute the most. Through this debate today, in a parliament which seems determined to debate everything apart from the budget priority of this government, we have seen plenty of bluster from those opposite, those speaking and those interjecting, but no amount of desperation can cover up a very uncomfortable truth for members of the Liberal Party and the National Party: that this budget rests on a mountain of deceit—as everyone in your electorates knows—and will cause untold pain in this community.
When conservatives, like the Treasurer, talk of lifters and leaners, they are deliberately dividing Australians and turning our community on itself. I think we all understand that the lifters and leaners are the haves and have-nots. In recent weeks we have had a big debate about inequality in the developed world, in particular rising inequality in countries like Australia. In most of the developed world this is a matter for concern but, through the Commission of Audit and then the budget that followed very faithfully the Business Council of Australia's script, we have seen almost a how-to guide to boost inequality and to return us to a gilded age where the circumstances of your birth determine your life choices. That might be this government's vision for Australia, but it is not the Labor Party's nor is it the Australian people's.
This talk of shared burden is, in these terms, so very offensive. It is also untrue. Those with the least are being asked to do the most. The cruellest cuts of all actually do not affect Australians. I am talking about the $7.6 billion cut from overseas development aid in this budget—cut from people who do not have any say in these decisions.
Government members interjecting—
The contempt we hear through these interjections shows the contempt members opposite have for the most vulnerable people—not just in our communities but in the world.
There is no doubt that this is a matter of the greatest public importance. It goes to the heart of what is wrong with this government and what is undermining our democracy. This is at two levels—both of which are very important. It is about integrity—a matter the Prime Minister was very keen on until about 6 September last year—and it is also about substance. It is about choices; it is about priorities—not matters members opposite have gone into today. They are more interested in stunts.
This was to be a 'no surprises, no excuses' government. Of the many quotes the Prime Minister offered up before the election, this one is my favourite. On Melbourne radio the day before the election the then opposition leader and now Prime Minister said:
The fact is the most important thing I can do for our country in the coming months is to ensure that it is possible once more to have faith in your polity, to have faith in your government and that means keeping commitments.
I could not agree more with our Prime Minister on that. It is a pity that he does not agree with the words he spoke before the election. This was of course the day of 'No cuts to education, no cuts to health, no changes to pensions, no change to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or SBS'. These clear promises are all broken or in the process of being broken through the backdoor, as with the GST increase. It is breaking the modern Australian settlement of universal health care and access to higher education based on merit—the very social fabric of a merit based society premised on principles of equity and equality.
But what this budget really comes down to is not the long, sad list of broken promises and their impacts—because the sum of these broken promises is, sadly, greater than the individual parts. I turn to the words of the member for Higgins—and it is a pity she is not here. I am going to turn to her words in the Financial Review yesterday but turn them around so that they reflect our reality, not her warped ideological view. This is a budget that entrenches and embodies selfishness. For our children's sake, we must reverse this trend. We must bring Australians together in common purpose and work every day in our communities to undermine this divisive budget and the hurt that it has already caused. It must stop now.
As I stand here in the federal parliament with my parliamentary colleagues, I think it is important that we reflect on why we are actually here. What is the responsibility that comes with being an elected member? Surely our greatest responsibility is to ensure that the Australia that we hand over to the next generation has as much if not more opportunity than the one we inherited. Surely our greatest responsibility is to say to those Australians, 'We are prepared to meet the difficult challenges that our country faces so that you can inherit a country where you have the same opportunity to get ahead, where you don't have to pay more tax than we did, where the government of your day has the same opportunities to invest in roads, infrastructure and education.' That is what this debate around the budget is all about. It is a moral question about what we leave behind as much as it is an economic argument, and it is really important that we put on the table the reality of what we actually face, because so much of this debate has centred on an idea that we will simply say that a problem does not exist when it clearly does.
So let me run through what the problem is. Under the former government spending increased faster than it did in any of the 17 advanced IMF economies. That was borrowed money against the next generation. If we do nothing debt will reach $667 billion. That is a big figure. If we put it into context it is over $24,000 for every single Australian. The next generation, if we do nothing, will start off their working life with a bill of $24,000 for every single man, woman and child. That is, in this year, $500 for each and every single one of us to repay the interest on the debt. If we do nothing, that hits $17 billion a year. That is over $1,200 a year per person to repay the interest on the debt.
Let me put that into perspective. For this year alone $12 billion would fund the complete upgrade of the Bruce Highway for over $8 billion, it would fund the upgrade of the Gateway Motorway for $1.2 billion and it would build a new tertiary hospital for Queensland for $2 billion, and we would still have hundreds of millions of dollars left over. Instead the former government thought it was a good idea to hand out $900 cheques to people living overseas and to dead people, and to have pink batts and school halls. That was money that was borrowed against the next generation of Australians.
Before we deal with that debt problem, we also have a demographic challenge as a nation. We are going to see the percentage of the population aged over 75 go from about six per cent to over 14 per cent. That is a challenge; it is not a problem but it is a challenge we have to be prepared to meet. If we do nothing the Productivity Commission says taxes would have to rise by 21 per cent. So if we do nothing—if we do what the Labor Party is proposing, which is simply to keep borrowing against the next generation—we are going to say that an Australian born today will inherit a debt of $24,000 a person and we think they should also pay 21 per cent higher taxes than we do. I am not prepared to be part of a government that says that is okay.
The reality is that all of us must contribute to pay back the debt that we were left by the former Labor government. All of us have to contribute. And it is not easy. But I am not prepared to engage in a political debate that those members opposite, members of the Labor Party, want to engage in, which is a cheap, opportunistic debate which will deny future generations the same opportunities that we have, the same opportunities to invest in roads and schools and hospitals for future generations. So we have to live within our means and we have to go for growth in the private sector, because it is not the government that creates wealth and prosperity; it is actually those hardworking Australians out there in the community.
That is why we are going to cut the carbon tax—so that we can help not only families and locals in my community to get ahead but businesses to go out there and thrive and prosper and employ more people. It is why we are cutting a billion dollars worth of red tape every single year—so that businesses in my community can grow and prosper and thrive and employ more people. It is why we are creating, for the first time ever, opportunities for young people to take up a trade, a diploma or higher education without paying a dollar—so that as people go into the workforce they can pay tax and continue to deliver greater prosperity for our nation into the future.
Like many on this side, I imagine that over the past week some on the other side would have been out and about in their constituencies, talking to families and looking people in the eye, and they would have probably discovered what we did: mums and dads out there are certainly not happy with this budget; pensioners think it is diabolical; road users think they are being used and abused; and the group which surprised me a little bit when I met them was the doctors—they thought all their doctors' clinics had been turned into tax collection agencies.
In looking at this budget, where have they targeted? They have targeted pensioners, they have targeted families, they have targeted young people and they have certainly targeted job seekers. This government has confected a budget emergency—and I heard the diatribe from the member for Longman, who spoke prior to me—but the fact is that Australia's debt ratio is around 14 per cent of GDP. When you look at the OECD countries that we compete with, you see that their average debt ratio is 75 per cent of GDP. So the government should not run around talking about this confected emergency.
No wonder those opposite were complaining when jobs were being created in every school that had new science blocks or new school halls built. They might want to whinge and bleat about it now, but you would remember, Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell, what they were like in those days. They used to run along and jump up like Where's Wally to get their photo in the local newspapers. They would not miss out on that. They got caught out time and time again saying how wonderful it was that there was this investment in education, as if they had something to do with it!
Bear in mind what happened when the global financial crisis hit, when they were sitting on this side of the House. Their shadow Treasurer's view was, 'We should wait and see how bad this gets.' They were not taking advice from Treasury. They were not taking any advice from economists. Their plan was to wait and see how bad it got. But they come in here and expect to be treated as economic geniuses!
All they have been doing is hoodwinking people about what is in this budget. But we on this side know—and I am sure they do too, because they did not like their seats being mentioned, I noticed, this week—what pensioners think about this. We know what pensioners think about having to make a $7 co-payment every time they go to their doctor. Maybe those opposite do not know; I accept that. My mum lives with me. She is 85. I know how often she has to go to the doctor because I take her. I know how much medication she needs because I go and get it for her. Now, if those fellows opposite think that people on age pensions go to the doctor with the same frequency as a younger, fit person, they have rocks in their heads. They have shown they do not understand.
By the way, that point was made to me loud and clear last week, when I attended the national seniors forum. You probably won a few votes off them last election. But now that they will be paying another $7 every time they visit a doctor and paying another $5 for every medication they get, they think that they have been used and abused. Now it has come out that the age pension age will increase by six months every two years. Those opposite said it today. What they are not saying is that they have adjusted the indexation rate. If the indexation rate that they have introduced now, which is indexed to the CPI, was applied four years ago, our age pensioners would be $1,600 a year worse off. The only reason you have changed it from indexation to average weekly male earnings to indexation to CPI is you know you are going to rip off pensioners. This is designed to make a cut. As a matter of fact, looking at the budget, you are seeking a $400 million benefit out of that.
When it comes to looking after people—when it comes to looking after the aged, people seeking employment, young people who want to go to university—there is only one side of this parliament that stands up for those people. Those opposite might be jumping up and down now, but they were not doing it last week in their electorates, were they? They were not out putting advertising in their newspapers. They did not go out there and justify what they did in this budget. Why? Because they were so embarrassed. They did not know, in their own party room, what was about to happen. They kept their heads down. They should keep them down because they should hang them in shame. It is shameful what they have done.
In speaking on this matter of public importance, I say to the member for Fowler, quickly, before he leaves the chamber, that last week I was out in my electorate every day talking to people, doing a mobile office. I was out every night of the week explaining our position and what this budget is all about. The opposition say that this budget is about hurt and division. They say it is an unfair budget. I am here to say that that is not true. This budget is about a number of things. Most importantly, it is about repaying and tackling Australia's debt and deficit problem; it is about ensuring that our welfare system is sustainable long into the future; and it is about building and investing in record infrastructure in this country.
Looking at the debt and deficit issue, we know that, over the last six years of Labor government, all the tax they collected from people throughout this country—all the income tax that they received from everyone working, here in this place and throughout the country, all the company tax that they received from all over the country—was all spent by Labor, plus another $200 billion. There was $191 billion in deficits for the last six years and they left us another $123 billion in the forward estimates. My father always said to me, 'Son, if you're going to get a loan, if you're going to borrow money, then you need to ensure that you budget for a 10 per cent interest rate.'
Now, $191 billion means $19 billion a year in interest. Thankfully, we have a better interest rate than that and we are only paying $1 billion a month. We are only paying $12 billion a year. To put that amount into perspective—one of the members today spoke about the ABC—the entire ABC runs on a budget of $1 billion a year. What we are paying in interest alone is enough to fund 12 ABCs. Imagine what we could do with that money if we had not been left with Labor's legacy of debt and deficit. Neither the Leader of the Opposition nor the members for Fowler, Scullin, Chisholm and Richmond mentioned in this debate a single dollar they would save when they bring down their budget, should they get back into power.
This budget is about ensuring that our welfare system is sustainable. The opposition leader said today that there was no support for people under 30 in this budget—no support. I say: stop scaring people. There are lots of safety nets in our budget. We live in Australia, the greatest country on earth. For those people who are doing it tough, who are on disability, who are unemployed, who have a mental illness, of course there are safety nets. For single mums, of course there is a safety net; there are welfare payments. But the days of leaving year 12 and going on the dole a month later are gone.
This budget is about infrastructure. We are building in my electorate. We are upgrading the Bruce Highway at every intersection, I think, between Bald Hills and Caloundra, right up to the member for Fisher's seat. We are upgrading the Gateway Motorway. We are investing in infrastructure to get people moving and to get small business moving, because on this side of the House we believe in lower taxes and smaller government. We believe that small businesses are the ones that employ people in this country, not government. By investing in infrastructure, those small businesses will be able to get moving.
Who built your rail line?
The member for Grayndler says, 'Who built the rail line?' I am happy to say that the Moreton Bay Rail Link will be funded. I acknowledge that you guys wanted to build it and it had bipartisan support. But what I would say is that our government, the Abbott government, is funding it. There is $108 million in this year's budget, $200 million in the next.
The members opposite talk about division. Well, it is the members opposite that wanted to divide this country—workers against employers, rich against poor, haves against have-nots—and I say that this is not good enough. We are all people in this nation and we want to see everyone become aspirational. We want everyone to do their best, and this budget is part of that measure to do that—leading to a better future for all Australians.
Order! The time for this matter of public importance and this debate has expired. The discussion is now concluded.
I rise to speak on the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Removing Re-approval and Re-registration) Bill 2014. Controlling pests is an essential ingredient of agriculture. Deloitte Access Economics recently attributed 68 per cent of crop production to the use of agvet chemicals. That is an important point, because if we were to remove these chemicals from use on farms, we would be increasing the price of food on the grocery store shelf. It is a simple equation: any increase in time or money taken to produce crops translates to dollars at the checkout for households. Any reduction in the amount a farmer can produce also translates into extra dollars at the checkout. When we do not see those costs flow through to consumers, we see farmers go out of business and, one way or the other, families end up paying more.
This amendment is about ensuring farmers spend more time producing our food and less time bound up in red tape. With this amendment we are implementing our election commitment to remove the requirement for agricultural chemicals and veterinary medicines re-registration by removing end dates for approvals and last renewal dates for registrations so that approvals will no longer end after a particular period. By allowing registrations to be renewed perpetually, this amendment is the reform that is needed to: reduce red tape by providing for less frequent registration renewals; improve the APVMA's ability to secure information about the safety of chemicals supplied in the market; introduce further simple reforms to agvet chemicals regulation to reduce red tape and improve efficiency, once again; oblige the APVMA to provide access to information about approvals and registrations in its files to persons eligible to receive it; and address some minor implementation issues identified in the existing reform legislation. This a good amendment that will keep farmers farming and free up the APVMA to get on with its job.
Before the Greens start wringing their hands and making their wild claims about the world exploding in a puff of fairy dust, let me make this point. Removing the regular registration requirement does not mean there will be any less oversight of chemical use in the industry. In fact, no longer faced with the onerous task of constant re-registration, the APVMA will have more time to work on creating and analysing real scientific information to better inform their processes. The APVMA will retain its existing powers to ensure any newly identified risks about the safety, efficacy or trade impact of a chemical are examined. The APVMA also retains the power to recall unsafe chemical products or suspend or cancel the registration of a product if they may no longer meet criteria for registration.
These powers were actually strengthened and streamlined by a recent amendment to the act, which makes me wonder why the provision for regular re-registration was created in the first place. It achieves absolutely nothing. If the APVMA discovers through credible scientific evidence that there is a particular problem with a chemical, it has the power to act. It already had that power to act—it always did and it still does.
Let us just imagine for a moment, though, the process that the green influence is suggesting would happen if a problem was discovered with the use of a particular chemical. Let us assume there was a pesticide that farmers used to remove green stains from their property. What is the APVMA going to do if they discover that this 'Greenaway' pesticide comes with a dangerous side effect? Are they going to wait until it is time to re-register it to say, 'No. We discovered a couple of years ago that using this pesticide makes your arms fall off'—or results in a social media meltdown or whatever comes of it—'so we aren't going to re-register it.' That would not be a protection. It is just another gate that the green movement can use to attack farmers and any productive enterprise that uses such chemicals.
We have already seen the faux environmental movement employ similar gatekeeper tactics to sabotage the sugar industry with an effective ban on diuron, which I will come to in a minute. The interesting thing about the re-registration provision when it was introduced by Labor and the Greens, was the rhetoric around the issue before that legislation was introduced into this place. In 2010, Labor's then agriculture minister, Senator Joe Ludwig—the genius behind hamstringing the cattle industry—and Labor's minister assisting on deregulation, Nick Sherry, issued a press release spruiking the Gillard government:
… continuing to reform the regulation and use of farm chemicals and veterinary drugs to help improve productivity and international competitiveness in the agricultural sector.
That is a quote right out of their press release.
The following year, on 4 March 2011, then Minister Ludwig outlined the reasons why reform is necessary. Ineffective and inefficient chemical regulation, he said:
… can lead to problems such as higher cost to businesses, higher costs and reduced choice for chemical users, and the potential for reduced community confidence in the system as a whole.
I will tell you what happened, Mr Deputy Speaker—the Greens happened. The Greens happened, they influenced the Labor Party in this place to come up with this ridiculous legislation.
It seems that the APVMA, sadly to say, is also overly susceptible to Green campaigns, whether or not they are backed by credible science or just emotional claptrap. Such was the case with diuron. The chemical diuron is actually an essential part of the sugar industry. It is an extremely effective form of weed control and it has been responsible for increased efficiencies and production within that industry.
It has also been the subject of a very sloppy scientific review and a consequent lack of consultation on that review. At no point did the APVMA consider the impact on agriculture and what decisions meant in the real world when it came to the banning of diuron.
If the Greens thought that a chemical might be suspect, then Labor, when they were in government, were simply happy to let the APVMA ban it—or at least regulate it to the point of it effectively being banned. No proper scientific studies were carried out on the use of diuron in the North Queensland sugar industry. No-one consulted with the North Queensland sugar industry and no-one thought about what would happen to the industry if that chemical were banned. No-one bothered to consider if there were viable alternatives and no-one thought about what the North Queensland sugar industry farmers would have to do if the product were off the shelves. And no-one can definitively show that there will be any overall benefit from the ban on the product.
The sugar farmers in North Queensland are acutely aware of their impact on the environment—the land and the waterways—and the quality that they need to maintain in the environment of the land and the waterways. Their entire business—their livelihoods—are based on the quality of the environment, the quality of the land and the quality of the waterways.
In recent generations, we have seen an increasing focus in the sugar industry on sustainable practice. Cane farmers right throughout North Queensland have adopted a range of environmental practices that provide very good outcomes for both the environment and the industry. These new environmental practices, such as green trash blanketing, and in conjunction with the use of chemicals like diuron have proved to be very effective. If diuron is removed from the process, the environmental practices are no longer effective for the industry. Is that the result the Greens, who are pushing for this product to be banned, were hoping to see?
Did they want to see a return to those old practices, such as the burning of cane trash? Did the APVMA, the Greens, or those opposite for one minute consider what the alternative practice would actually be and what impact that would have on the environment? Did they bother to ask anyone in the sugar industry what would happen if diuron were no longer available for use? There is no economically viable alternative to diuron. The regulator has placed restrictions on diuron use to concentrations that actually render it ineffective, or they have banned its use during the precise time when the farmers actually need to use it for weed management. No consideration was given to the development of an economically viable alternative before banning what was, essentially, an industry standard weed management tool.
Representing the largest sugar-growing electorate in this country, I am acutely aware of the impact that such rash decisions can have on this key industry. But I also represent the Bowen-Gumlu Region, which is the largest winter-growing region for capsicums and tomatoes in Australia. The region produces 47,000 tonnes of capsicums and chillies, worth an estimated $100 million. This small region in North Queensland produces 95 per cent of our capsicums during September and October. It also produces $124 million worth of tomatoes every year. It accounts for 90 per cent of the nation's production of tomatoes between September and October.
The Bowen-Gumlu region also produces many other sorts of horticultural products. What was important for all of them was an organophosphate insecticide called dimethoate for controlling fruit fly. The APVMA conducted a review on the use of dimethoate and found that it could pose a potential dietary risk to consumers.
In 2011, they lowered the maximum residue limit for dimethoate pesticide from 0.02 milligrams per kilogram per day to 0.001 milligrams per kilogram per day. Not content with strangling agricultural production in the domestic market, the APVMA, by default with that decision, forced their new restrictive standards onto the New Zealand market as well. A lot of these tomatoes go over to New Zealand. And despite the fact that New Zealand has its own regulatory regime for agricultural chemicals—and in fact actually allows the use of dimethoate to the levels that we have now banned in Australia—the APVMA chose effectively to make this decision which blocks the export of Australian tomatoes to New Zealand. There is no alternative for the control of the fruit fly, even though the tomatoes and the dimethoate used met the standards for New Zealand. They no longer meet Australian standards because Australian standards, I have to say, have been abducted by extremists.
They met the standards for New Zealand—this bastion of environmentalism right on our doorstep. By effectively blocking the export of these tomatoes to New Zealand, the APVMA cost Australian growers important market share. The industry had developed alternative means of fruit fly control—they have gone through this rigorous process and they have finally got there—but because it has taken an extraordinary amount of effort and an extraordinary amount of time to process all the applications through all the different states to get this new method accepted—and they still have not got there in terms of getting New Zealand to accept it. And two years of export and market access has been lost.
When farmers from my electorate could not export into New Zealand, alternatives were sought in New Zealand. When the door was slammed to Australian farmers, a door was opened for the Netherlands, on the other side of the world, to take our place. And now New Zealand farmers, encouraged by the increased price opportunity—obviously, there high transport costs coming from the Netherlands—left by our undersupply, or our non-supply, have started building greenhouses to enable them to take over permanently the market share that we once had. That is what happens.
The agriculture industry in Australia today faces a framework of reasons not to succeed. We have organisations, regulators, and ecoterrorists looking for opportunities to interfere, to frustrate, to block and to exert their influence. What agriculture needs is a proactive framework that celebrates its strength, encourages success, and seeks resolutions and positive outcomes.
We have seen enough of Labor and the Greens asking, 'How can we slow this down?' It is time for the government to ask, 'How can we grow?' The Liberal-National government meets an important election commitment with this amendment. We made a specific commitment to the agricultural sector to repeal these counterproductive measures from chemical regulation—and I have to say that I think we need to go further than that. I think the radical Greens got this foot in the door with the APVMA; there now needs to be a barrier put up against that. What I propose, and I hope it will eventually be put in place, is that we give a right of veto to the minister on some of the decisions that the APVMA makes—but that may be legislation for another day. The bill we have before us today will remove the senseless red tape that was introduced last year and allow a viable agricultural industry to get on with the job. For all of these reasons I commend the bill to the House.
I am pleased to speak on the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Removing Re-approval and Re-registration) Bill 2014. This bill amends three acts in the Agriculture portfolio: the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994, the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment 2013—the amendment act—and the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemical Products (Collection of Levy) Act 1994. The bill also amends the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 to correct an incorrect reference to part of the Agvet Code. Additionally, it makes other minor corrections at the request of the Department of Health. This bill fulfils the 2013 election commitment to remove re-registration and improve the efficiency of agvet chemicals regulation.
By way of a quick background, the amendment act was passed by the parliament, as the member for Dawson has said, under the former Labor government in 2013. Unfortunately, their legislation added red tape in the form of reapprovals and re-registration of chemical products and it was to commence on 1 July this year. The bill was initiated by Labor due to their 2010 election commitment to placate the Greens at that time, as the member for Dawson has also said. It is amazing the amount of influence the Greens had on the Gillard-Rudd government. Labor's bill essentially caused the industry to become more inefficient. This was despite the former Finance and Deregulation Minister, Penny Wong, using agricultural and veterinary chemical reform as one the key areas where the former government said it would reduce regulatory compliance costs for businesses. It did not happen. So even when the Labor Party set out to make life easier for businesses, they managed to wrap industry in more red tape and bureaucracy. This is a prime example of what we are having to fix up.
Let's not forget that under Labor more than 18,000 additional regulations were created by the Rudd-Gillard governments. In contrast, the Abbott coalition government believes that industry needs efficient regulations so Australia can have sustainable production systems that are fair on farmers and businesses. We believe that, prior to the introduction of the amendment act, existing chemical review mechanisms sufficiently allowed for the examination of newly discovered risks about the safety, efficacy or trade impact of a chemical. New schemes that duplicated the existing system and imposed additional costs on industry were not, and are not, required. Labor's approach would have added red tape without improving health and safety. The coalition when in opposition did support other changes in the 2013 amendments, but we do not support the bureaucratic processes of re-registration, for all the reasons I have just outlined.
Reforms in this bill include new processes for notification of very simple changes to a chemical registration and very simple applications for less complex variations. For example, if a company wants to change a packet size or its contact details on the label—phone numbers et cetera—it will not need a technical assessment or to lodge a costly application, as it would have to do under current legislation. This bill also reduces the frequency of renewals. Some periods of renewal will be extended up to seven years. A renewal is only an administrative process to extend the registration and contains no checks for safety and performance. We must remember the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, APVMA, has established systems to trigger a review of agvet chemicals if potential safety and performance risks are identified, and I will speak more on this aspect later.
The bill rewrites provisions that allow the APVMA to collect information from chemical suppliers to ensure the products being supplied are the same as those the APVMA has already registered and will allow the APVMA to amend the maximum residue limits standard in the Australia and New Zealand standards code. Without this change companies can register a product but, in turn, producers may not be able to supply produce treated with that product because the maximum residue limits standard has not been updated. You can see that there are a whole lot of corrections that need to be made.
Reforms in this legislation highlight the Australian government's commitment to removing $1 billion a year in unnecessary red and green tape. Primary producers are already doing it pretty tough in an industry that is under siege from the Greens, as well as having to face issues such as a strong Australian dollar and cheaper overseas imports. This is an important industry sector of our economy that requires support from the Australian government.
The government's amendments will save the agvet chemical industry something like $1.3 million in time and fees annually by removing unnecessary red tape. The APVMA estimated that re-registration would cost them $2 million a year to process and assess applications—a cost that would have to be recovered from industry. And industry calculated that removing the reapproval and re-registration scheme would save them up to $9 million annually.
Like the member for Dawson, I have some electorate-specific concerns about the APVMA and the registration and availability of chemicals. This has never been more important than it is to the stone fruit growers in the Hills in my electorate. The local farmers, including those stone fruit growers, rely on access to effective chemicals to protect their crops from dangerous pests and diseases. For growers in my electorate the Mediterranean fruit fly or medfly is the pest in question. Fruit fly is a severely damaging pest that has serious economic implications for Australia's horticulture industry.
Last week the APVMA, as the independent statutory authority with responsibility for regulating agricultural chemicals and veterinary medicines in Australia, announced it was cancelling all horticultural uses of the chemical fenthion, except for post-harvest treatment of tropical fruits with inedible peel, such as mangoes and avocadoes. The APVMA has published its preliminary review findings on the continued use of fenthion and has commenced a three-month consultation period prior to a final decision being made. This is a process designed to thwart a Senate inquiry. In fact the APVMA is almost out of control and needs direct intervention by the minister because of its activist behaviour over a period of time.
The three-month consultation period closes on 22 August, and the APVMA states it will consider all submissions before making a final regulatory decision. Having attended the meeting with the APVMA, I am convinced they have already made their decision. There is no denying there needs to be safeguards in relation to the registration and use of agvet chemicals in Australia, to protect Australians from dangerous and suspect chemicals. But, as I mentioned earlier, in relation to the deregulation aspects of this bill the process cannot become overly bureaucratic, so much so that the regulatory agency is disengaging itself from working with producers. And really that is what they should be doing; backing up the producers, because they are the people who actually add something to this economy.
I raised the APVMA's attempt to ban the use of fenthion when I spoke on Labor's Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment Bill last year. Today, I speak about the topic again, this time regarding an actual ban of the fruit-fly combatting chemical. It is my fourth time speaking on this issue in the parliament; it is an issue I am deeply concerned about because of the effect it has on my fruit growers. It appears that no matter what evidence growers in the industry have provided to the APVMA in relation to both the science they use and the need for industry to have a period of adjustment to new methods or a phase-in period, the APVMA are acting as a stand-alone body, independent of the government—which they are—but also independent of the industry. And they are just thumbing their noses at the industry they are meant to be acting for and on behalf of.
This was evident in December last year when members of the Hills Orchard Improvement Group, HOIG, from my electorate, led by spokesperson Brett Del Simone, travelled to Canberra to meet with the APVMA and the Agriculture Department. There are avenues for appeal against the decisions made at the APVMA, but it can be very time-consuming and very costly; the Australian Administrative Tribunal or the Federal Court are the alternatives. They are massively costly in terms of legal representation.
I fully support measures that are in place to protect public safety, but these decisions cannot be so bureaucratic that people who have never worked on a stone fruit orchard in Perth, people who are sitting in a Canberra office some 3,000 kilometres away from the Hills orchards, can make final decisions without adequate concern for firsthand submissions made direct from growers of the produce.
To date, there have been no reported incidents of Australians being harmed by ingesting fruit treated with fenthion. In fact today in the shops when you go in and buy stone fruit, if it is from almost any area in the south of Australia, it will have been sprayed with fenthion. They have extended these by permits. If it is safe today and it has been safe for the last 30 years, why is it not safe tomorrow? It is not safe tomorrow because there is a determined agenda by those activists within the APVMA to win this battle, which I suspect they probably will, to ban fenthion.
The APVMA's decision is based on a worst-case scenario. If a six-year-old ate a barrel of fruit treated by fenthion, yes, there is a chance he will probably get sick, but maybe not from fenthion but from getting a stomach ache from eating a whole barrel of apples. In fact, even though the APVMA proposed a ban in 2012, the agency continued to allow the use of the product by permit, with several new conditions attached—in terms of withholding a number of sprays for another 12 months. When that 12-month period was over in 2013, the APVMA reintroduced another spray of fenthion for the current growing season as a cover spray. So the fruit at the shops was fine to eat then, and the fruit that would soon hit shops and market stalls would be fine, but somewhere in the future, it would not be okay, according to the APVMA! It is ludicrous what the APVMA is doing to our stone fruit industry in Australia. This sort of bureaucracy, red tape and hoop jumping is out of control. It is why I completely support the deregulation amendments in this bill. The member for Dawson rightly suggested that the minister might want to write a veto because the APVMA has become such an out of control body and unrepresentative of the people it is meant to be working for.
Fenthion was considered by local Hills growers as the last remaining effective chemical that could control fruit fly. It is the only chemical that controlled the maggot as well as the fly. This has been the crux of growers' concerns all along. Growers are now faced with no choice but to use alternative chemicals to fenthion. Growers, though devastated, have accepted this fate. WA fruit growers are now considering they may have to use four different chemicals to combat fruit fly, as opposed to just the one in fenthion. Those four chemicals are: Clothianidin, Thiacloprid, Trichlorfon and Maldison. Any one of those four have not had the same track record as fenthion with no sicknesses or ill-health caused by that spray.
My fruit growers are saying: 'Yes, we will be involved in area-wide management. Yes, we will be involved in orchard hygiene. And, yes, if you allow us to eventually settle on another alternative spray that we can try over a period of time through a phase-in period of three years, that could be the case.'
There is currently a Senate inquiry into the implications of the use of fenthion on Australia's horticultural industry. This inquiry had a public hearing in Perth in February this year, with Brett Del Simone and Wilma Byl from HOIG presenting information to the inquiry. I attended this to show my support, particularly in light of a recent outbreak of fruit fly in the South Australian Riverlands area, and in Queensland just the year before.
What we need in this parliament is our Minister for Agriculture to stand up for this industry. He has been blindsided, willingly unfortunately, by the APVMA saying that he cannot direct them. That is correct but he could also send a strong signal as to their out of control behaviour and he could possibly do a review of the activist behaviour of the scientists involved in this particular independent organisation that the government relies on for information.
The minister needs to do what he can to make sure we do not lose a unique stone fruit industry because that would have a detrimental effect not only on my growers but on our export trade—we export these fruits—and generally on the whole economic situation surrounding our orchards. The problem is that they are only a small group so they are seen as being almost irrelevant. I am so disappointed that this action has been forced on my fruit growers. The minister, unfortunately, in this case does not have the same passion for the fruit growers that I do. I know other members in this House have the same sort of passion for wanting to see this industry survive.
If there is going to be an inquiry and a group is going to examine the way forward, there could be a three-year gap. If they cannot use fenthion in those three years then that industry will be decimated. I feel very sorry for the people I represent.
I thank the member for Canning. He has made his point in his address.
I am pleased that with the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Removing Re-approval and Re-registration) Bill 2014 the government is delivering on the commitments it made before the election to make some amendments to the APVMA and to wind back some of the excesses of the reforms that were undertaken by the last government in the middle of the year but are not ready to be implemented until July this year. In doing so the government is sticking to its word—lifting red tape, supporting efficiency and getting rid of regulatory overreach.
Last year I was seconded to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry for its review into the APVMA amendments that were before the House at that time. I have some insight into these issues that are being discussed today and in fact I had a significant hand in writing the then opposition's dissenting report. Broadly, the main issue of contention the coalition had then with the government's reforms was the compulsory and regular re-registration process of chemicals that had been in use in agriculture for a long time in many cases. I would like to read three short paragraphs from the dissenting report. Paragraph 5.3 states:
However we believe one of the bills key modifications; the intention to install a system of mandatory re-registration lacks sufficient justification and is likely to create a new layer of compliance and bureaucracy on the pesticide and veterinary medicines industry without demonstrable improvements in efficiency or outcomes and that extra costs will be passed along to Australian farmers.
Paragraph 5.4 states:
The bill states one of its objectives … is to reduce time-frames for processing applications and admits to backlog in processing …
Paragraph 5.5 states:
It is of great concern to the dissenting members that the proposed mandatory re-registration process will lead to a far heavier work-load for the APVMA and this in turn will lead to longer delays in processing, an escalation in staffing requirements and a more expensive system for little perceived gain.
Australians often make the mistake of thinking that Australia is a major food producer. That is not the case at all. Australia is a major food exporter. We are not a major food producer.
Let us look at the biggest agricultural commodity that we market: wheat, which is something I know a little about, having grown it for most of my life. The biggest producer of wheat in the world is the European Union, which produces 133 million ton per annum. China produces 120 million ton, India 95 million ton a year, and the US 60 million ton a year. Australia comes in at No. 8 on that table. We produce around 21 million ton, or less than four per cent of the combined crop of the top 20. So we produce less than three per cent of the world crop. We are one of the world's biggest exporters; we are not one of the world's biggest producers. Consequently, for things like agricultural chemicals that means we are not one of the world's big markets.
All chemical breakthroughs in the world, because of their nature, actually come from what some people decry as the big chemical companies. They are the only people who can undertake this kind of research. They are the only people with the money and the expertise. Their investment has led to a huge explosion in agricultural profits and environmental advances right around the world. As I said, we are a small market even for things like wheat chemicals. You can only imagine how big a market we are in world terms if you farm persimmons or asparagus.
When this automatic re-registration process kicks in whoever is manufacturing the chemicals at the time will look at the market and say, 'Is it worth me investing this money to re-register this chemical in this market?' These large companies invest great sums of money in developing new chemicals which they in turn have the right to market exclusively for I think about 20 years under the patent process. Once the patents expire any manufacturer can access that scientific knowledge and manufacture the chemicals. This always leads to cheaper chemicals for farmers and a good outcome for all, but of course that means the market then becomes fragmented and every manufacturer of chemicals then has to re-register each formulation that the company sells and each packet size that the company sells. So the process can get quite complicated and quite expensive.
It is of grave concern to Australian agriculture that the more of these review processes we trigger when there is no real reason to do so will actually lead to our producers not being able to avail themselves of the world's best technology. And if we are to be significant players in this great opportunity in the world as its desire increases for more refined foods and higher protein foods, if we are to be a key player in this role, then our farmers will need the best technology because we know that Australia is not a cheap production platform.
In essence, the main complaint about the previous government's reforms last year was this automatic reregistration process. The APVMA have plenty of processes where if new evidence should come to hand regarding chemicals that have been registered for many years, then that triggers in itself an automatic review process. What we are proposing here is that chemicals can be re-registered using the current science and the manufacturers will not have to re-prove their case, as it were. They can just say, 'Here we are; we've had no complaints'. Basically it is a book entry to achieve the ongoing registration of those compounds.
This leads me to a few other things. I worry about that green fringe that protests against 'filthy chemicals in agriculture'. I had a mate say to me once, 'You know how these chemicals are such terrible things. Name me something that's not made out of chemicals'. I was of course speechless; it is a little difficult. But I worry that the debate gets abused and distorted. For instance, one of the things people who would like to stop chemicals being used will tell us is that if a chemical has been deregistered, then it is barred from being used in, say, Europe or in the US. Being unregistered does not mean that a chemical is barred; it just means that no manufacturer has thought that that particular market is big enough or worthwhile enough for them to register the chemical in that particular market. As I said, it is the same kind of danger we face in Australia. So when I hear people say that a chemical is barred from use in some particular market, I think that you really need to dig a little bit deeper and have a look to see why that chemical is not registered. There are all kinds of reasons why it may not be registered in another market. It might be the proximity of populations to where you are using compounds that may be difficult to handle, but perfectly safe to use on a crop. It may be because they have a load of other alternatives. It may be because their agriculture systems are totally different to ours and they do not need that particular chemical. So as I said: if it becomes uneconomical for the manufacturer, it just does not happen.
What is at risk here, as I alluded to a little earlier, is the enormous opportunity for Australian agriculture in the near and medium terms. I was at a Landcare type function only a week or so ago. We had a facilitator who asked us all in our particular section how optimistic we were about the future of Australian agriculture. There was a smattering of arms raised across the room. I think I was the only person who put my hand up and said, 'I'm extremely optimistic'. I was questioned: why would that be? I said: 'You should look at our last 30 years; it's been phenomenal. The advent of what I would call the chemical revolution and, in concert with that, the no-till revolution has absolutely transformed Australian agriculture. We have seen our soil fertility grow year on year. We have seen our production grow year on year. We have seen micro-organisms within the soil build up under the processes we are now using because we keep all the vegetable residues either on top of the soil or within the soil.' I think on that basis we have every reason to be optimistic about agriculture, but we must give our farmers the best tools.
I am going to digress a little and talk about a chemical called glyphosate. It is glyphosate that has become the most commonly used chemical throughout the world and has been such a boon for civilisation. I once had a leading Argentinian agriculturalist called Carlos Crovetto tell me: 'The man who invented the glyphosate molecule should be given the Nobel Prize for peace. He has done more for the conserving of the world's soils, he has done more for the feeding of the world than any other person in the history of the world.' In fact that man did win a US science award, but I think maybe Carlos was right—he should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
This morning I hosted a group in the house who are looking at the reliance in Australia on the chemical glyphosate, but also our need to then use a range of chemicals around it. One in particular that we use is paraquat. Paraquat is an S7 poison and there is some concern in agricultural ranks that the green fringe will try to limit farmers using this S7 poison. Now farmers have a very, very good record with handling this chemical, I might point out. It smells pretty bad, but the smell is artificial; it is put in so that we treat it with respect—and farmers do. Paraquat is very important because what we are seeing in Australian agriculture—in worldwide agriculture—is resistance. Not everyone understands resistance, but in fact it is evolution in action. When we put pressure on nature, nature will take some time and then it will adapt. Someone explained to me once that resistance was like a lawnmower—that is, if you go out with a lawnmower as the grass comes up and runs to head and you keep chopping the heads off, you keep chopping the heads off and you keep chopping heads off, then you will never let the plant go to seed that has the tall heads. In the end the only plant that ever goes to seed is the strain within that grass that had a short head. And then you will have converted that grass to a short-head variety—shorter growing. That is what happens with chemical systems. When you get onto a good thing and you keep using it, the plant adapts. That is what is happening with glyphosate worldwide.
This morning Professor Stephen Powles from the University of Western Australia likened glyphosate to a one-in-100-year outcome, like penicillin. What has penicillin done to the world and what have we done to penicillin? We have overused it. We are using up our shots on the most important medical breakthrough in the 20th century. We are doing the same with our glyphosate. That is why it is so important that these other chemicals are licensed in our market and take the pressure off this one chemical that has totally transformed agriculture throughout the world.
So when I think of the APVMA and the rules that we give it to operate under, what I want to see is that it is totally driven by science and not by public opinion, that farmers get access to the best tools in the world, that pressure groups to not take them away from us, and that we are able as a nation to harvest that great potential that our agricultural industry offers for us in the future.
I thank the member for Grey. He is always enlightening.
I will be summing up on behalf of the Minister for Agriculture, who cannot be in the chamber today. He actually has a knee injury, which at prevents his attendance. I know he will be disappointed at not being here, because he is very proud of this bill and in particular proud of the work that has been started by the new coalition government to assist the agricultural industry.
I would begin by thanking all members who have spoken in relation to the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Removing Re-approval and Re-Registration) Bill 2014, beginning, of course, with the member for Grey, who we have just heard from, who brings his great passionate advocacy on behalf of not only his own electorate of Grey but also of all rural industries and all rural communities across Australia. We have also heard from the members for Canning, Dawson, Lyons, Murray, Riverina, O'Connor, Durack, Lyne, Barker, Lindsay, Calare, Forrest, Macquarie and Wannon along with, from the opposition benches, the members for Hunter, Parramatta and Throsby. The list of speakers in relation to this bill I believe reflects the importance of this issue. It is almost a complete rollcall of regional members and reflects their interest in and their passion for the agricultural sector. It also gave the House an opportunity to hear from members with years of practical experience. Many of those members have served and worked on the land have a great deal to offer the chamber. I appreciate their contributions in the chamber both yesterday and today.
This bill aims to reduce the unnecessary regulatory burden on this industry, resulting in reduced costs to the industry that will eventually flow on to benefit primary producers themselves, and which may also lead to greater investment in new, safer innovative products for the future.
The Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Removing Re-approval and Re-Registration) Bill 2014 contributes to the Australian government's commitment to easing the burden imposed on the Australian economy and agricultural sector by reducing red and green tape on businesses by at least $1 billion per year by removing the requirement for agvet chemicals to be re-registered. The bill builds on earlier progress that has already been made through the national registration scheme, a partnership between the Commonwealth and all the states and territories, and on elements of the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment Act 2013. These changes will improve the effectiveness of the regulatory system and reduce inefficiency at the APVMA. They will better protect human and animal health and safety and protect the environment.
This bill has wide-ranging stakeholder support, primarily because it has estimated a capacity to save industry up to $9 million in red tape and associated costs. It is a common sense approach that has been endorsed by peak farming bodies and the key industry groups. The bill is in keeping with the coalition's determination to ease the regulatory burden on Australia's economy. We understand that reducing red tape, reducing green tape, provides greater efficiency and reduces costs which leads to more private sector investment and employment, not just in the cities but throughout regional Australia. This bill was developed in consultation with other Commonwealth and state agencies along with industry, community and environment groups and the general public.
This is not just about reducing red and green tape; it sends a strong signal to the agricultural sector that this government is serious about providing practical support right across the nation. These are practical measures to help industry to prosper in the future. This side of the House understands the importance of agriculture to our nation. I contend that, by the support of the members of the opposition, there is a recognition also on the other benches of the need to support the agricultural sector with practical measures such as these.
Speaker after speaker on this bill has spoken of the importance of agricultural industries in their respective electorates. My electorate of Gippsland is no different, as you are well aware, Deputy Speaker Broadbent. We share a border and we share agricultural interests in timber, fishing, dairy, beef and horticulture. It is important to recognise that our agricultural sectors, our primary industries, all use a range of agvet chemicals which help to boost productivity.
I would like to acknowledge in summing up the that the shadow minister has indicated that the opposition will not be opposing the bill in this place. In his speech the shadow minister indicated, and I quote from his speech that the opposition:
… ill not oppose or seek to amend the 2014 bill in this chamber. In other words, we do not claim that the 2013 regime is necessarily the only way of protecting human health and the natural environment while also providing farmers and other consumers with affordable and appropriately easy to access crop protection. Rather, we will allow the bill passage through the House but we have referred the bill to a Senate inquiry for further review. I note that … the committee has received some 22 submissions, 20 of which support the removal of re-registration.
Further:
… … …
… I'm determined and my party is determined to do what is best for public health and for the environment and what is best for the agriculture sector.
As I said, I understand that the opposition will not be opposing the passage of the bill through this chamber and will consider the details as part of the Senate committee processes.
As we have heard from several speakers here over the past 24 hours, this bill will implement the government's 2013 election commitment to remove the requirement that agvet chemicals re-registration by: removing end dates for approvals and last renewal dates for registrations so that approvals will no longer end after a particular period and registrations may be renewed perpetually; and by removing redundant provisions that allow applications to reapprove and re-register active constituents and chemical products.
The bill will also: reduce red tape by providing for less frequent registration renewals; improve the APVMA's ability to secure information about the safety of chemicals supplied in the market; introduce further simple reforms to agvet chemicals regulation to reduce red tape and improve efficiency; oblige the APVMA to provide access to information about approvals and registrations in its files to persons eligible is to receive it; and address some minor implementation issues identified in recent reform legislation.
Overall, the bill will increase efficiency in implementing these measures and will provide great clarity to stakeholders on the intent of the legislation. The government will continue to work with industry to implement further improvements through legislation and administrative change.
I also take the opportunity to thank the minister's staff and the departmental officials for their efforts in securing the passage of these reforms. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
It is always a pleasure to have your work quoted in the great Houses of Parliament and it was a real pleasure for me today to have my work quoted more than once by members of the government! I had a brief moment of thinking, during question time, that the government had done some original research. But, of course, that was a little dashed when I turned to the 'Cut and Paste' column of The Australian, which is clearly providing the government's talking points now. It is government by Cut and Paste. It is a column which, I understand from friends at The Australian has really gone downhill a little since Nick Cater stopped editing it.
The question of consistency in one's public utterances is naturally a question that voters turn their minds to. The question that voters naturally have in their minds, when asked why a parliamentarian has changed their view on an issue is: have they done so for good policy reasons or merely for political reasons? In this place on 18 November 2013 I spoke about this issue in the context of emissions trading. I listed, then, the raft of comments by members, from the weathervane Prime Minister down, who had changed their views on emissions trading schemes to match the one-vote margin in the Liberal Party room.
Today I draw the House's attention to comments made during the last parliamentary term. These are not comments made by someone writing in a newspaper while they were back at university; no, these are comments made by members of the coalition when they were seeking high office. On 16 May 2013, the then Leader of the Opposition—now the Prime Minister—said:
A coalition government will keep the current income tax thresholds … The carbon tax will go but no one's personal tax will go up …
On 14 March 2012, Mr Abbott said:
What you will get under us are tax cuts without new taxes.
On 20 November 2012, the Prime Minister said:
We are about reducing taxes, not increasing taxes. We are about getting rid of taxes, not imposing new taxes.
On 16 August 2011, Mr Abbott said:
… there can be no tax collection without an election.
On 4 August 2013, Mr Abbott was asked by Mark Riley:
But aren’t you going to have to increase taxes yourself?
Mr Abbott replied:
No. We are going to get government spending under control.
On 25 August 2013, the Prime Minister said:
… no country has ever taxed its way to prosperity.
And on the Today show on 3 February 2013, Mr Abbott said:
Personal income tax will be lower under a coalition government in its first term than it is now …
In a doorstop interview on 20 November 2012, Mr Abbott said:
We are about reducing taxes, not increasing taxes. We are about getting rid of taxes, not imposing new taxes.
Asked by a reporter, 'Is that a promise?' Mr Abbott replied:
This is my whole reason for being in politics in the parliament.
The coalition's Real Solutions policy document said, on page 18:
We pledge to the families of Australia that we will never make your lives harder by imposing needless new taxes.
And at a doorstop interview on 14 February 2013, Mr Abbott said:
I absolutely guarantee to the Australian people—absolutely guarantee to the Australian people—that the tax burden will be less under a coalition government.
Those are just some of the many comments that Mr Abbott has made on taxation going right back to 2009, when he said:
… there will not be any new taxes as part of the coalition's policies.
These statements that I have read to the House are statements that were made by Mr Abbott when campaigning to lead this nation. They have now been cast aside like a child snapping up kindling for a fire. Mr Abbott was prepared to say one thing in order to win office but now he has entirely changed his view on taxation. And he is not even taking his own advice on being trustworthy. On 13 June 2013, Mr Abbott told Newcastle radio:
Well, I can understand why just at the moment politicians aren’t much trusted because we’ve had too many politicians who say one thing before an election to win votes and then do the opposite after the election…
But that is precisely what this government has done. If this government had gone to the last election saying that they were going to impose the measures contained in the bills under consideration in the House then the Australian people could have considered that. We could have had leaders' debates in which the topic of increased income taxation was discussed between the Prime Minister and the then Leader of the Opposition Mr Abbott or between Chris Bowen and Joe Hockey. But we did not have that because the coalition was not up front with the Australian people about what they were intending.
And now we hear the weasel words as to what this tax increase is. As Sarah Ferguson said on 7.30:
If it looks like a tax and sounds like a tax, it probably is a tax; unless you're the government, and then it might be a temporary deficit levy to help tackle the country's budget deficit.
On the Q&A program, the Treasurer introduced a new note of the ridiculous into the debate, saying:
It's a payment. You can call it a tax. It comes out of a pocket. It comes out of someone's pocket—a taxpayer's pocket. You want to call it a tax; you can call it anything you want. You can call it a rabbit.
The rabbit that is being debated before this House today is a rabbit which has been hopping around in front of the Australian people—and they are hopping mad about this particular rabbit. Of course, it is one of the rabbits that the coalition pulled out of the hat after the last election, after promising that the hat was empty. They promised there would be no surprises, no excuses, adults are in charge, it would not matter what the state of the books was, they would not break their pledges. But now they have broken their pledges to Australians. They have broken a pledge not to increase taxation; they have broken a pledge not to cut spending on education. They have broken a solemn promise not to cut spending on health and they have broken a solemn promise to Australia's pensioners. They have broken a promise not to get rid of more than 12,000 public servants and they have broken a promise to increase aid in nominal terms in every year under a coalition government. These broken promises are the reason why this budget is perhaps the worst received of any budget in recent history. It is the reason, as I noted in the Federation Chamber last night, that consumer confidence is in free-fall and retail sales have slumped. This is a budget that breaks promises, that does not reduce the deficit but in fact increases the deficit relative to what it was in the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook, and unfairly targets low- and middle-income families.
As Peter Martin noted in The Age, 'I'd feel better about the budget if the people who designed it acted as if they understood it.' Over recent days we have had both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer show that they do not understand how the GP tax will affect people with chronic diseases. The Prime Minister, with the now infamous winkgate interview with Jon Faine, shows that he misunderstands when the HECS-HELP increases will kick in, and that has followed a range of episodes which have shown the government's lack of comprehension of its own policies, such as the government's inability to explain whether or not their proposed changes to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act would have caught someone like holocaust denier Gerald Fredrick Tobin.
Labor has serious concerns with the shabby and rushed way that this tax measure has been put together. It is not clear why it is shabby and why it has been rushed. It could be that that the measure was changed as a result of media leaks before the budget. This measure was originally proposed to kick in from $80,000 but, following public pressure, that threshold was raised to $180,000. Perhaps, too, the lack of a dedicated Assistant Treasurer working through the details has caused problems for the government. The finance minister has now been acting for some months as the Assistant Treasurer. As the shadow Assistant Treasurer, I am acutely aware of the lack of a government counterpart, particularly in this critical lead-up to a government's first budget.
One of the chief loopholes that is generated by this bill is the way in which it treats fringe benefits tax. That is a loophole that will allow wealthier taxpayers to avoid the tax increase while surreptitiously catching taxpayers who earn less than $180,000 a year. Because the FBT year and the tax year do not line up, the increase in income tax runs for three years while the increase in fringe benefits tax applies for only two years. So there is a nine-month period from July 2014 through to March 2015 and then again a three-month period from April to June 2017, at the end of the three-year period, in which the increase in the FBT does not apply. What is the practical effect of that? It is that there is a full 12 months in which people earning over $180,000 can shift their income into fringe benefits in order to avoid the increase in tax. The government was not wrong when it said that this was a temporary levy. In fact, for taxpayers who re-arrange their tax affairs it will last for two years, not three. That raises serious questions about the accuracy of the government's revenue forecasts. It is not at all clear that the government has taken into account this loophole in forecasting the revenue that this tax change will cause.
In addition to making it easy for high-income people to avoid the tax, the government appears to have designed the tax so that less well-off Australians may end up paying it too. The problem with the increase in the fringe benefits tax is that it will affect everyone, whether they earn more or less than $180,000 a year. The government sensibly increased concessions for those industries that currently enjoy them but there are plenty of Australians who receive fringe benefits who are not in those industries. So we end up in the curious position of having a tax that is supposedly designed to share the burden of the government's misguided budget but may in fact do the opposite. This may end up being less of a tax on those Australians who drive a Bentley or, dare I say, a Rolls-Royce, and more a tax on Australians driving a salary-packaged Commodore into their work car park. The opposition will use all the avenues available to us to investigate those implementation issues and we hope the government will be adult enough to take those concerns on board.
I want to conclude on the issue of equity, because the government has made much of the claim that, because of this increase in income tax, the burden of the budget is being shared equally across the community. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard modelling produced by NATSEM on the distributional effects of the budget in 2017-18.
Leave granted.
The document read as follows—
The table was prepared by Ben Phillips from NATSEM and sets out the distributional impact of the 2014 budget on the final year of the forward estimates in 2017-18. It shows, disturbingly, that the burden of the budget is far from fairly shared. It shows, for example, that couples with children who are in the lowest income quintile will see a 6.6 per cent fall in their disposable income, while couples with children in the highest income quintile will see a 0.3 per cent increase in their disposable income. It shows, particularly worryingly, that a single parent in the bottom income quintile will see a 10.8 per cent decrease in his or her disposable income, and it shows that, right across the distribution, those in the bottom quintile are seeing a 2.2 per cent fall in their disposable income while those in the top income quintile are seeing a 0.2 per cent increase in their disposable income.
This is despite the fact that inequality has been rising for a generation—a generation in which billionaires have made out better than battlers; a generation in which earnings have risen three times as fast for those in the top 10 per cent of the earnings distribution than for those in the bottom 10 per cent; a generation in which the top one per cent income share has doubled, the top 0.1 per cent income share has tripled and the richest three Australians now have more wealth than the poorest one million Australians.
This is a measure which is atypical for this budget, because this is a budget whose burden falls upon the poorest Australians. Those Australians, of course, are disproportionately located in certain parts of the nation. I was in Devonport recently with Senator Anne Urquhart speaking with some of the communities there who will be especially hard hit. I am surprised that members of the National Party are not raising a greater outcry given that, for many people in National Party electorates, the incomes are lower than average and this is a budget that says that they should not be driving. In many of these National Party electorates, they do not have access to public transport, so they will be hit by the fuel excise change, they will be hit by the GP tax, and they will be hit by the withdrawal of benefits that will occur through this budget.
The distributional impacts of this budget are of deep concern to those of us on this side of the House. We shall continue to prosecute an evidence based argument against this budget, based on the fact that it breaks promises, that it increases the deficit and that it fails the fair-go test.
I rise to support the Taxation Laws Amendment (Temporary Budget Repair Levy) Bill and related bills and to condemn the Labor Party for forcing this type of necessary budget repair on the Australian people. This is a package of fifteen bills that will introduce a temporary budget repair levy from 1 July 2014 until 30 June 2017. The temporary budget repair levy will apply at a marginal rate of two per cent on individuals' annual taxable income in excess of $180,000. In addition to the levy itself, the package of supporting bills contains important consequential amendments that will maintain the integrity and fairness of the tax system.
The government has an economic action strategy that will fix Labor's debt and deficit disaster. We cannot keep on borrowing $1 billion a month to pay the interest on debt. This is a budget of both saving and building. That is why we are moving spending from short-term consumption to long-term investment, including by building the infrastructure of the 21st century.
In 2017-18 there would have been a deficit of at least $30 billion under Labor, but we are drawing that back to less than $3 billion by winding back unsustainable spending. But we are doing it in ways that are responsible. Everyone is making a contribution so that we can build for the future. These tax bills are a vital part of the repair job. The underlying cash deficit is projected to be $60 billion over the four years to 2018—a vast improvement compared to the $123 billion over the four years that Labor left us. Instead of the $667 billion of debt by 2024 that Labor put into the pipeline, we will now have debt of $389 billion. This substantial improvement is built off a significant reduction in payments growth. At the time of the 2013 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, average real growth in payments over the four years to 2017 was to be 2.6 per cent. The average over the four years to 2018 is now 0.8 per cent.
The recent budget has stimulated a lively debate on taxation reform. These bills on taxation give me an opportunity of speaking more widely on the issue of income and corporate taxes. The tax measures in the budget have many opponents on one side and on the other side a distinctly smaller number of supporters. It was 'ever thus' with taxation. Part of the problem has been the dearth of any meaningful and substantial reform for over a decade—indeed, since 2000. And, clearly, while many of the recent tax measures can be argued for in the case of repairing the budget's bottom line or fulfilling promises like abolishing the carbon tax, I will not insult the listener by claiming that they are the be-all and end-all of tax reform. Some will argue that certain measures are actually anti-reform.
There was not any sustained attempt at tax reform in the latter half of the Howard government—not surprisingly due to the near political death experience of that government when it courageously took massive tax reform, including the introduction of a GST, to the electorate in 1998. Since then, the former Treasurer and continuing member for Lilley was one of the most quixotic treasurers in Australia's history when it came to taxation. His claim that the carbon tax was 'economic reform' defied logic and the treatment of the review chaired by then Treasury Secretary Ken Henry in 2009 was flaky to say the least. I actually did not agree with quite a few of that review's recommendations, so I am not unhappy it was largely ditched. And, while the member for Lilley would argue that one of the three recommendations that was attempted, the mining super profits tax, was a 'reform', my view is that it was both bad in theory and in practice. It obviously also precipitated the demise of Kevin Rudd in his first incarnation as Prime Minister. Clearly, whatever the merits of any particular proposal, significant tax change is fraught.
One area of the economy that is crying out for taxation reform is small business. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry pre-election survey for 2013 found that more than three-quarters of businesses expressed major and moderate concerns with company tax, the compulsory superannuation levy and personal income tax. Further, small- and medium-sized firms rated the superannuation levy as one of their top five concerns, while large firms placed it well down in their list of concerns. As the ACCI commented, 'The concern of SMEs is understandable as the superannuation levy is one of the major on-costs for hiring workers, and this on-cost will increase further following the increase of the levy from the current nine per cent to 12 per cent over the corning years.'
ACCI asked businesses which taxation areas needed further reform. It found that while small business ranked company tax reductions and personal income tax reductions as their first and second tax reform priorities respectively, medium and large businesses rated payroll tax reductions and company tax reductions as their first and second reform priorities.
The recent budget delivered on two key coalition election promises: to delay the increase in the super levy and to cut company tax by 1.5 per cent to 28.5 percent. They are very welcome. In my view we should be looking to go further. Firstly, on super I think there is a strong case for an even longer suspension in any increase. I also think we should be reviewing international experience and looking at having a differential and lower company tax rate for small business. Over the years this has been implemented in a number of countries including the UK, the USA, France, Japan and South Korea.
I also think that the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government's abolition of the small business entrepreneurs' tax offset should be reversed. Small business taxpayers with a turnover of $50,000 or less were allowed a tax offset of 25 percent on their taxable income. That benefit was introduced in the 2005 Costello budget and had little time to be tested. For those who do not like the tax measures in the recent budget, can I urge them to take part in the community consultation on taxation reform. At the election the coalition promised that we would review the taxation system within two years of coming to government and prepare a comprehensive white paper. My view is that the review should start immediately, maximising the opportunity for selling any tax reform proposals. And small business should be a key focus of the review.
However, with respect to tax reform I have more to say. I have a warning for my Liberal and National Party colleagues: speculating on increasing the revenue take from the GST is playing with fire. They are in serious danger of being dragged into a debate that does not stand up to economic justification despite all the so-called expert commentary on why it would be such a marvellous idea to increase the GST rate or alternatively expand the tax base by removing exemptions for fresh food, education or health services. I am here talking about the economic case. The political case is even potentially more horrendous. First to the economic case.
When you boil it down, most of the commentators arguing for changes to the GST are focused on increasing the tax take so that they can spend more money on their pet projects. They are not really talking about tax 'reform' at all. It is simply about extracting more money from the taxpayer. The premiers are calling for more tax revenue to fund massive increases in education and health expenditure that were promised by prime ministers Gillard and Rudd. They were always undeliverable promises, and many people said so at the time of their announcements. The premiers are being completely disingenuous on this issue. They want the Commonwealth government to wear the opprobrium of raising higher taxes so that they get the applause for spending more money. It is one of the great dysfunctional aspects of Australia's federal system.
There were two principal economic reasons for introducing the GST. First was the fact that the pre-existing indirect taxes like the wholesale sales tax were very inefficient because they taxed business inputs such that there was a cumulative cascading of taxes that added massively to business costs. This was particularly damaging to exporters and import-competing industries that were battling with businesses from overseas that were not suffering from the same handicap.
The GST or value added tax, which is its more economically accurate name, removed that double taxation burden. This was the principal economic reform and it meant billions of dollars to Australian businesses. However, it is a reform that is completed. It was long overdue but it is now done. The efficiencies and productivity benefits have already been booked many years ago—no thanks to the Labor Party, which cravenly opposed its introduction although they knew it was a necessary economic reform.
The second big economic reason for introducing the GST was that it allowed for what became known as a 'tax mix switch'. That principally meant a reduction of the revenue burden on direct, income taxes to be replaced by indirect taxes. It is argued that this is important as high marginal tax rates on personal income have a largely negative impact on economic activity, discouraging work and productivity improvements. This is well known to be the case from decades of research, like that of the OECD. The Treasury Secretary, Martin Parkinson, was making similar observations in a speech last week.
A tax mix switch was attempted in the 2000 Howard-Costello tax changes. It was also the centrepiece of the Option C proposal of Paul Keating in 1985 when he was Labor Treasurer and of the Fightback package of Iohn Hewson and Peter Reith. However, the bottom line is that it did not really work for the Howard government. At the time there were some substantial income tax cuts, but we seem to still have a heavy reliance on direct rather than indirect taxes in Australia. The reason for that is bracket creep on the income tax schedules and a heavy call on corporate income tax. Also, there was to be significant replacement of inefficient state taxes. However, a large segment of that was reneged on by state premiers. Ask Peter Costello about broken promises by state premiers—he has a fine old story to tell. That is why I would be highly reluctant about doing any future deals with state premiers on GST, given that their predecessors displayed high levels of bad faith on delivering on tax reform over the last 14 years.
The other point to make is that many of the same people who are arguing for increases in the GST to fund increased government services would immediately become the noisiest advocates for compensation through tax and welfare cuts, which would soak up most of the new GST revenues, thus defeating much of the stated purpose for a change, namely to pay for other things. I say again that most of the advocates are simply arguing for bigger government, not a more efficient tax system. I think that business organisations like the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Industry Group should shake off their naivety and be very careful about supporting such calls.
Another issue is the simplistic call for the removal of the GST exemptions for fresh food, education, health, sewerage and water, and financial supplies. Some people are claiming that these were all politically expedient decisions. Admittedly, the fresh food exemption was the price of getting the support of the Australian Democrats in the Senate to pass the GST legislation. However, it would be entertaining to see someone try and sustain an argument for taxing fresh food more heavily when one of Australia's current problems is an obesity epidemic. As for the other exemptions, they were not so much political decisions as tax administration decisions based on the difficulties of taxing these areas, especially given the heavy involvement of government in many of these sectors and the cross-jurisdictional issues in our Federation which could cause significant tax churning. They were not design flaws of the system but in fact design features deliberately taken for good, on-balance reasons. I say again: considering changes to the GST is playing with fire without significant economic benefits.
In conclusion, I support these bills, not because they are taxation reforms but because they are economically responsible and show the resolve of the government in meeting its fundamental election promise of getting the budget under control.
I rise to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Budget Repair Levy) Bill 2014, also known as a tax hike or a tax increase, or in fact a broken promise. We heard that a fortnight ago when the Australian people were hit with a budget that was made up primarily of broken promises, cruel cuts and unfair cost-of-living increases—hypocrisy writ large for all Australia to see. Budgets are about choices and they display a government's values. This budget shows the Abbott-Hockey government cares more about big business and the wealthy than about the young, the sick, the elderly, the unemployed, the poor overseas or even middle-income families. This is not the sort of Australia that I want to be associated with.
Prime Minister Abbott misled Australia when he promised before the last election that there would be no new taxes. This piece of legislation is a clear breach of that promise. He said there would be no tax increases; we have seen a fuel tax proposed. He said there would be no cuts to health, no cuts to education, no cuts to the ABC budget or the SBS budget, and no changes to pensions. All of those promises have ended up being broken and, sadly, most Australians will now pay the price for that.
Let us look at a few incontrovertible facts contained in the Abbott-Hockey budget. It is important that listeners understand how these decisions will affect them and their families. For a start, almost immediately—from 1 July—we will see an impact on hospitals, such as the hospitals in my electorate, the QEII and the PA, which is right on the border. The government's broken promises mean beds will go, wards may close and patients will obviously be worse off. Waiting lists will become worse. Queensland has already been under the knife from Campbell Newman's devastating attacks on health, which resulted in reduced services and thousands of job losses. Now we are told there will be a $7 fee increase for GP visits, combined with cuts to public hospital funding.
Labor will not stand by and let Australia become a country where the elderly are at risk and have to choose between eating or going to see a doctor, or where poorer families have to choose between food and vaccinations for their children. I am proud to be a member of the party that will fight the Abbott-Hockey attack on Medicare, this GP tax. We are the party that introduced Medibank, repulsed the conservatives' attacks on it and brought back Medicare. Labor will not let this government destroy universal health care in Australia. I remind those opposite, who talk about the need to put a price on things, that it is not a free healthcare system: we pay for it in our taxes when we pay the Medicare levy. So we will vote against Prime Minister Abbott's doctor tax.
I note the Minister for Health has not repeated his line that all doctors received a $10,000 pay rise in the budget. That certainly went down like a bucket of cold sick with my doctor when I went for a check-up last week and spoke to him about it. He explained that the costs associated with recouping the $2 that goes to the doctor's pocket would be wasted. It is like a red-tape tax on top of the cut to what they receive if they are bulk-billing.
All Australian schools will hurt as a result of the Abbott-Hockey $30 billion cut to education. Education is the policy area that I am most positive about. Sadly, we saw it savaged a fortnight ago. Before the election, the Liberal-National party told Australians that they would not cut education. We were told that they supported the Gonski reforms—it was a unity ticket. Many of those opposite had their photographs taken in front of the Gonski reform banners. Instead, the teachers, parents and students of Australia found out they had been betrayed, with the budget announcing the biggest cut to school funding that this country has ever seen. Before the election, the government said, 'No cuts to health, no cuts to education.' After the election, it was a different story.
The education cuts will mean a reduction in the number of teachers and aides, and literacy and numeracy programs and may eventually see schools close. One school in my electorate, Nyanda State High School, has already closed, and other schools may become more marginal as the states try to plug the great, gaping hole created by the Abbott-Hockey budget. As a former teacher I understand the importance of upholding quality education and resources for all Australians.
Labor will continue to do what we have always done. We believe in a fair education system for all Australians and we want the Gonski reforms. Remember, they were economic suggestions. They were not from some bleeding-heart leftie; they were from a banker looking at education from an economic perspective and saying, 'We must invest in education based on need, because of the gaps that are opening up.'
The budget also contained the Prime Minister's plan to cut families off from family tax benefit B when their youngest child turns six. Under Labor, these families received family tax benefit B until their children turned 16. This cut will be especially felt by single-income families. They are the group that have been asked by the Liberal-National coalition to do the heaviest lifting, the group that cannot just cut back on cigars, the ones that struggle to make ends meet.
In addition to having their family payments cut, families will lose the schoolkids bonus at the same time as they are slugged with these new taxes when they visit the GP, when they fill up the car and when they pay the Coles and Woolies tax at the checkout to, basically, fund the Prime Minister's crazy, gold-plated PPL scheme. This budget is a major hit to family budgets. It sparked a discussion between states and territories about increasing the scope of the GST and, as we heard from earlier speakers, it will hit people making decisions about focusing on fresh fruit and vegetables if the GST is spread to fresh fruit and vegetables. The people that are actually investing in fruit and vegetables will now drift away from that. Hopefully, that is not an argument that those opposite will advance.
As Labor has indicated, we will oppose the attacks on our pension system and the millions of Australian pensioners who rely on it. We did increase the pension age to 67 by 2023. That flowed after a comprehensive review into Australia's pension system and a significant improvement to the base rate for the pension and improvements to indexation. I remember the member for Port Adelaide, as the responsible minister, travelling the land and talking to seniors groups about that process.
However those opposite have provided no evidence to support an increase in the age pension to 70. We in Australia would have the oldest working people in the world. This budget of broken promises will mean concessions that flow to almost 600,000 Queensland pensioners and almost 50,000 Queensland Commonwealth seniors health card holders will dry up because of the cuts to states, and maybe from as soon as 1 July. On top of this, around 650,000 Queenslanders will have concessions cut for vital services such as public transport, electricity and water bills. That is in addition to them trying to meet the costs of that 23 per cent electricity spike from last year delivered by Premier Newman. The people in my community deserve better than these savage attacks on their wallets. When you are struggling to get by week to week, a discount on your power bill or your bus ticket if you are going to see your doctor, goes a long way. All those discounts will go due to the Abbott-Hockey budget.
One of the cruellest betrayals, I think, is that of those young people under 30 who are looking for a job. Horribly, we hear that they will have to wait up to six months before receiving any income support. Bad luck if you are one of those people estranged from your family and who cannot go home to find a bed with your family, or if you do not have generous friends. Often they are the people that have struggled in education and struggled to find work. We will be stepping over them in the street; they will be the beggars of tomorrow. After six months on work for the dole, if young people still cannot find work, they face another six months without Newstart. This means that those without parental support will have to beg, basically.
So we oppose this. The government has planned to push young people under 25 from Newstart onto this lower youth allowance, a cut of at least $48 a week or almost $2,500 a year. So much for all Australians doing the heavy lifting. It seems that the poorest and most disadvantaged are the ones asked to do the most. These changes will confine young people to a life of poverty and tear away the vital services that they rely on.
This budget of broken promises has ensured that Australians that want to attend university in the future will face higher debts. It will see students paying thousands of dollars extra in the interest on their loans after 2016. I heard on the ABC this morning that it is estimated that there could be an increase of the third, or 33 per cent, and that is before the university bean counters hike up their fees depending on what they feel they can retail their degrees for especially in some of the sandstone universities.
The future of our nation is built on quality education and meeting the growing demands for skills and innovation. This means that universities should cater to our smartest not just the richest. This 'dumb but rich' cohort strategy should be avoided by those opposite. This is definitely a budget built on the wrong choices and the wrong priorities and it has not recognised where we should be investing if we are going to have any chance of providing jobs for the children of the next 50 or 60 years.
This is seen in the context of a government that made a promise to the Australian people that there would be no changes to higher education. In fact it would 'ensure the continuation of the current arrangements for university funding'. However the budget is basically the end of affordable higher education and Labor will oppose this inequitable change to higher education and fight to maintain the current HECS/HELP system widely acknowledged as affordable because it asks people to contribute to a reasonable amount to their education.
This budget is an unprecedented attack on the standard of living Queenslanders and people in my electorate. It is a complete betrayal. Before the election the coalition promised:
No cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to pensions, no change to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or the SBS.
There were even cards distributed so that people would be able to hold the future coalition government to account.
There is a strong odour of mendacity around those opposite. They have broken their promises and betrayed Queenslanders, and I am sure that Queenslanders will remember them when it comes to voting at the next election. I am sure that they will also see the ploy being set up when Campbell Newman says, 'I object to everything that the Prime Minister is doing.' The reality is that he has an election coming quick and fast—maybe in March. We have a by-election in Stafford in a few weeks and that will also be an opportunity for Queenslanders to let the Liberal-National Party coalition know that they do not agree with people saying one thing before an election and doing something else afterwards.
This legislation before the chamber, the Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Budget Repair Levy) Bill, is another broken promise, as I said at the start. We have seen quote after quote to this effect. I think that the Monthly has kindly put all these quotes together so that people can compare what was said before the election with what has occurred after the election especially a fortnight ago on budget night. So I am looking forward to people holding this government to account when it comes to what they said before the election and what they have said afterwards. This legislation before the chamber now is another broken promise and should be seen in that light.
I note with interest the member for Moreton's comments about education, and being a former teacher he will know that we have a massive challenge on our hands to restore Australia's education system to a better level. Whether it is the World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report, that says we are going backwards in the quality of primary education from the 12th to the 22nd for the years of 2007-08 to 2013-14, or the quality of the system, or the quality of maths and science or the availability of research and training services. The member for Moreton, as all members in this chamber do, realises that there are challenges to be faced with the education system.
But what the member for Moreton failed to acknowledge was the increase in education spending by this government over the next four years. As we know, for the next four years it will increase by 34 per cent—around $4.6 billion. These are year-on-year increases—more money to the states. This is something that is factual and cannot be denied by those perpetrating the myths on the other side of this House.
But let me go back a few steps to why we are in this situation that we are today. This is because Labor has left a mess; a mess of deficit and debt. The five largest deficits in Australian history—$123 billion of deficits—and a debt reaching out to $6 or $7 billion. Importantly, this equates to a billion dollars in interest repayments a year. If you think about what these interest repayments could do: they could purchase or build a new small hospital, build around six new schools, more social infrastructure and they could help community services to go out to the grassroots and communities making their lives better.
Why are we in this mess? Let us just have a look at our spending. A number of years ago we had $272 billion worth of spending. Last year it was $409 billion, and it is only increasing. The Commission of Audit made some very valid points about the increase in expenditure for major programs, and I just want to run through a few: Medicare benefits are currently $19 billion and going up by 7.1 per cent; hospitals are going from $14 billion to $38 billion over the next 10 years; pharmaceutical benefits are growing by 5.4 per cent; the age pension is going from $40 billion, rising by 6.2 per cent; aged care, again a similar increase, doubling over the next 10 years; schools funding is growing; and higher education is growing.
We are funding some of these commitments over the four years, as we all know. So this is the challenge we have—this is the challenge we all face—whether it be on our side or the other side, whether it be in the state, federal or local government: we have spending commitments that we must fulfil going forward.
I will just go back to our government spending increases and compare them to other countries. The IMF Country Report of February 2014 had Australia increasing in real terms between 2012 and 2018 by 16 per cent. That is equivalent to Korea and higher than the US. It is higher than Canada, Sweden and New Zealand. Germany was at five per cent and one of our neighbours and great trading partners, Japan, is at three per cent, and the Netherlands is at one per cent. This is significant: we have a real structural challenge at hand and we need a solution. We need to have a mature debate about this.
So let's have this debate. Let's have a sophisticated approach to this. Let's have a look at solutions to these problems that we face. The member for Moreton, in his maiden speech, referred to Paul Keating. Paul Keating and the former Labor governments took some of the structural challenges in our economy head-on. He made some bold reforms and made some courageous decisions. We long for when Labor will come to the party again on that front. We know we have an ageing population and demographic challenges. This is what we face ahead of us.
Let me now turn to the Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Budget Repair Levy) Bill 2014 and the debt repair levy. We all know that there has to be a contribution from everyone in our society to help manage the finances going forward so we have sustainable finances and sustainable health care, education, social services and pensions—the list goes on. We are asking for a contribution from higher income earners, and I note with interest an article in today's Australian about a family in Sydney. They made some valid points. They realise that sacrifices need to be made. They understand that some tough decisions have to be made so that this country is better for the next generation.
This is where we are coming from: making our country and our budget sustainable for future generations so we do not leave the debt to our children, and that we do not have to make the cuts that the South Australian Labor government are having to make on services. As people say in South Australia, 'The government is broke.' They do not have any money to spend and so everything is cutting back. Everyone is facing the cuts.
We just heard from the high commissioner in Britain about the measures in the UK and how that nation is getting back on track after some tough measures were taken. There is more private investment and the economy is growing again because of the tough decisions the Conservatives had to make in the UK. They have private sector investment, they have job creation and an economy growing at around three per cent.
I will just return to this family, 'It is okay to contribute more,' and they are in favour of the government making tough calls. Out there, the people are saying, 'We realise that Labor left a mess. We realise they left the budget in a poor state. They were an incompetent government, fighting amongst themselves for six years: changing leaders and not managing the execution of policy properly and the mistakes that came with that.' And now they are paying, and the Australian public is paying. We are all paying for Labor's poor government. The Australian public made that decision at the ballot box with overwhelming support for a change.
Let me return to the debt repair levy. It is on high-income earners, which makes Australia's marginal personal tax rate one of the highest in the world. And let's have a look at our welfare payments that provide a good safety net across the board—whether it is the child care rebate or other money for child care. The top 10 per cent of taxpayers contribute around 50 per cent of the tax to government revenues. We can all see that Australia is a generous society in the way we have our tax system set up. Everyone is making a contribution equivalent to their income capacity.
Without these measures in the budget we would not be able to do what we are doing to get the finances back on track. We would have debts spiralling out to around $3 billion a month, and that means further cuts and further harsh measures going forward. We would not be able to build the roads for the 21st century—and it is great to have the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development here tonight, because he has been a key member of our government in producing some great initiatives to build the roads that we need.
WestConnex.
Whether it is WestConnex, as my good colleague the member for Banks says, or the Torrens to Torrens project in South Australia, the Prime Minister, Minister Briggs and others have decided that Australia needs greater productivity and greater infrastructure, and we are going to deliver. I have been lobbying hard, since I was elected, to get that result for the Torrens to Torrens project in South Australia. Minister Briggs knows that I have been speaking to him on a regular basis. I have also been speaking to the Prime Minister and other senior ministers. They have come through with $1 billion for the South Road upgrade, which will deliver better travelling times so people have more time to spend with their families rather than on the roads.
The budget will also deliver a groundbreaking medical health research institute. As Australians, we look to where we can be competitive in a new economy. Given that our manufacturing sector is declining, we need some new industries, some new areas of competitive advantage. We have excelled in medical research over the years, with companies like CSL and Cochlear, and the list goes on. We have had great researchers like Howard Florey, who helped develop penicillin and saved millions of lives in the process. We have been very good at this, and we need to do more. The billions of dollars going into that will inspire more scientists and more great outcomes to help fight the diseases of an ageing population.
It was good to note the comments of Peter Beattie, the former Labor Premier of Queensland, in The Australian a week and a half ago. He described the medical research fund as nation building. It is truly nation building. We need to focus on these areas that we can excel in and inspire a future generation of Australian researchers and medical scientists. Hopefully we can commercialise some of that research as well, so we have spin-off companies, just as, in my city of Adelaide, we have had GroPep and BresaGen in the past and we have Bionomics, which is doing some great things in the world of medicine.
In higher education, we are offering 80,000 more places in TAFE courses, VET courses. We will help students with their loans going forward and we will provide scholarships for the disadvantaged, people from poorer backgrounds. There are some great measures in this budget. I am very proud of what we are doing to get our finances back on track so that we can live within our means, so that we can fund crucial social services, physical services and the physical infrastructure of the future and so that we can say to our children, 'We have given you a better life and helped Australia be a better country.'
This is a budget based on wrong choices, wrong priorities. There are nine million families in this country, and they make choices every day, in their budgets, on how to spend money on what they need and want—on school fees and school expenses for their kids, on whether to send their kids to soccer or basketball, on what shoes they need, on the cost of IT, on how to feed their families and whether to shop at IGA or Woolworths or Coles, on what car to purchase, on where to live, on how to pay the rant, on mortgages, on holidays, with those precious few dollars that they have left over. They know that those decisions are based on their values, their morals and their ethics. They make choices every day. This government has made choices in this budget. This government demonstrates its character by the priorities it has taken in this budget and the decisions it has made.
We will see, and we are seeing, the destruction of universal health care in this country. We see a massive amount of cuts in education and health—$80 billion, according to the budget papers. They said there would be no new taxes, and there are new taxes. They said there would be no cuts to the ABC and SBS, and there are. They said there would be no changes to pensions, and, of course, there are—the freezing of indexation, the savage cuts in the future. They claim in here during question time that pensions will go up on the basis of CPI—and yet they had the temerity to run arguments, all over the country, that the indexation based on CPI for DFRDB and DFRB recipients was not fair. They had the temerity to run that campaign, and yet they are saying to pensioners and veterans that, in the future, they will see the true value of their pension—and their capacity to make those choices I referred to—diminished. If that is not the case, why in the budget are they talking about these decisions they have made actually being savings? So, in terms of decisions that they have made, they have demonstrated their character and their choices.
Every time a person gets into their car and goes to the service station, they will pay an increased tax. When they take their sick child to the doctor, they will pay a GP tax payment. That is what they will do. And the debt levy the government are talking about here, in the legislation before this chamber, the Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Budget Repair Levy) Bill 2014, is yet another broken promise. All across Australia, the candidates for the opposition, successful or otherwise, took around their Real Solutions booklet, their blue book. They carried it round like a bible, a badge of honour—the charter to put Australia back on track. And guess what: on no page will you find an indication at all that they would increase taxes or put in a deficit levy for people earning over $180,000 a year. There were going to put it, of course, on people earning $80,000 a year or more, until the public hue and cry was so great that they had to back down on that.
I would have more respect for those opposite, in relation to the choices they made, if the money from the GP tax, the co-payment, were to go back into health directly, to pay for Medicare. But it will not. By sleight of hand, it is going into a medical research fund. Medical research is a great idea, but you should not do it this way because you are making people who are sick and vulnerable now make choices in relation to their priorities, in relation to their children. If those opposite do not believe that that is price sensitive, they do not believe in a market. Of course there is a market. Of course it is price sensitive. People will make choices as to whether they can afford to take their sick child or themselves to the doctor. The government cannot get their story straight across this area, whether it be the Prime Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer or indeed the Treasurer himself. They cannot get it right whenever they do interviews. These are choices they have made. We understand these are challenging times but there is no budget crisis or budget emergency. That is simply fiction.
I had a look at the budget papers and at the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook. Neither the Treasury nor any other body looking at this is affiliated with the Labor Party. I had a look at the state of the books before the election. One of the best things we have done in this country is the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook. PEFO outlines the state of the budget before the election. So no-one can come in here and say, 'We didn't know the books. We now have come in and seen them. They're terrible. We have to junk all our policies. We have to junk all our policies. We have to junk all our promises and do something very different.' In this country, those days should be gone.
The Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook indicated one thing—that the deficit for 2013-14 under the Labor government was $30.1 billion. I had a look at the budget papers for this year to see what it is like under the coalition, having won the election in September last year. It is $49.9 billion, nearly $20 billion more under the coalition than it was under Labor just before the election. I had a look also at PEFO in relation to 2016-17. Those opposite say they have made decisions to pay down debt and to reduce deficit. They say they have done that, but according to PEFO, in 2016-17 there will be a budget surplus under Labor of $4.2 billion; under the coalition, according to the budget papers—I am not making it up—it will be $10.6 billion in the red. So do not come into this place and tell us what you are doing is bringing down debt and deficit when the Treasury figures do not say that at all. They do not reveal the narrative those opposite, one after another, have been saying in this place. I do not think they have seen the budget papers. I certainly do not think they have seen PEFO, which does not show that what they are saying is true.
Those opposite have made choices to increase the debt and deficit in this country with the decisions they have made. They have also made choices of how the money will be spent this year and across the forward estimates. We would not spend $2.6 billion on a direct action policy. We also brought in a paid parental leave scheme in this country to cover 95 per cent of working women. Hundreds of thousands of them have accessed that scheme already, paid for by taxes and consolidated revenue. We would not bring in a paid parental leave scheme which gives millionaires up to $50,000 to have babies at a cost to the taxpayers, according to the budget, of $5.3 billion. They claim there is a budget crisis, yet they splurge money on these things.
We also would not have given superannuation concessions to millionaires of $360 million, but those opposite did in one of the first acts when they came to government. We also would not have forgone $7.4 billion in relation to revenue that comes in, according to the budget papers, from the MMRT and the carbon pricing mechanism. They asked us, 'What would you have done about it?' We would not have spent the money; we would have kept the revenue. We did not also give $9 billion, unwarranted and not asked for, to the Reserve Bank. We would not have changed the assumptions to dodgy-up the figures in MYEFO and we would not have cut funding commitments across the length and breadth of the electorates of those opposite—Regional Development Australia, building multicultural communities and a host of areas which they cut in MYEFO.
When it comes to decisions, do not come into this place and give us lectures. Those opposite know that the budget crisis did not occur. This week, I had the benefit of Senator Barry O'Farrell come to debate me at the Ipswich Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
Senator Barry O'Farrell?
Not Barry O'Farrell; Barry O'Sullivan, the same sort of bloke. So quickly we forget, do we not? Senator O'Sullivan admitted in front of 100 business leaders that in fact there is no budget crisis. An hour later he went to the Ipswich Trade Training Centre, opened it and said how wonderful it is, where $5 million of federal money will allow up to 5,000 young people access to skills and training, partnering with industry—HIA, Apprenticeships Queensland, skilled tech, the railways et cetera. He said, 'Isn't this great, fantastic! We should do more of this.' But they canned it in the budget—$950 million gone.
They will say one thing in their electorates and across the states and territories and they will do another thing in this place. The hypocrisy in relation to this from the coalition is rank. They know that the debt and deficit in this country was about one-seventh of the debt and deficit in advanced economies throughout the world. They know we had a AAA credit rating. They also know we had low tax to GDP. In fact, look at the budget papers. You will see across the forward estimates the footprint of a bigger government under the coalition than it would have been under Labor.
Like households, they have made choices in relation to this. We made choices on the NDIS, on Gonski, on Building an Education Revolution and on education funding. They said opposite that there was a unity ticket in education, but across the forward estimates they have cut $80 billion out of health and education. If you do not believe me, look at what the premiers have said in relation to this issue. Campbell Newman, the Premier of Queensland, has made it crystal clear that he does not like it. Denis Napthine, the Victorian Liberal Premier, has made it clear that he does not like it. And Mike Baird, the New South Wales Premier, has made it very clear that he does not like it either. So it is a unity ticket for those opposite and a unity ticket for the state premiers who represent the parties that they represent saying something very different.
On this side of the chamber, we believe that we should support households. That is why we have taken attitudes in relation to excise, pensions and a whole range of things that we are opposed to. But we say to those opposite, go back to your electorates and do your mobile offices, your street stalls and your listening posts et cetera and speak to your people, and remind them about what you said and what you campaigned on before the election. Remember the crystal clear statements of the then Leader of the Opposition. In August 2011, the then Leader of the Opposition and now Prime Minister outlined the exact requirement before a government raised a tax. He said:
A very clear message is going out from the Australian people to this government: there can be no tax collection without an election.
He was so convinced he repeated his rhyming rally cry a few weeks later in September:
I say to this Prime Minister: there should be no new tax collection without an election.
If Australians were not convinced by this promise of no new taxes under a coalition government, he offered this sweetener in March 2012:
What you'll get under us are tax cuts without new taxes.
It does not get much plainer than that. The then Leader of the Opposition kicked off his campaign on 6 August 2013 and said:
Taxes will always be lower under a Coalition government.
And on 9 August 2013, he said:
The only party which is going to increase taxes after the election is the Labor Party.
That has not been proven to be true, has it? It is the case that households make decisions. Mums and dads, pensioners and self-funded retirees make decisions. They make choices about what they spend money on. They make those decisions every day.
One thing that I find really galling about this is that those coalition members opposite who are going to affect these 400,000 taxpayers with a $3.1 billion tax to their back pockets are the same people who opposed the flood levy that helped reconstruct my community and helped reconstruct Queensland. They came into this place and voted against it time and time again. They have the temerity to bring this legislation before the chamber and force people to pay increased taxes but do not have the integrity to actually vote for a flood levy to reconstruct Queensland.
I am very pleased to speak in support of the Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Budget Levy Repair) Bill 2014, arising as it does in the context of economic management where there is really no greater contrast than between the government and those opposite. One side of the House take a measured, mature and responsible approach to economic management and the sorry history of those opposite is well known, and I will come to that in some more detail in a moment. The budget repair levy is a temporary levy, which will be in place for three years from 1 July 2014. The levy applies to high-income earners of over $180,000—less than four per cent of taxpayers. It is a measure that needs to be taken because of the very serious economic situation which the government faces. As all Australians are required to contribute to that very difficult budget task, it is entirely appropriate that high-income earners do so as well.
The tragedy is that we are in this situation in the first place. This would not be necessary and in fact many of the measures in the budget would not be necessary but for the extraordinary financial mismanagement by those opposite. When Labor came to government after a long era of sensible, mature economic management, there was about $50 billion in the bank. You would think that the first instinct of an incoming government would be to protect that asset. Obviously that is what you would do in real-life, that is what you would do in business and that is what you would do in a household. And the last thing you would want to do is inherit a tremendous financial situation and blow-up the joint in a few short years. That is what occurred and it occurred because of a very loose approach in relation to spending.
Spending went up 50 per cent over six budgets. That is not a very long time—six years. Inflation was dramatically lower than 50 per cent in that period. So in real terms, it was a huge increase. As well, Labor left us with the horrendous debt situation of $200 billion and they also left us with a very bad trajectory. You might argue that if there had been a temporary move into debt and then a hurried and successful move to get that under control then perhaps one might have more respect for it. But in fact the exact opposite of that occurred. So having hurried into debt, Labor continued to put the foot down on the accelerator. We saw more and more spending and a complete lack of regard for taxpayers' money. So much so that, based on the trajectory provided by the previous government, OECD's forecast for Australia was for the fastest growth in the OECD between 2012 and 2018. The notion in the previous government that somehow everything was related to the financial crisis of six or seven years ago really does not hold up, for a number of reasons. One reason which demonstrates that very clearly is the fact that the trajectory of government spending is the fastest in the OECD at present. It is very difficult to hold responsible for a period from 2012 to 2018 some events that happened on Wall Street in 2008.
One asks the question: how can this occur? I think there is a simple reason for this: those opposite do not fundamentally understand the basics of economic management. I think they see some charts and numbers on a page, and they look up at the PowerPoint presentation and see lines and things like that, but they do not understand that this is real money and that the government does not generate money. The government takes money. People generate money. Companies generate money. Government takes some of that money. Given that government takes some money, it is incumbent upon it to exercise discretion and care in the way it spends that money. Of course that is not what happened.
We can think back to the days of the NBN announcement and that famous plane trip that Senator Conroy and former Prime Minister the former member for Griffith took. There it all was: a couple of pamphlets, a few envelopes, maybe a couple of HB pencils. And a massive project was born. We had the grave announcements with the faux FDR significance of the private sector being in retreat and the government stepping forward. But of course we had one of the worst, if not the worst, example of public sector management in our nation's history—a project that was costed in our most recent independent assessment as having a peak funding requirement of $73 billion. There are about nine million households in Australia, so $73 billion is about $8,000 per household in Australia to build the NBN under Labor. Remarkably, once each household effectively contributed that $8,000, they still had to pay for it. They still had to pay $70 or $80 a month—whatever the cost was. So it was $8,000 to build it and then a requirement to pay for it on an ongoing basis. There was a lack of operational management and a lack of hand on the steering wheel which was really quite frightening to behold.
We saw the same thing in border protection. The arguments put to that matter were not good for humanitarian purposes at all, as we know, and were certainly not good for economic outcomes for the nation, with a massive budget blow-out of $11 billion. We are now in this position where we have to fix up the mess. That is what we are saying and that is exactly right. It is $1 billion of interest every month. Another way of thinking about that is $30 million or $35 million every day. It is a sobering thought. And what do you get for your $30 million? What you get from your $30 million is to keep your outstanding principal of $190 billion at the same amount. That is what you get. You basically get to pay off your interest and keep your outstanding principal at about $190 billion. In order just do that you have to borrow $30 million every day. This is extraordinary.
Then again, these are the people that have not produced a surplus budget since 1989. You do not need me to tell you that 1989 was a very long time ago. It was 25 years ago. It was a different nation then. Labor in 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 had deficits as far as the eye could see. If it just happened once or twice you might understand it, but over such a long period of time—way back to 1989—that is just a way of life. Cast your mind back to 1989. It was a very long time ago. Kylie and Jason were still doing duets in 1989. There were some fantastic movies in that year: Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, Weekend at Bernie's. Ivan Lendl won the Australian Open. As you know, he is much more of a coach these days than an active participant. Cher released If I Could Turn Back Time, which no doubt is something that Labor thinks of when it considers its legacy of economic management in recent decades. So the notion that Labor could provide any sort of guidance—perhaps an academic thesis from the member for Fraser or a pocketbook guide from the member for McMahon—and have its arguments treated with any respect at all is quite laughable given the extraordinarily poor result we have seen since the late eighties.
We are taking a very responsible approach in this budget. We are reining in spending where it is appropriate to do so. We are doing it in a responsible way so we can fund investment for the future and so we can get our debt burden under control. But we do need to bust some myths perpetrated by those on the other side about the measures in the budget. Over the next four years, within that envelope of responsible economic management, we are able to increase hospital spending by 40 per cent. You hear from those opposite about billions of dollars of cuts. But we are actually increasing hospital spending by 40 per cent in four years. Mr Deputy Speaker, you know the small business community better than anyone. If you were in small business—or in big business, indeed—and you were told that your revenue was going to increase in the next four years by 40 per cent, you would think that was a very substantial increase, which of course it is. Schools spending is up 34 per cent in the next four years, at $1.2 billion more than Labor was going to put in. Pensions are going up every single year, despite this scaremongering. I was very pleased to be able to ask the Minister for Social Services about that important topic this afternoon.
With respect to universities, there are important deregulation measures, which will allow universities to be their best. Importantly, though, we are actually expanding the number of students who can get access to the HELP debt system by about 80,000. Nobody is required to pay up-front now and will not be required to pay up-front in the future. Nobody has to pay back any of their HELP debt until they are earning at least $50,000 and, even then, they only have to pay back about two per cent of it in that year. So this sort of screaming and so on that we have seen about university costs is particularly inappropriate. It is entirely right that students contribute to the cost of their education and the cost of around 50 per cent is entirely reasonable.
Of course, it is great to have the assistant minister for infrastructure in the chamber with us as we talk about the importance of infrastructure. Of course, infrastructure is the economic gift that keeps on giving. Once you put that road into place, once you put that infrastructure in place, it is there for years and years, decades and decades. Those productivity savings accumulate and they are there on day 1 and they are also there 30 years down the track.
In my electorate and indeed in yours, Mr Deputy Speaker Kelly, the development of WestConnex, championed of course by the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, is a great initiative. We are expecting savings in travel time to the city of about 25 minutes through the duplication of M5 East, which is a terrific result.
Another thing on economic management is the carbon tax. We have talked about this topic before. We know that the abolition of the carbon tax will mean a $550-a-year saving for the average family. Yet those opposite, who purport to be the champion of Australian families, are cruelly standing in the way of that $550 relief per year. It is a very significant saving. Those opposite persist with their environmentally ineffective and economically irresponsible carbon tax.
What does all this mean? It means that we get the budget back on track. It means that we go from $50 billion of debt in FY 2014 to about $3 billion in FY 2018. We will save $300 billion in debt and all of the interest that would have otherwise been paid on that amount. We will get the nation back on a sensible and economic foundation.
We are at our best as a nation when we confront difficult issues. We cannot just sleepwalk into the future and pretend that difficult issues do not exist. They do exist. Those opposite have created an economic crisis and the budget crisis needs to be addressed. We are addressing it. It is absolutely in the interests of the Australian people.
I am pleased to make a contribution to this debate on the Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Budget Repair Levy) Bill 2014 and supporting bills. This, again, is a broken promise, a broken commitment by the Abbott government to the people of Australia. 'We will be a no surprises, no excuses government,' Mr Abbott said. 'We're about reducing taxes, not increasing taxes,' Mr Abbott said. 'No cuts to health, no cuts to education, no changes to pensions and the GST,' Mr Abbott promised prior to the election. These were definitive election pledges. The Australian people took the Prime Minister and the then opposition members on trust in that election. The Australian people believed that such definitive pre-election pledges could not be broken by an Abbott government. Well, fast forward a few months and look at what we have seen from the new government. As the opposition leader has said, 'The Prime Minister promised time and time again not to introduce this tax increase.' The Prime Minister said, and I quote:
The Coalition will keep the current income tax thresholds …
He said:
What you'll get under us are tax cuts without new taxes.
He also said:
… there should be no new tax collection without an election.
Those were the commitments made by the Prime Minister prior to the election. What we got was the complete opposite—broken commitments to the Australian people in the form of the very increases in taxes that were ruled out prior to the election. Not only tax increases but changes to Medicare, pensions and family tax benefits that will hurt communities across Australia. These income tax increases represent a clear broken promise by the Prime Minister. Before the election Tony Abbott repeatedly promised that he would not raise taxes, but he has. That is a breach of trust and faith of the Australian public. This government has fundamentally breached the trust of the Australian people and not just once but on a range of issues: health, education, pensions and taxes.
They can say whatever they want to try to dodge this responsibility, to try and excuse themselves, to justify the change in policy and to justify some of the measures that have been introduced in this budget. But, at the end of the day, the Prime Minister made a commitment to the Australian people to trust him and his government not to increase taxes, not to touch Medicare, to change pensions or family tax benefits.
Quite simply, that commitment was hollow. This bill proves that. This is an income tax increase and is more damning evidence of the deceit that was perpetrated upon the Australian people at the election. This is the first of many new taxes that this government will be seeking to pass, following its cruel and deceptive budget. The result of these broken promises has been outrage across the community, including from conservative premiers, in particular in my state of New South Wales where Premier Mike Baird has described this budget as 'a kick in the guts for the people of New South Wales'.
Women's groups, multicultural communities, veterans' groups and community organisations have all condemned this budget. There is even evidence beginning to appear already in the Australian economy that this budget will have a damaging effect on our economy in terms of aggregate demand. The Australian economy is in a precarious position at the moment. The economy is volatile, particularly to changes in consumer demand, and consumer confidence has taken a considerable hit in the wake of this government's budget announcements. That has been confirmed in a number of consumer confidence surveys. Quite clearly this is a budget that not only hurts families, pensioners, low-income earners and students but it is also hurting businesses.
Labor has serious concerns about the way many of the provisions in the budget have been put together. They appear to have been rushed, they appear to have been put together in haste and many of them appear to have problems. One particular element of the budget where there is a discrepancy is with fringe benefits tax loopholes and income tax increases. The treatment of fringe benefits tax appears to create a loophole that will allow wealthier taxpayers to avoid this tax increase while surreptitiously including taxpayers who earn less than $180,000 a year. This measure should not fool Australians into thinking that the burden is being shared equally across the community. Quite clearly, those on lower to middle incomes will bear a greater burden.
Last week I received a phone call from a very distressed pensioner in my community, someone who suffers from a chronic form of leukaemia and requires two trips to her GP per month, one consultation with a haematologist, one regular blood test per month and a couple of scripts for medication and one dose of chemotherapy. That pensioner is going to be worse off under this government's budget. She is going to have to worry about getting proper treatment for her illness but is now also going to have to worry about how she is going to fund that treatment. Pensioners, families, students and ordinary Australian people in general do not deserve to be treated in that manner, particularly given the commitments that the Prime Minister made to such people prior to the election. They are the people who bear a greater load when it comes to the heavy lifting of this budget. NATSEM modelling shows that among families with children those in the most affluent fifth will see a 0.3 per cent reduction in disposable incomes while those in the poorest fifth see a five per cent reduction in disposable incomes. Those NATSEM figures quite clearly highlight the discrepancy that is evident in this budget about where the burden of the budget will lie. That will have an overall effect on consumer confidence and aggregate demand, because there is a much greater proportion of the population within those lower quintiles, or fifths, when it comes to income and disposable income in this country.
Despite the fact that inequality has been rising for a generation, this budget redistributes that income from poor to rich. That is why this budget is a breach of trust with the Australian public. Before the election Tony Abbott told the Australian people that he would lead a government that was not about surprises, that had no excuses in government, that would reduce taxes, not increase taxes, that would spare health, education and pensions from the Abbott government axe. Here we have a clear breach of that commitment: a broken promise from the Abbott government that will hurt individuals in our community and will make the most vulnerable in our society pay more. That in my view is unconscionable.
Years ago one of my previous occupations was as a debt collector on credit cards. One of my roles was to track down people that had gone well and truly over their limit on credit cards. To go back to the 1980s, what people used to do was ring up and get authorisation, but if your transaction was below the floor limit you would not get authorisation. So we had a guy that I was chasing suddenly appear on the reports having spent an awful lot of money. That was a $1,000 limit on his credit card or his bank card and he is up to $3,500. I looked his account up and everything like that and he had had it for ages, he had ever paid any interest, and I could not understand what was going wrong. So I brought up the transaction list and I found that the last transaction he had was a motel in Emerald. His address was in Charters Towers. I rang the motel in Emerald and said, 'Do you know of this fellow that might have gone through and had recently stayed?' They said, 'Yes, I remember him. He is from up north.' I said, 'Do you know what he was doing?' 'Yes, he was buying fodder for his farm outside Charters Towers near Richmond.' I thought to myself, there is not a farm outside Charters Towers, they are stations, they are big properties.
I am the son of a stock and station agent and I thought to myself, that is a very big ask. So I rang my dad, who was then working at the art gallery in Brisbane. He used to call himself an education officer and used to educate the people to keep their fingers off the paintings. I rang him and said, 'Listen, we've got a bloke going through and it looks like he is buying feed for a cattle station up at Richmond. Would you do that?' He said, 'You could, but it is a little bit like using drugs. At the start it is okay but the real damage comes at the end when you try and control it.'
That is very much what is happening with this budget. What we have seen is that in 2007-08 we had the GFC hit and Labor started spending. What happened was that they could not stop, but sooner or later you have to stop. When it comes to drugs, you either end up dying or you stop. When it comes to budget repair, you lose office. You walk across the room, sit over the other side and you point the finger of blame at people. The problem with blame is that it does not fix anything. Blame is easy—we can all stand around and look at the mess but it is only the people on this side who seem capable of picking it up.
This bill we are talking about, the temporary budget levy bill, is part of our way of saying that we have all got to participate in cleaning up the mess, that we have all got to do our bit. I have had a lot of interaction with people in my electorate. Lots of people have come to me and said, 'I know they had to go, I know we are in trouble, I know we have got debt issues, I know we had to start making payments and I know you had to make changes—but why am I affected?' And lots of people have come to me and make comments about us parliamentarians. As an aside, Deputy Speaker, I wish we still had the defined benefit scheme because you and I both know we do not get the pension but you and I also know that every day someone comes and tells us, 'It's all right for you blokes, you're getting the pension.' I do not whinge about the pay or about our superannuation or benefits—it is what it is. When I was a candidate in 2007 I never made a point of finding out what a parliamentarian would get paid. I figured if I won I would find out sooner or later; if I didn't it was none of my damn business.
It seems everyone considers that the whole thing could be fixed if parliamentarians could be made to work for nothing. I had a bloke come up to me and say, 'It's all right for you blokes, you don't pay any tax.' I said, 'Well, you know, we actually do.' He said he is on $40,000. I said a person on $180,000 earns 4½ times what a person on $40,000 earns—that is obvious. But a person on $180,000 pays nine times the tax of a person on $40,000. The top 10 per cent of wage earners in this country pay over 45 per cent of the nation's income tax. Fifty per cent of families in Australia pay no net tax. There are reasons for that and I would like to develop that argument as I go through because in 1996 we were faced with the same issue.
In 1996 we were faced with the issue of a $10 billion black hole and $96 billion worth of debt. But we had a Treasurer who was prepared to stand up and have a go and we had a Prime Minister who was standing right beside him saying, 'We're going to make tough decisions'—and they did, and we reaped the benefits. The budget was pretty much under control—we had not paid off all the debt—when the Asian financial crisis hit. The Asian financial crisis was very, very local. Working in the finance industry at that time I was very aware of what was going on, and it was very tight out there. What the then Howard government did was that they supported, they spent the money, but then they corrected, and so this nation went into deficit for one year only.
Fast forward to the GFC. We went into deficit, into deficit, into deficit, into deficit, into deficit, into deficit—six in a row—and were unable to stop spending, to the point where, if left undetected, we are looking at gross debt of $667 billion. We are borrowing a billion dollars a month now just to service the debt. To bring this home to everyone in Australia—the member for Longman talked about this earlier in the matter of public interest debate—$667 billion spread across this country is $24,000 per man, woman and child. I have a 12-year-old son at home. When he leaves school I want him to owe a damn sight less than $24,000. I want him to have as good chance as he possibly can. I do not want him to be paying for our mistakes. Again, this gets back to blame: you can blame anyone you want, but what we have got to do here is fix it.
I refer often to the speech made by the then brand-new Treasurer, Joe Hockey, in September last year. He said we had to do three things when we were facing the debt and deficit of the previous government. We had to tell the people what the problem was—and I think we did, although we do have lots of people coming to us saying they never expected there was a debt and deficit problem. So we explained to people what the problem was. Then we had to tell people what we were going to do about, and I think this budget goes a long way to saying that we are going to do something about it because there are significant issues here. The third and most important thing, the Treasurer Joe Hockey said, was that we had to take the people with us when we go. Unlike the Labor Party, where a budget lasted only 48 hours before they made changes, we have a plan and we will take the people of Australia with us because we are worried.
I want to address the issue Labor trot out that our debt to GDP is not great, that it is 11 per cent and one of the lowest in the world. They started with zero and in six years they went from zero to 11 or 12 per cent—from zero net debt to over $500 billion. At the moment, of the OECD countries we have the fastest-growing government spending, from 2012 to 2018, at 16 per cent in real terms. Denmark has minus one. France, that great socialist republic, has only three per cent. Germany has five per cent. Iceland, which was basically bankrupt during the GFC, has only six per cent. Everyone is doing better than us at 16 per cent.
Another issue I want to address is the budget deficits. We have lots of stuff that we could throw around here. We went into budget deficit in 2000-01 or 2001-02. We followed that with surpluses of $7 billion, $8 billion, $14 billion, $16 billion, $17 billion and $20 billion. Following that we have had deficits of $27 billion, $54 billion, $47 billion, $43 billion, $19 billion and $47 billion. That is $191.5 billion worth of deficits. Whether people agree with our summation on the projections is completely up to them. What no-one can deny is that when the Labor government came to power they had zero net debt and money in the bank. What no-one can deny is that they then went on to rack up $191.5 billion worth of budget deficits. And what no-one can deny is that the major spending on education, health, all the stuff that went out there into the never-never, way past anything, where the government was just going to take out a system 30 each week and get the money back. There was going to Lotto-winning inspired recovery.
I do not want to go on all night about this, but everyone has to put in and everyone has to try their best to be part of this. We are going to cop a two per cent tax levy when this goes through. I have not had too many people complain about that, actually. What I have had people say to me is that we said 'no new taxes', and I will address that. We went to the last election promising a levy for our paid parental leave scheme which will address the superannuation needs of women in the workforce, who retire on 35 per cent less superannuation on average than their male counterparts. We went to the election saying that we would support the raised Medicare levy for the NDIS. Tony Abbott stood right there at that dispatch box, where the member for Isaacs is sitting now, and stared down the barrel and said we will not be going ahead with any of the things from the mining tax because we are scrapping the mining tax. We said we would scrap the carbon tax but pensioners would keep the compensation from the carbon tax. We would do that. He stared down the barrel and said that things like the schoolkids bonus and foreign aid are borrowed money—we are borrowing money from overseas to give to overseas people—we cannot progress. He said we would make the hard decisions. We said we would do this hard stuff. So all this stuff about no new taxes just does not hold water.
What I want to say is that this temporary deficit levy is two things. A: it is temporary. B: What it does is show that we are all in this. This is not just one person. We are not just poking the finger at anybody and saying whose fault it is. We are saying that we have to fix it.
I will close with the words of the Prime Minister after the budget had been handed down. He said:
The sustained savings achieved mean that our budget position should strengthen over time to surpluses of well over one per cent of GDP by 2024-25 …
Importantly this path takes into account future tax relief, so we are talking about it being part-time. He goes on to say that 'this improvement in the budget position would see debt decline to $389 billion by 2023-24' compared to the $667 billion which was projected under the status quo left by Labor. As I said before, if we get to $667 billion, that is 24,000 per man, woman and child. If we get it down to that in 2024-25, that means $10,000 for every man, woman and child in Australia. We have a big job in front of us. It is going to take some pretty good people to do it. I believe in our economic team—and I see the birthday boy is sitting at the dispatch box there; I wish the member for Moncrieff a happy birthday. He is a very good man; more than that, he is part of a very solid economic team that is committed to bringing this country back to what it is. We are a great country and we need to get in and we need to fix it up.
The Treasurer said in his speech, 'We are lifters not leaners.' That is a very real statement. We are lifters not leaners. We are workers not passengers. We are asking everyone to make sure that we are coming out of this okay. I thank the House.
This evening I rise to speak about three things in relation to the Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Budget Repair Levy) Bill 2014 and related bills. To begin with, I will outline the budget impact tour I am undertaking across my electorate of Indi to ensure that I understand and represent my constituents in this budget process. I will talk about what I have heard from my constituents in regards to the temporary budget repair levy and other budget initiatives. Secondly, I will point out the inequity in the fact that high-income earners stop contributing to the budget deficit in 2017 just as average Australians begin to experience the hardest cuts. Finally, I offer an amendment to this bill to ensure that the debt and deficit burden is shared more equally across all Australians. I would also like to acknowledge my pecuniary interest in this legislation.
Since the budget was delivered on 13 May, I, my staff and a large team of volunteers have been travelling the length and breadth of Indi, undertaking the Indi budget impact tour. At several listening posts across the electorate, we have been talking to hundreds of constituents in order to understand their opinions, concerns and ideas surrounding the 2014-15 budget. Hundreds more constituents have contacted the office via the website, phone or social media. All this information is currently being distilled into a report which I will soon present in this place and use in representing Indi.
I must say the opinions have been broad-ranging. One aspect of the budget that has drawn support is the temporary budget repair levy. This levy will increase taxes by two per cent for those earning over $180,000—including me. Only 2.3 per cent of Australians earn over $180,000. The government's debt levy will raise $3.1 billion over the forward estimates. This levy will apply for three years, starting on 1 July this year and finishing on 30 June 2017.
However, many of my constituents are concerned other aspects of the budget. I draw the attention of the House to the following points. The significant cost-cutting policies in this budget begin in 2017, such as: reducing the income threshold for the repayment of HELP loans, the reduction in the indexing of pensions to CPI rather than wages, and the reduction in funding to hospitals and schools. These policies primarily rely on average Australians contributing to reducing the budget deficit by paying more and receiving less from government.
Most importantly, from 2017, the most significant impact of the budget will be experienced by average Australians whilst those earning over $180,000—which includes me—will no longer be contributing to reducing the budget deficit. Many people in my electorate point out to me that most people do not earn that amount of money; $180,000 a year is a lot of money. To put it into the Australian context, the Bureau of Statistics does not record income brackets higher than $104,000 per year. Only five per cent of Australians earn over $104,000 per year, and in Indi it is only two per cent of people. Therefore, it is safe to say that less people in Indi earn $180,000 than the national average. My constituents will be doing more to repair the budget deficit from 2017 onwards than high-income earners, including me, across Australia.
Independent research supports my view that the debt and deficit levy is not being fairly spread across income brackets. Someone earning $190,000 per year will pay an extra $200 per year, or a total of $600 for the deficit levy over the next three years. Research from the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling demonstrates that low-income families with children are the main group to be impacted by this budget. High-income families and singles and couples without children are shown to be largely unaffected by this budget in either the short or the long term. The report goes on to say that couples with children will be worse off by around 6.6 per cent while single parents will be worse off by around 10.8 per cent on average. The report also says that high-income families are marginally better off thanks to the planned removal of the carbon price.
The government believe that there is a serious debt and deficit problem and they believe that this debt burden must be shared. Extending the temporary deficit levy for a further four years will raise at least another $3.1 billion to go towards tackling the debt and deficit challenges faced by the government and this country. To ensure that the debt and deficit burden is spread more fairly amongst all Australians, I move to the Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Budget Repair Levy) Bill 2014:
That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House calls on the Government to extend the period of the budget repair levy until 2020-21 to ensure the debt and deficit burden is spread more fairly amongst all Australians.”
In closing, I address my colleagues on the other side of the House. If the government truly believe, as many of my constituents do, that government debt and deficit in Australia is so serious, I request they support this amendment to spread the debt and deficit burden more fairly amongst all Australians.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment. I applaud my colleague the member for Indi and reserve my right to speak.
I would like to make a little announcement to the House. My good friend the member for Herbert in his excellent speech tonight mentioned that it was the member for Moncrieff's birthday. I would like to correct the record and say that it is the member for Moncrieff's birthday on Thursday. I know all of us here tonight in the chamber wish the member for Moncrieff a very happy birthday for Thursday.
Honourable members: Happy birthday to you, happy birthday to you—
We have even got a bit of singing going on. This might be the first time we have had Happy Birthday sung in the House. I am sure there will be many more happy returns for the member for Moncrieff as well.
The temporary budget repair levy bills are before us. This is a very important matter. It goes to our children and our grandchildren. It goes to whether our generation should burden future generations with the bill for propping up our own current standard of living. There are reasonable debt levels, serviceable debt levels, which means that a government can borrow but can also plan for the future. There comes a time when the government has to look the Australian people in the eye and say: 'The situation has got out of control. The opportunity cost of that debt is starting to hurt future generations and we must act.' That is the situation that confronts us as a government at the moment. When the interest bill on your debt reaches $1 billion a month and is going to continue to grow unless something is done then it is time for a government to act.
The one thing this government said more than anything else during the last three years it is that we would act to stop the reckless spending and to get the budget back under control. That is the task we set upon doing when the Treasurer gave his excellent, considered and honest budget speech on Tuesday before last. It was honest. We could have taken the easy option and tried to skim over the problems facing this nation, but we decided to open the books transparently and show the Australian people the current state of affairs. It did mean being honest about what had been promised in the future years beyond the forward estimates by the previous government completely unfunded. It did require us to say that we are going to have to make some tough decisions, that we are going to have to introduce some important reforms that will enable the taxpayer to get value for money in various sectors and that we are going to put in place some important price signals to ensure that the growth in expenditure will be sensible, contained and in a way that we know our revenue base can support. And that is what the budget set about doing.
I take a moment to commend the leadership that we saw from the Treasurer and from the Prime Minister, for their courage to say to the Australian people that the time has come. We have said this before on this side: none of us here wants to stand up and say that we have had to put in place tough measures. We would much prefer to have continued on from 2007 where we had a budget in surplus, where we had the Future Fund set up, where we had a higher ed fund set up and where we had a telecommunications fund set up. We would have loved to continue down that path of responsibly managing the economy, building funds up and ensuring that surpluses continued. But that is not what we faced when we won the last election; we faced something completely different. The member for Herbert demonstrated this when he referred to the charts that we faced. One of those was the government debt, gross debt, that we were facing: with no policy change by 2023-24, we were looking at $667 billion. That is not a monopoly money; that is money that is a debt, that has to be repaid and that has to be serviced. And it has to be repaid by the taxpayer. That is what we faced.
If you look at the rest of the major economies that we are normally compared with, you see our spending had got out of control and the situation with regard to the changing net debt between 2012 and 2018 as a percentage of GDP had also got out of control. We were going to hit eight per cent. I do not know, but I think you would have to go back to just after the Second World War to find a government facing a similar situation. We had to act. In terms of the government spending increase between 2012 and 2018, we were looking at 16 per cent, and that is in real terms. The comparisons are: Denmark, minus one per cent; Netherlands, one per cent; Belgium, two per cent; Japan, three per cent; France, three per cent; Czech Republic, four per cent; Germany, five per cent; Austria, five per cent; Iceland, six per cent; New Zealand, seven per cent; Finland, eight per cent. I just repeat the figure for Australia: 16 per cent.
And once again, as the member for Herbert outlined, you also have to look at our record. The proud record of what coalition governments do when they get into government—that is, they sort the nation's finances out. As the previous Howard-Costello government demonstrated, year upon year upon year, you get the nation's finances sorted out and you slowly build towards surplus after surplus, growing, and then you get funds in reserve for the rainy day. That is what we have set out to do in this current budget: making sure we can get the budget back into surplus. Then we can put the funds aside for the rainy day.
Now, how have we done it? We have done it maturely, we have done it sensibly and we have done it with an eye to producing very good policy for the nation's future. Let us have a look at some of the welfare reforms. What we are talking about with the 'earn and learn' philosophy when it comes to welfare reform is that we are now saying to people that you have a responsibility to contribute. And it might only be that you have to contribute in a small way, but contribute you will if you can. This is an underlying philosophy of this budget, and it is a good philosophy, because as a nation we all have to lift. We all have to lift to repair the budget; we all have to lift to repair the nation's finances. Through our welfare reforms, that is the message that we have said. But we have sent that message with a responsible safety net to ensure that those who need looking after, those who need the protection, will get it. But for everyone else, what we are saying is this: it is your time to help as well. I am sure that will be a message that resonates within the community and that people will embrace, especially our young. My view is they do want to be part of the solution, they want to part of the nation's future, they want to be contributors, and we have given them the mechanisms to ensure that they do that through either earning or learning.
When it comes to the higher education reforms, these are the most significant reforms that we have seen in the higher education space since the Whitlam government—without question. What we have said to universities is that once again it is up to them to decide how they are going to run their universities. We said, 'You can put a price mechanism in your degrees, you can put a price mechanism in what you are offering to students and you can compete with each other and you can compete in a way which is free and open for you to make the decisions that you require'. I think that is incredibly important, especially with what it potentially holds out for regional and rural universities, those campuses based in regional and rural areas. They can say to students, 'We can offer you a competitive price on a world-class course and also, when it comes to the cost of living, we can offer you a advantages there as well'. We can start attracting students into our rural and regional areas. These are substantial reforms.
And it is the same with what we have done in the health space. It is worth reminding people that the reforms we have undertaken in the health space are also important. There are also safety nets, but the reforms are also done in the context that the health budget continues to grow for the next four years. We have put a small but important price signal in there for the health consumer. This is, once again, important reform. It is not the first time that it has been tried when it comes to Medicare. Obviously, the Hawke government did the same thing. But it is also not the first time that it has been tried within the health system, because it has been tried when it comes to our pharmaceuticals. This is very important reform. By putting that price signal into Medicare we are saying to people. 'There is a tiny cost to providing Medicare and if we are to make sure that Medicare is sustainable you need to understand that it does come at a cost to the taxpayer.'
So these are important reforms which have driven what we have done in this budget. Overall the focus has been on ensuring that we get the budget back to surplus, and back to surplus we will get it. It will then be within our ability to start repaying Labor's debt. We have already reduced the forecast debt—we have almost halved it—but then we will actually be able to get on to the job of starting to repay it. But, importantly, we have also introduced significant reforms which will stand the country in excellent stead in the future. It will mean that we will have a world-class education system. It will mean that we will have an affordable and sustainable health system. It means that we will have a welfare system which looks after those most in need but encourages those who can to use welfare as a temporary thing and make sure that they get on with their lives and contribute. That is extremely important, because it is saying to people, 'You have the ability to be as much a part of our society as everyone else.' That philosophy that underpinned the budget will ensure that we can grow the economic pie of this nation and by growing the economic pie we will grow jobs, we will grow communities, and we will grow this country into being the world leader that it should be.
The amendments to what we are trying to do here are nothing but a distraction. What this government is intent on doing is fixing the nation's finances—starting the budget repair job. Start it we have and finish it we will, because this is too important for us not to do so. Our children depend on the decisions we are taking currently; our grandchildren depend on the decisions that we are taking currently. We must do this for future generations. Otherwise, we are leaving them with the tab for our standard of living today, and that is not fair.
On 13 May this Liberal-National Party government delivered a deeply unpopular budget. Pensioners, young people, students, parents across my electorate have made this very, very clear to me since 13 May—in fact, people across Australia, because I have been to some other places other than my electorate in the couple of weeks since the budget. People in Bendigo, people in Castlemaine, people in Mornington in Victoria, people in Sydney and people here in Canberra have all made it very clear to me just how deeply unpopular this budget is. It is probably for that reason that an unnamed Liberal was quoted in the media today as describing this budget as 'a stinking carcass around the neck of this government'. And well might that description have been given to this budget, because for a whole range of reasons this budget has deeply disappointed Australians. It has deeply disappointed Australians because of the number of broken promises that we find in this budget. It has deeply disappointed Australians because of the unfair and uneven pain that this budget inflicts on so many Australians. And it is deeply unpopular and bitterly disappointing to Australians because of the wrong choices that this budget is full of.
One could start with, for a broken promise, the new income tax that is imposed by this bill. Leave entirely to one side the Orwellian title, like so many of the pieces of legislation that come before this House, where this bill, which imposes a new income tax and some other taxes as well, is, according to this government, the 'Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Budget Repair Levy) Bill'. This government wants to say—and I will come back to this later—that the budget is in dire need of repair. But before I get to that, and before I get to the falsity of the government's claim about there being a so-called debt and deficit disaster, and, to state it clearly, there is not, I just want to deal with the multiple—not one promise, not two promises—but multiple promises made by the Prime Minister from opposition as part of the multiple promises he made, many, many of which have now been broken, in order to win government. This was the Prime Minister before the election:
A coalition government will keep the current income tax thresholds.
Or this one:
What you will get under us are tax cuts without new taxes.
Or this one:
There should be no new tax collection without an election.
It is not as if these were not recent statements by the Prime Minister. This is the Prime Minister in February 2013, a little over a year ago:
Personal income tax will be lower under a coalition government in its first term than it is now…
He said, in that repetitive way the Prime Minister is fond of:
We're about reducing taxes, not increasing taxes. We're about getting rid of taxes, not imposing new taxes.
When asked by a reporter, 'Is that a promise?' Mr Abbott replied:
This is my whole reason for being in politics—in the parliament.
How have the Australian people been repaid for accepting those and so many other promises from the Prime Minister? That was his set of promises about not increasing taxes or saying that he is about reducing taxes. The Australian people have been repaid with an increase in the income tax rate, which is what this bill would impose.
It adds to so many broken promises from this Prime Minister. There were to be no cuts to health. There were to be no cuts to education. So much for that promise! As the Premier of New South Wales has described it, this budget is a 'kick in the guts' because there is an $80 billion reduction. What is set out in the budget papers—although the Prime Minister, ridiculously, has been trying to deny it in this place—is an $80 billion reduction to health and education payments by the Commonwealth to the states. That is why the Premier of New South Wales thinks it is right to describe this budget as a kick in the guts.
No cuts to the ABC. That was another promise we had from the Prime Minister of Australia. That promise was made on the eve of the election. And what have we seen in the budget delivered on 13 May? We have seen cuts to the ABC—a so-called efficiency dividend cut and a much larger cut, which is the complete scrapping of the Australia Network. The scrapping of the Australia Network is a cut that does not appear in the communications portfolio budget; it is a cut which appears in the foreign affairs portfolio budget. But, make no mistake, it is a cut to the ABC, because the Australia Network—Australia's international television broadcasting arm that has been doing so much for us in terms of self diplomacy—has been fully integrated in the ABC's operations for some time. And the cutting of the $200 million over the next eight years is a cut to the ABC.
This is the government that, from opposition, liked to say it was on a unity ticket on Gonski. This is the government that promised, from opposition, that there would be no change to pensions and benefits. We have seen what that has meant in this budget. We have seen changes to the indexation of pensions and changes to a host of benefits. It is not a little change to pensions. We have had more nonsense from the Prime Minister about that over the last few days. He wants to be able to point to some projected rises in pension levels but entirely ignore the real change that is being brought in in this budget, which is a change to the indexation method to pensions, which would mean, in the most direct terms, that pensioners will receive less over time.
Just to demonstrate it, if you apply the different indexation method that this government wishes to bring in to the age pension, over the last four years it would mean that a pensioner now—had that new indexation method been in place for four years—would be receiving some $1,500 less each year. But there were to be no tax increases, no new taxes. That was what was promised by the Prime Minister in seeking to gain the trust of the Australian people and convince them that he ought to be elected at the last election. We have seen the way in which this Prime Minister, who pretended so much that he was someone to be trust and who talked so often of the need for trust in politics, has repaid the Australian people for accepting his promises. He has repaid them with broken promises as far as the eye can see.
The whole of this government's budget is based on untrue slogans. The whole of this government's budget is based on false claims. We have not heard anything from the train of Liberal backbenchers who have spoken on these bills about the host of broken promises that this budget contains. We have heard nothing from them about the unfair cuts and the uneven burden that is being placed on the Australian people by this budget. Far from it; what we have heard from them is simply a repetition of some of the untrue slogans that the opposition, now the government, went to the election with—a repetition of the false claims of a debt and deficit disaster; a repetition of the false claim that the Liberal Party is the lower taxing party.
There has been barely a mention of the global financial crisis that our Labor government steered this country through with sound financial management. In fact, there was no mention at all by the train of Liberal backbenchers who have spoken before me in this debate about the low debt of our nation—I will repeat that; the low debt—when you compare Australia's debt levels to almost every other OECD country. There has been no mention, of course, of the AAA credit rating that has been given to Australia by all three of the world's major credit agencies. There has been no mention at all of the sound financial state of the Australian economy right now.
Of course there are issues going forward in the budget. There is the issue of declining revenues, which is something that Australian governments have now been facing for some time. There has been no mention of that by speakers on the other side of the chamber . There has been no mention from the Treasurer or the Prime Minister that this budget does not actually do the great task that they have claimed for it. It does not reduce the deficit. A proper comparison would be of the pre-election financial outlook with this budget—not the false comparison that the Treasurer was trying to set up by offering a comparison between his mid-year economic and fiscal outlook and this budget. The charter of budget honesty makes it possible for Australians to have a true comparison. The charter of budget honesty was introduced so that we would not have the kind of game-playing we have seen from this government, where you invent a false picture of the budget
On the true comparison we are not even going to see from this budget a faster return to surplus than what is set out in the pre-election financial outlook. The pre-election financial outlook had us returning to surplus in 2016-17; this budget has us returning to surplus in 2017-18. The reason that the Treasurer and the Prime Minister have been able to bring about this sleight of hand is, of course, because they doubled the deficit. In the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook they doubled the deficit by giving to the Reserve Bank of Australia $8.8 billion which the Reserve Bank did not ask for, and they doubled the deficit by changing all of the assumptions in the budget about costs by removing any cap on spending, and that enabled them to invent this supposed debt figure that we were going to reach on their false assumptions by 2023. It enabled them to say that, because of the changes that they made in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, the deficit was much higher than it is and much higher, of course—something like double—than what the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook produced by the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary to the Department of Finance said very clearly to the Australian people.
The budget that has been presented is full of wrong choices. It makes wrong choices on the cuts. It makes wrong choices by imposing a cut on family tax benefit B. It makes wrong choices by imposing cuts to the way in which the unemployment benefit is to be administered. What an appalling thing for a government of Australia to be saying to the young people of Australia: 'If you are under 30 you will not receive unemployment benefit for six months when you become unemployed.' What an appalling decision to make in a budget to say, 'If you are under 25 you will not even receive the Centrelink benefit; you will be receiving the youth allowance.' What does this government think it is doing? Does it want to create an entire outcast generation in our country? What does this government think that people under 30 are meant to do? Are they meant to go out and steal? That is what is left to some people. Not everybody has a family to fall back on. Not everybody in Australia is able to obtain work when they want it. Some people, in some parts of Australia, are living in places where there is 20 or 25 per cent youth unemployment. We want a government that understands that. We want a government that understands that it is the role of government to provide for and look after the young people of our country, to provide for and look after the old people in our country, and to provide for and look after families. I can say to this parliament that Labor understands those priorities. This government clearly and absolutely does not. With its budget full of wrong choices and unfair burdens everywhere you look—wrong choices on revenue measures and wrong choices on cuts. (Time expired)
I rise tonight to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Budget Repair Levy) Bill 2014 and related bills. Whenever we introduce legislation into this House we need to set out the clear and unambiguous reasons why that legislation is needed. I would like to start by talking about why we actually need a temporary budget repair levy. Over the past six years we have had the six largest budget deficits in our nation's history. This debate is not arguing about how those deficits occurred. I know there are two arguments. There is the argument that it was wasteful, reckless and politically motivated spending that ran up all these deficits. Then there is the other argument—that it was actually the economic genius of Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard, our former prime ministers, and their brilliant plan of sending out $900 cheques and things like GroceryWatch. I could go on and on, but that is not the purpose of this debate. We have that debt as a nation. Irrespective of how we got there, we have had those six largest budget deficits in our nation's history, and we now have a debt of over $300 billion.
One day, sometime in the future, we will have to repay that debt. Taxpayers some way down the track will have to repay that debt. But, until we do, we have to pay the ongoing interest commitments on that debt—exactly the same way as someone who goes out and racks up money on a credit card. They then have the obligation to pay the interest on the debt that they have run up. How much is that today? Remember that we had no interest bill until six years ago. Today that interest bill that we must pay as a nation is $12 billion a year. That is $1 billion a month or $33 million in one single 24-hour period. Every hour, this nation has got to take $1.4 million that we collect from the taxpayer and use that money not to pay for all the things that we need in society but to pay the interest on the debt that has been racked up over the last six years. In fact, the allotted speaking time that we have in this debate is 15 minutes. During a 15-minute speech in this parliament, we have run up an interest bill of $350,000. And that goes on, day after day after day. That is the interest liability that we have as a nation. What is even more scary is that two-thirds of that money goes out of the country, overseas. When the previous government borrowed these record amounts, most of that borrowing was done overseas from foreigners.
That is where we are today—and opposition members get up and say, 'There's no problem; don't worry. There's no crisis'—but that is only half the problem. We need to look at the trajectory of where this debt is going. The previous Labor government made all these politically inspired promises to everyone. It is wonderful to go out and toast everyone champagne and lavish money upon everyone. But the trajectory that they have us on is one of the fastest rates of government spending anywhere in the world—a 16 per cent increase in real terms between 2012 and 2018. So, if nothing is done and we just keep chugging down the road that we are going and we do not make hard decisions, the debt that is now over $300 billion will blow out to $667 billion.
What does that mean? What would that do to those interest repayments that we have to make? It will not be a billion dollars a month; it will be $3 billion a month. So $3 billion every single month will have to be taken from the taxpayer to pay two-thirds of it, at least, to foreigners overseas just to fund the interest payments on the debt—without paying one cent. What would this mean for the average citizen? We have to remember that this debt is all in the name of all Australians.
We saw students marching in the streets last week concerned about the HECS debts. Fair enough, students have the right to protest and they have the right to complain about an increase in their HECS debt. They are talking about a HECS debt of, on average, around $20,000—but it might go out to $24,000—but, for that investment, the average university student has the capacity to earn a million dollars more in salary over their lifetime. It is about 75 per cent more than the average year 12 leaver. So people are marching in the street because they have a $20,000 HECS debt, but they have the capacity for greater earnings to pay that off.
What the opposition want to do is run up debts of $25,000 for every person or $100,000 for the average family of four. Remember that that $25,000 debt per person—which is where we are heading—is not just to people who have a greater capacity to actually go on to earn a higher income; that $25,000 debt is for every man, every woman, every child and every pensioner in the country. Then of course there are those interest payments of $36 billion a year. That is where we are heading. We are heading towards a cliff. This is why changes must be made.
I think everyone who comes into this parliament would agree that we have obligations to future generations. I had a look at my maiden speech. I said in my maiden speech:
I also understand that I have an obligation—in fact, we all have an obligation—to pass this great nation onto our children and grandchildren in better shape and with greater freedoms and opportunities than we inherited.
But the direction that we are heading is to burden our future generations with $667 billion worth of debt—$25,000 for every man, woman and child in the country. If we go down that track, we are risking impoverishing our children and our grandchildren.
There is a simple question I would put to members of the opposition, who stand up and complain about a cut here and cut there and find something to whinge about, and that is: How much debt do you want to pass on to future generations of Australians and what interest repayments would you like them to have to pay in the future? That is the question. And that is why we have such a challenge here in front of us with the budget crisis that we have.
The other issue that we should be concerned about regarding that debt, that interest repayment, of $3 billion every single month is that we are putting future generations of Australians at the mercy of foreigners, because at least two-thirds of that debt will have to be financed from overseas. We have no guarantee going forward of what the interest rates will be in a decade's time. Small movements in global interest rates could cost the budget $5 billion, $10 billion, $20 billion or $30 billion. This is the reason that we cannot continue down the track that we are going to impoverish future generations of Australians.
In this debate we have heard some absolute, all mighty, hypocrisy from opposition members. They stand here and they complain about this cut and that cut, but they are blocking the repeal of the carbon tax over there in the Senate. If we could get that carbon tax repealed, Madam Speaker, that is $550 for every household in the country. Don't stand there and complain about $7 increases and increases of a few dollars when you are blocking a $550 cut for every household by refusing to repeal the carbon tax.
There is also the issue of what the carbon tax actually does. We know that it forces up electricity prices. Many people in our society today who, when they get that huge hit on their electricity prices, simply cannot afford to heat their home using electricity, so they go looking for an alternative. Some people will either heat their home or eat. But there is another option for people that live in the western and south-west parts of Sydney—they can go to nearby bushland, gather wood, take it home and burn it in a log fireplace to warm their homes. That is what has been happening.
Debate interrupted.
The Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, said in an interview published on 17 April that he was 'a John Stuart Mill man'. He said that he has been a fan of free speech since he entered politics. Senator Brandis is a very selective fan of free speech. He is a fan of untrammelled speech for hateful demagogues but he is not a fan of informed public debate—precisely what John Stuart Mill actually intended freedom of speech to foster.
Senator Brandis's department has notified community legal centres that the government will be withdrawing funding from law reform and advocacy work. The government proposes to amend the Community Legal Services Program service agreement to exclude 'law reform and legal policy activities' from the definition of CLC activities that the Commonwealth funds. The government proposes also to remove clause 5 of the agreement, inserted by the last Labor government. That clause affirmed the commitment of our government that conditions attached to Commonwealth funding to CLCs would not 'stifle legitimate debate or prevent organisations engaging in advocacy activities'.
This attempt at silencing community legal centres comes on top of a cut of $9.6 million from community legal centres in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook and a further $6 million cut in the budget, part of a broader attack on the whole legal assistance sector. Senator Brandis obviously does not understand the importance of Australia's 138 Commonwealth funded CLCs and the nature of the work they do. Senator Brandis's ignorance is wilful. He refuses to consult with community legal centres. He will not meet with their peak body.
An Attorney-General who understood the legal assistance sector would know that an important part of the work of CLCs rightly involves the law reform or advocacy work that he wants to stifle. Advocacy or law reform work often arises directly out of the experience a CLC gains providing legal services to individual clients. The expertise CLCs have from practising in particular areas of law makes them uniquely placed to advise governments in those areas. CLCs have contributed greatly to reforms of areas of law such as residential tenancies and consumer credit.
The Productivity Commission understands the importance of this work. In its draft report Access to justice arrangements, the commission noted, 'Legal assistance lawyers … are uniquely placed to identify systemic issues, particularly those affecting disadvantaged Australians.' The Commission said that advocacy work can not only 'benefit those people affected by a particular systemic issue, but, by clarifying the law, it can also benefit the community more broadly and improve access to justice'. The Commission found that advocacy 'can also be an efficient use of limited resources. It can be an important part of a strategy for maximising the impact of … CLC work.'
The rest of the government understands the usefulness of CLC advocacy. Since the last election, a range of Commonwealth departments have approached CLCs to provide their views on various proposed changes to the law. Senator Brandis's own department has done so. This is right, and it is usual. CLC advice is valued by those who take policymaking processes and informed debate seriously.
Senator Brandis, however, just does not get it. Though he likes to talk grandiosely about an open marketplace of ideas, Senator Brandis wants to stop community lawyers from making informed, expert and useful contributions to public policy debates. Senator Brandis said on 23 May that the 'core concept' of free speech is 'intellectual freedom', but evidently he thinks that racist speech is a more worthwhile exercise of this freedom than reasoned policy debate. What a twisted set of priorities from this Commonwealth Attorney-General.
I call on Senator Brandis to recognise the valuable contribution to public debate that is made by community lawyers, that is made by people working in community legal centres, that is made by people working throughout the legal assistance sector, and to abandon this foolish new policy of attempting to stifle the valuable contribution that they make.
Gilmore is filled with generous and compassionate people, where individuals and community groups create all manner of opportunities to build up funds for special causes or families impacted by tragedy or illness. It is my belief that when times are tough we should all work together to help one another, to be positive about events. Our local media does not always have that philosophy, focusing on the negative rather than the positive. It is time to challenge the local media to look at community achievement as a glass half-full situation rather than a glass half-empty situation.
The Red Cross Society is celebrating 100 years of service in the area. The challenge is to have 100 days of good news about the community. At the end of that time a bottle of red wine and a bottle of white wine will be auctioned for the local Red Cross. The aim is to add funds to their learn-to-drive scheme for youth. It will not be hard for editors and journalists; they actually miss dozens of opportunities to recognize great work done in the Gilmore community.
Some recent examples include the evening of 17 May at the St Georges Basin Country Club, well known for fundraisers, where I attended their Staff and Friends Charity Night. The original concept was a creative plan developed back in 2003. Lorraine Robertson and June Woods came up with the idea of staff at their place of employment raising funds for local charities. The performers are a blend of enthusiastic staff members mixing with local professionals donating their time to present a night of fun and high-quality entertainment. So far they have hosted seven shows.
At least a dozen amateurs from the staff work under the guidance of Lorraine and June, with the expertise of Simon and Serenity Pavitt, professional singers who entertain for a living. After three months rehearsing, the resulting show is four hours on stage. Over the years they have raised funds for Barnardos, Cystic Fibrosis and the Starlight Foundation, but always for children's charities. This year the Illawarra based Shepherd Centre is the recipient. The centre has been set up to assist children who are deaf or hearing-impaired. Its aim is to help parents discover more about learning for their children. Hayley, 22 months old, is a local girl selected as the face of the Shepherd Centre. She is profoundly deaf, but her sparkling shoes tapped cross the dance floor as she felt the rhythm of the music. About 350 people gathered in the auditorium and, after the local taekwondo club completed a musical demonstration of their craft, the audience was asked to assist their efforts. They hope to attend the world championships in Italy, representing Australia. Everyone opened purses and wallets to help. The media was missing.
Another was the National Motoring Heritage Day in Berry, with the organisers giving out medals to car enthusiasts who had lovingly restored their vehicles. The media was absent. Yet one of the local miracle workers, Michael, a former limousine maker, had produced a replica Chitty Chitty Bang Bang car, complete with fold-out wings.
Then, last Friday night, Melissa Tierney presented her fifth Creative Performance Evening by Those With a Disability. Melissa is a wonderful advocate for these young people. You cannot imagine the smiles and looks of joy on the faces of these wonderful performers, following along with the dance team instructors. The performance from Grease brought tears to your eyes, and almost all this work is done with the support of parents and friends. Dexter Heffernan, just three years of age, in the arms of his amazing mother, was featured in one of the musical acts. Dexter is extraordinary. Born nine weeks too early, his life has been a series of challenges, and his mother is an absolute angel. During his initial hospital stay, he was diagnosed with brain damage caused by periventricular leukomalacia. He was later diagnosed with vision impairment and, shortly after that, the specialist found a form of liver cancer, requiring chemotherapy. It was clear that he enjoyed every minute of his time on stage.
Finally, on Saturday, 24 May, the Berry Celtic Festival again celebrated many different Celtic clans. This year, the festival featured the Welsh Celts, especially relevant as this is the 100th year of Dylan Thomas. The funds raised were for Can Assist. The festival is coordinated by the Gerringong and Berry Rotary clubs with assistance from other clubs, such as South Nowra, helping on the gate.
Following this was the culmination of yet another great community project. A local landowner, Bruce McDonald, donated a block of land; a local building company, GJ Gardner, built a house; and, on Saturday, the GJ Variety Freedom House was auctioned by Brian Muller, raising well over $200,000 towards the work of the Variety Club.
Not all of these special events were ignored by the media, but it is time for them to look beyond the large projects and acknowledge the work of small community groups and individuals. Let us help everyone to shine, to do their best, and acknowledge them. It is about building a community and working together. In 100 days, the Gilmore community will be the richer for a more positive slant in reporting. The community groups are looking forward to a change. They know that communities need building of recognition, rather than continuous reporting or features on depressing or tragic stories, with negative commentary. Is the local media up to the challenge, and will the auction eventuate? I just wonder.
It is as old as the Scriptures and as clear as night and day: we face on Manus Island a moral dilemma that tests the very fabric of the nation, that tests whether Australia can survive as a nation. The test is whether a nation lawfully constituted and founded by and on the rule of law can survive and remain true to its foundations, whether we can honour the legacy of those who fought in world wars to free those in arbitrary detention in concentration camps—to stop the murder by the guards of inmates imprisoned in German concentration camps; to stop the murder of those who had been incarcerated without charge, without crime and without a hearing.
All Australians, other than our Indigenous brothers and sisters, have come from all the lands of the world. What Australian would give up his or her lot to change positions with those incarcerated on Manus Island? What Australian would be happy to give up their life for one at the hands of untrained, unrestrained guards, authorised and paid for by the Australian government and Australian taxpayers?
We cannot avoid the fact that a person was killed and serious injuries inflicted on many people while they were under the care and protection of the Australian government. The difference between what happened at Manus Island and any other deaths is that this death and maiming occurred while the deceased was in Australian custody. Nothing justifies the erosion of Australian respect for human rights, the rights of all of us and the rule of law. As has been said, an injustice done to one man anywhere is an injustice done to all men everywhere.
Australian citizens employed to provide protection ran away when it was clear that they could not stop the murderous activity of the Australian-government-retained PNG guards and associates at Manus Island. I have been informed that the person killed ran for his life but was captured and placed on a grate where the captors struck his head, inflicting fatal injuries. He was so badly bashed that his head was not recognisable to those who knew him well.
This is not about the government policy of stopping the boats. I am not suggesting that. But it is intolerable that security arrangements can be contracted out, that security is not in the control of the Australian police, state or federal, or that the Army is not deployed to ensure the safety of those who are incarcerated through the actions of the Australian government. The minister must do whatever is necessary to remove from active duty on Manus all individuals that were involved in the mayhem at Manus. The minister must ensure proper protection for all families and individuals under our care. The Australian government must not allow the killing of innocent people placed in its care.
Compensation needs to be paid by the Australian government now, without delay, to the family of the murdered detainee and to those who were severely injured. There is no basis under PNG, international or Australian law for what occurred on Manus Island. Who among us would want to be on Manus Island if the guards were to come for us?
As history tells us and as was said in respect of the treatment of detainees in another place, at an earlier time: 'First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out because I was not a communist. Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me, and there was no-one left to speak for me.'
We cannot let this incident destroy the values of Australia.
I rise tonight to talk about a very important aspect of the budget, and that is the funding for road infrastructure that was included in this year's budget. It was significant, it was nation changing and it is worth highlighting here in this House tonight. The package overall was $50 billion worth. For the state of Victoria, which hosts the electorate of Wannon, it means the investment of $7.6 billion to build the roads of the 21st century.
Madam Speaker, you have been to my electorate of Wannon and you know how important roads are to that electorate. That is how we get our kids to school. That is how we get our milk to the processing plants. That is how we get our livestock to the abattoirs and the saleyards. Roads are the absolute fibre of everything we do in my electorate. So it is an absolute pleasure to be able to stand here tonight and detail all the funding which will go into the roads which will help the electorate of Wannon, the state Victoria and the nation.
Let us look at a few of the highlights. There is $229 million in the budget for national highway upgrades. There is competitive tendering for that money, which means that for the state highways which run through my electorate we will be able to compete to get money to upgrade them. Roads to Recovery gets $2.5 billion, but most importantly, an extra $350 million in a one-off payment in the 2015-16 financial year. I am going to repeat that, Madam Speaker—in the year 2015-16 an extra $350 million one-off payment which will go to local government for the Roads to Recovery program. There is the Black Spot Program. They will get an extra $200 million over the forward estimates, taking the total to $564.5 million, and there is the Heavy Vehicle Safety Productivity package worth $248 million.
Let us look more specifically at a few more of the road projects which will be beneficial to the electorate of Wannon. We have the Western Highway upgrade, the Ballarat to Stawell duplication, with a federal contribution of $263.4 million for the next stage of the duplication of the Western Highway. Look at the Princes Highway West, the Winchelsea to Colac duplication, with a federal contribution of $185.5 million for the continuation of this duplication of the Princes Highway.
Take roads more specifically. There is the Condah-Hotspur Road with $2.5 million to fix this important logistic route and ensure that heavy transport especially timber transport does not have to travel extra kilometres due to the standard of that bridging road. There is $2.5 million there.
We turn to another project—and many have said that this could be a little city-centric, but I do not think it is. Anyone from the west of Victoria who has travelled to Melbourne knows the importance of being able to get into Melbourne in a timely manner. We have seen the problems which have been occurring over the Bolte Bridge, over the Westgate Bridge and around the Ring Road. Not only is the government contributing to the East West Link but, importantly, it is also contributing to the East West Link, section 2. The total federal contribution for those two projects is $3 billion.
This is a budget which is transforming the road infrastructure of our nation. We are building the roads of the 21st century. The Prime Minister wants to be known as the 'Infrastructure Prime Minister' and he has not just said that, he is delivering in spades in this budget—real money into building real roads. The government is absolutely determined through the work of the assistant minister and the minister to ensure that these roads are starting to be built now. I commend the House on the road budget that was handed down two weeks ago.
I rise this evening to acknowledge National Sorry Day, which occurred yesterday, and National Reconciliation Week. Unfortunately, I could not be at yesterday's unveiling of the City of Whittlesea's Sorry Day Space, a community reflective space dedicated to members of the stolen generations and the traditional owners of the land, the Wurundjeri-Wilam people. Donna Wright of the City of Whittlesea and the Whittlesea Reconciliation Group deserve much credit for organising this important powerful event.
That events like this occur is a heartening sign of progress that has been made in this area. It was not always so of course, nor was it inevitable that we would be able to acknowledge past wrongs. The road to reconciliation is a long one and we have some way to go. Progress can feel like a long time coming and sometimes like it may never be coming at all, but I am very proud to be a member of the same Labor Party as Whitlam, Keating and Rudd, all of whom in their own ways led this country along the path of reconciliation.
In 1975, Gough Whitlam returned traditional lands in the Northern Territory to the Gurindji people, bringing an end to their long struggle to reclaim their traditional country. In 1993, Paul Keating transformed the national conversation with his Redfern speech, and in 2008 Kevin Rudd of course gave the National Apology in this parliament. The Rudd government also initiated the Closing the Gap strategy which committed state, territory and Commonwealth governments to improving the lives of Indigenous Australians. Recently in this place, I and others welcomed the Prime Minister's claim of support for these targets and in particular his remarks in response to the Closing the Gap report released in February this year. It is important that whichever party is in power, the Prime Minister of the day plays a leadership role in advancing the cause of Indigenous Australians. It is important because, as I said earlier, there is much to be done.
The most recent Closing the Gap report found 'no improvement in Indigenous school attendance over five years', and that 'existing strategies are having no overall impact on school attendance'. The report also found no progress on the employment target and that, while Indigenous life expectancy has improved, the pace of change is far too slow to close the gap by 2031. There were signs of hope including that the target of halving the gap in child mortality within a decade is on track to be met, as is the target to halve the gap for Indigenous people aged 20 to 24 in year 12 or equivalent attainment rates by 2020. NAPLAN results indicated that progress is being made in the area of education, although the lack of progress in remote areas remains troubling.
In light of this report, and like many other Australians, I watched with dismay as this government delivered its budget where it failed to commit funding to continue the work of previous Labor governments, by cutting $534 million from Indigenous programs with no detail as to where the axe will fall. The Deputy Chairman of the Prime Minister's Indigenous Advisory Council, Dr Ngiare Brown, has denounced these cuts, saying she was concerned that 'there are actually going to be cuts to frontline services, which we were promised would absolutely not be the case'.
The government is also axing the Council of Australian Governments' Reform Council, which collects data to check if states, territories and the Commonwealth are meeting agreed targets. Aboriginal and Tones Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Mick Gooda, raised his concerns about this saying:
If we don't have decisions made on the basis of the best evidence that we have available to us, we ... might as well be just making up things on the back of beer coasters again.
Last week, the COAG council released its final report, and this indicated that after five years of government spending on Closing the Gap, there have been gains in education but the unemployment divide continues to get wider.
I like to think that we all know how important the early years are in childhood education, for individuals and society generally. It is an investment in our people and in our future. In the Scullin electorate, we are very lucky to have Bubup Wilam, an early learning centre established under the Indigenous Childhood National Partnership Agreements as part of the Closing the Gap agenda. This centre operates at its capacity enrolment of 74 children. The centre's community-run structure and ethos are integral to its success in providing support to local families in Melbourne's north, and a real sense of social and cultural connectedness.
Bubup Wilam is rated as meeting National Quality Standards, and exceeds these standards in many areas. Lisa Thorpe, the CEO is doing fantastic work. I am so proud of Bubup Wilam's achievements. It is a success story this government should be seeking to emulate. But given the cuts to the Indigenous portfolio in the budget, this centre and the families and community it services are under threat.
Bubup Wilam contributes to advancing the worthy goals—the bipartisan goals—contained in the Closing the Gap report. I have written to the Victorian and Commonwealth ministers, highlighting this issue and pleading with them to continue funding this vital community service. To date, I have received no response.
The families and community who rely on this centre have in effect been told to sit tight and wait from between six to twelve months. This is not good enough, and it is not helping to close the gap in Melbourne's north.
Tonight I rise to inform the House about a great venture in life that many young people around the world take, including from my electorate of La Trobe, and that is to travel to South Africa and work on a conservation park. Participants pay around $700 per a week for the experience to nurture orphaned lion cubs back into the wild.
If that statement were only true. The sad reality is that there is a huge deception taking place, as many of these so-called conservation parks are actually the breeding ground for the game hunting of lions. Welcome to the world of what is now called 'canned hunting', which allows a lion to be killed in an enclosed area for around $40,000 and for the so-called 'hunter' to take their trophy back home for display.
I had no idea of canned hunting until I met one of my constituents in La Trobe, Ms Donalea Patman, the founder of For the Love of Wildlife, where I viewed video footage which depicted many distressing scenes, including one of a lion lying on the ground, and at close range, a not-so-skilled or brave hunter took several shots to kill it. The very sad aspect of the video is that the lion did not try to escape, and seemed perplexed as to what was happening. I assume the lion did not regard the hunter as a threat.
To stop canned hunting, we must take away the incentive that allows hunt trophies back into Australia. If you view South African websites such africanskyhuntinchco.za you can read how they pride themselves on trophy hunts. To stop this practice, Australia can play its roll through legislation.
In 1976 Australia ratified the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Under Appendix II nearly all species of wild cat, including the African lion are listed. In Australia, the relevant legislation falls under the Australian Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, which usually requires a permit from the Minister for the Environment to import trophies derived from animals listed in the CITES Appendix. In 2013 in Australia the following African lion parts were imported, namely, two body mounts, six hunt trophies, five skins and six skulls. How tragic is this?
I firmly believe Australia should not allow the importation of African lion parts as CITES Appendix II states that the specimen must be legally obtained. Therefore, if the proponents of game hunting are stating that lions are bred for conservation but instead used for hunting then this is a deception. Secondly, CITES declares that a species cannot be exported if there is concern of the survival of the species. In Appendix II the African lion is listed by its scientific name as Panthera leo and its listed status is 'vulnerable', as there has been a species population reduction of approximately 30 per cent in the past two decades.
I also noticed, that in Australia so far in 2014, 13 hippopotamus hunt trophies have been imported, where again they are listed as vulnerable. The entire list of all wildlife trophies and body parts imported into Australia since 2010 includes over 40 different species, consisting of 93 hunt trophies and 1,027 body parts. Again, a great shame. African lion body parts are the second highest import at 144, just behind the American black bear, which is also subjected to the practise of canned hunting in the United States. Just view the website 'Spruce Mountain Lodge Maine Bear Hunting', where the author wrote:
… we use the tried-and-true method of hunting from tree stands overlooking baits.
That is code for simply shooting the bears while feeding.
In conclusion, canned hunting and trophy hunting are awful and disgusting, cowardly practices, and must be stopped. Australia can no longer support canned hunting by allowing hunting trophies and body parts to be imported to Australia. I have provided a submission to the Minister for the Environment, Greg Hunt, recommending changes in the EPBC Act section 303CB not only to stop the import of African lion parts but also to make a declaration under the EPBC Act to stop all species listed under CITES Appendix I, II and III.
I am not trying to pre-empt the minister's decisions, but I can say that Minister Hunt has demonstrated a great deal of concern, and we are now waiting for the department's advice.
Finally, if you want to join our online petition, go to www.jasonwood.com.au/stopcannedhuntincinow. This trade in death must stop.
It being almost 9.30, the debate is interrupted.
House adjourned at 21:29
I want to pay tribute today to an amazing woman who lives in my electorate. Her name is Wendy Dyckhoff and she was recently awarded the silver medal by the Kangan Batman TAFE college for her achievements in adult literacy and learning. I have known Wendy for several years. She first introduced herself to me as an advocate for forgotten Australians. As you would be aware, the forgotten Australians are those who, for a variety of reasons, were separated as children from their original families and raised in institutions where many suffered, at best, loneliness and loss of identity, and, at worst, neglect and abuse of horrific proportions. Their stories were highlighted by the 2004 inquiry of the Senate's Community Affairs References Committee, and the subsequent apology on behalf of the nation by the then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was made on 16 November 2009.
Wendy was placed in an orphanage from the age of six when it was determined that her parents were unable to care for her. Through years of institutional life, Wendy, in her own words: 'endured physical, psychological and sexual abuse.' She says: 'Taken from me was my family, my identity and my right to learn as a child what a safe and loving relationship might feel like.'
As Wendy has explained to me, as a child she did not learn to speak correctly or eloquently because the main requirement of institutional life was silence. Wendy says: 'The only time my voice was encouraged was during prayer. I did not have conversations with adults where I could gain a better understanding of the world or expand my vocabulary or have someone help me with grammar and diction.'
Wendy grew up with a belief that she was not capable or worthy. She discovered, many years later, that she had been awarded a scholarship at the end of primary school, but this information was withheld from her at the time and she was never able to access a good education. As an adult, she faced the choice of sitting back and dwelling on the wrongs she had suffered or trying to make a difference by helping others. Wendy chose the latter option. She decided she wanted to help other forgotten Australians to speak for themselves, document their stories, trace lost family histories and rebuild shattered personal identities. To become an effective activist and spokesperson for the forgotten Australians, Wendy had to overcome her lack of self-confidence and bouts of ill health both physical and mental, and she had to go back to learning, which she did as an adult. And Wendy rose to the challenge.
With the new skills she has acquired through community learning, Wendy has organised forums and meetings, and she has made representations to various levels of government. She has come to Canberra. She has been active. She has been able to write her life story in a number of different formats, and she has made submissions to parliamentary inquiries and the royal commission. She passionately believes that being able to document and communicate her own life experiences and those of other forgotten Australians is vital in order to educate the broader community about this shameful chapter in our social history.
Today I want to talk about small business. We are about protecting small business from unfair contract terms. Our government, under the guidance of the Hon. Bruce Billson, want to hear from you in the public, and you have until 1 August to get your submissions in before the competition policy review begins. The facts are that too many small businesses are offered standard type contracts on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. It should not be one hat fits all. They have little scope to negotiate, or have no scope at all to negotiate, with the landlords. When it is time to review the contracts—for example, the small print—they lack funds to employ expensive legal advice. Contracts often include unfair terms. Contracts leave small business very vulnerable. This is what we want to talk about and fix.
Some examples I could mention are that a contract may deny a small business the right to terminate the agreement; rent adjustments can favour the larger and chain retailer versus the small stand-alone operator; and they can move a competitor into an adjoining shop, which has been done—for example, you cannot have a bookshop and a paper shop or another bookshop in close proximity to each other because it would disadvantage one or the other. Opening hours is a big thing for small business. Small operators know when they are best set to open their shops. However, they are quite often involved in legal arguments with the landlord, and they find that they must open their shop in line with Big Brother, who might work longer hours under different awards. This is what is killing small business in some of my areas. The outfitting of a shop after a period of five years or 10 years, whatever the case may be, when there is no real need to do this, is also very costly. Some shops have to spend between $100,000 and $200,000 to refit a small shop, which of course does not allow for the disruption of business while the shop is being rebuilt.
There are many issues for small business, and they are being really pushed around by Big Brother, who calls the shots in a lot of cases. These are the types of things we want to fix. You can complete a 10- to 15-minute survey or you can write a formal submission into the industry body and you can voice complaints before we get to looking at the policy, by 1 August this year. (Time expired)
The ACT has the second highest rate of homelessness in Australia. According to the 2011 census, 1,785 ACT residents were homeless on Census night 2011—a larger number than were homeless on Census night in 2006. To combat this, the ACT and federal Labor governments contributed towards Common Ground Canberra, a $14 million jointly funded project aiming to end chronic homelessness by developing permanent, high-quality, supportive and safe housing for Canberra's most vulnerable homeless people. Common Ground Canberra is a not-for-profit organisation that works in partnership with government, business and the not-for-profit sector.
The site in the Gungahlin Town Centre will have an initial development of 40 one- and two-bedroom units, to be completed in December 2014. It was my pleasure to attend the sod turning for that site at the end of last year and to see the strong commitment in the Canberra community for Common Ground Canberra. I want to pay particular tribute to the board of directors for Common Ground Canberra, Chair Stephen Bartos, directors Diane Kargas, Jenny Kitchin, Jon Lovell, David Matthews, Simon Rosenberg, Gwen Wilcox and Bob Wilson and, most importantly, Liz Dawson. Liz Dawson is one of those social entrepreneurs that communities are fortunate to have. She is a tireless voice for the vulnerable, involved not only in Common Ground Canberra but also in programs to reduce educational disadvantage and to work with dentists to provide free dental treatment for those who cannot afford it.
Liz has devoted her life to looking after people less fortunate than herself. She is someone that is very hard to say no to. Liz will bail you up at any community function you happen to attend and, in her indomitable way, will ask you when are you going to help out on her next project. The last of these conversations I had at length with Liz involved a homelessness project, which had a four-poster bed out in the middle of one of the public squares in Canberra. Liz and I sat on the four-poster bed discussing homelessness for a very pleasant hour.
Her husband, Peter Dawson, is also a great contributor to the Canberra community through his book Creative Capital, which really highlights the great city in which we live. I commend them both for their commitment to building a better city. (Time expired)
Today I rise to recognise a very special group of my constituents, those who volunteer their time and energy to help our local community organisations. These are the people who are the heart and soul of the various charities, sporting clubs, community and advocacy groups, RSLs, chambers of commerce, and other social other social and support networks that make the Southern Gold Coast such a special place.
Last month I was very proud to recognise 73 local residents as recipients of the 2014 MacPherson Community Achiever Awards. I host these awards each year as a way for the community to say 'thank you' to those special people who are always willing to lend a hand. They never seek recognition but they deserve to know that their efforts are noticed and appreciated. All award recipients are nominated by grateful community members.
I would like to take a moment to inform the parliament that this year's recipients of the MacPherson Community Achiever Awards were: Jill Allport, Doris Boyd, Tom Boyd, Linda Carpenter, Christine Clancy, Barbara Conway, Kenneth Conway, Tony Davies, Pearl Du Bois, Joseph Dunlop, Tanya Forbes, Janet Fuller, June Gamble, Judy Gillespie, Sally Gower, Rob Greenwood, Anthony Grima, Peggy Hall, Bev Harding, Keith Harding, Graham Herlihy, Barry Hinze, Cliff Hitch, Dianne Hoogendoorn, Noel Hull, Denis Hutton, Jon Jessen, Kala Kaiser, Eliza Knowles, Di Loddon, Elia McNamee, Glenda Myles, Kacey Patrick, Elise Poulton, Malcolm Prentis, Jill Ransom, Kath Rice, Deborah Ross, Hayley Spears, June Swatton, Ron Tiedeman, Peter Tong, Diana Traversi, Noel Underwood, Yvonne Van Daalen, Brian Williams, Jillian Withycombe. And an award was made posthumously to Allan Hay.
The recipients of the McPherson Young Community Achiever Awards were: Scott Blakemore, Ryan Lim, and Courtney Taylor.
The recipients of the McPherson Surf Lifesaving Community Achiever Awards were: Loretta Axelsen, Derek Baldwin, Garry Bell, Nicholas Bell, Anthony Cassone, Laurie Cavill, Russ Harmon, David Hogben, Michael Kearney, Troy Kling, Christine Marshall, Stuart Marshall, Tony McKeaten, Shelley Nolan, Greg Piper, Peter Serone, Ted Stanton, Courtney Taylor, Jy Taylor, Stephanie Teixeira, Caterina Timpano-Hair, Rick Van Kampen, and Clayton Webster.
This year, for the first time, category winners were recognised. The 2014 McPherson Community Achiever joint winners were: Tanya Forbes and Janet Fuller. The 2014 Young Mcpherson Community Achiever was Ryan Lim. The 2014 Lifesaving Community Achiever was Shelley Nolan.
I take this oopportunity to recognise the great work of our community volunteers and especially thank the recipients of the 2014 McPherson Community Achiever Awards.
The impact of the Abbott government's recent budget will be felt in every part of the Australian community but its impact will be most significant in Melbourne's west. An estimated $6.3 million will be paid by the families of Gellibrand for the GP tax; an estimated $58.6 million will be ripped from hospitals in the west, including from Williamstown Hospital, Sunshine Hospital and the Western Hospital in Footscray. And almost 17,000 pensioners will be hit by the changes to the pension's indexation rate. But it is the personal stories that really shoot home this budget's cruelty.
Last week I received a letter from a constituent, Maree Kinniburgh. Maree is a full-time carer for her 23 year old daughter, Abby, who has suffered from life-threatening brain abnormalities since birth. While Abby's disability has made it difficult for her to do many things we take for granted, such as driving, socialising and living independently, she has not let her situation diminish her passion for life. Despite being told at a young age that she would never read and write, she persisted with her education. She is currently studying a Bachelor of Arts at Victoria University, in my electorate. Abby is an outstanding example of someone doing all that she can to better herself and improve her life and the lives of those around her. She is exactly the sort of person that the government ought to be helping to help herself.
However, Maree wrote to me, saying she is worried about the impact of the recent budget on her daughter's opportunities in life. She cites the $7 GP tax, the PBS co-payment and the freezing of Medicare rebate amounts as adding to the burden of the costs of her daughter's health care, changes that will disproportionately impact on women and other members of the community who may be forced to spend time out of the workforce. She highlights the rising higher education fees and interest for loan repayments that will add to her daughter's two higher education loans. Moreover, she points to the abolition of the Centrelink pensioner education supplement, of $62.40 per fortnight, that she and her daughter both receive to help with their studies. The abolition of this supplement by the Abbott government will cost Abby and her mother up to $1,600 a year each, or up to eight per cent of Maree's annual income. The impact of this upon the Kinniburgh family will be substantial. It will make life harder for a family already working hard to make the most from life.
My constituent feels that she is being dismissed by society at present as a bludger. She rails against this characterisation. She writes:
… we are both working very hard to make a contribution and not be a burden on society.
The recent budget makes us feel like we are viewed as pariahs sucking the life blood out of the system and preventing other Australians from accessing their rights and carrying us as a[n] undeserving burden.
It is a horrible position to be in through no fault of our own.
Instead of being rewarded for our extremely hard work, we are to be severely punished.
This is what Australia will look like as a result of the Abbott government's budget. It will be a place where it is harder for carers to pay the bills, harder for university students to study and harder for our disabled community to just survive.
I will continue to listen to the thousands of voices in my community, just like Abby's and Maree's. I oppose this unfair and shameful budget. (Time expired)
In my nearly over 30 years of activity in the parliament and in political life, I do not think I have been to a happier day, a more entertaining day than Prom Country House's official opening: enhancing the human spirit. It is a brand-new aged-care facility. They got $9 million in 2009 from the Labor government. And I am still trying to figure out how they got that. Did they get it because they were trying to get rid of me? The member for Lingiari would probably know about that. Or was it the fact that Lindsay Tanner's father was actually in the care unit at the time? I am not suggesting any of those things. Anyway, they got this magnificent windfall. Sandy Bucello, who is president of the organisation, has delivered this magnificent building. What was strange about the day? They asked to meet me at 9.30 in the morning and the opening was not until 11. I was told, 'Here is this beautiful facility. We have a waiting list. We want more money.' Isn't that fantastic? They brought the federal member in, they sat him down on the chair and they grilled him. They said: 'We have now got this fantastic facility in our community and we now need two pods to go on it, to take it from 60 beds to 90 beds. We can do that straightaway without any changes. Put it to the government. We reckon it's a good idea.' Of course, I am going to put it to the government and put as much pressure on as I can.
Llew Vale was a great MC for the day. Sandy Bucello is the president. What a marvellous day we had. Aunty Madge Selly, from the Gunai-Kurnai Corporation, gave a welcome to country.
The member for Lingiari has been down to my electorate. He knows what the people are like. Phil Nightingall is the treasurer and Joan Liley is a board member. Larry Giddy and Bill Bray were there. Bill was grilling me as hard as he could. Also present were Francis Sullivan, Mark Wakely and Rhett McLennan, who is the CEO of the whole place. It was a fantastic day. They have this new facility that any community would be proud of, let alone the surrounds of Foster. They have coordinated this fantastic, new aged-care facility, so they will have a massive, new car park, with the hospital over there and doctors over here. I said to them, 'It doesn't matter where this money came from, whether it came from a Labor government or a Liberal coalition government. We in the parliament of Australia actually care about our older people and we are wealthy enough to look after them in their old age.' I promised them that day, on behalf of all of you, that we will. We will look after them, we will care for them and we will make sure they are well housed into the future. I know that those who are younger than me and are going to follow me into this place, Mr Deputy Speaker Hawke—people like you—will hear what I have said today and always remember we have a debt to pay to the generations that went before us. We would not be enjoying ourselves the way we do today without the work that they did.
The Cocos Islands community will host the Sydney-Emden100 'Weekend of Commemorations' during the period 8 and 9 November 2014, 100 years to the day since the First World War naval battle where the HMAS Sydney sank the German battleship the SMS Emden. The events and activities have been developed in conjunction with the Royal Australian Navy to appropriately commemorate the centenary of the Battle of Cocos. In April this year, I was on West Island in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and was asked to launch the program of events. The official events will be held over two days, showcasing this significant event in Australian and German history and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands as a geopolitically important and unique spot in the Indian Ocean, which they remain.
The events will include an official memorial service on the centenary, to be conducted by the Royal Australian Navy; the official opening of the Sydney-Emden Gazebo and the interpretive trail on Direction Island; displays about the islands' history and Cocos Malay culture and traditions; and the screening of the documentary Cocos 1914: The Encounter between HMAS Sydney and SMS Emden. The documentary was developed by Fact Not Fiction Films, an independent UK film company that in late 2010 attended the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. At this time, filming took place in North Keeling Island, where the still visible underwater wreck of the HMAS Sydney is located. The 52-minute documentary will be available for purchase, along with a range of other merchandise, from the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Visitor Centre.
The Shire of Cocos (Keeling) Islands, together with the Australian government and Navy, the German Navy, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Tourism Association and community representatives, have been working very closely together for a number of years to prepare for this significant event in Australia's maritime history. A detailed program will be released in late September and published on the Sydney-Emden 100 website and on the Sydney-Emden 100 Facebook page. The Sydney-Emden reference group represented a talented and skilled cross-section of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands with a dedicated interest to ensure that Australia's first naval battle, between the HMAS Sydney and Germany's SMS Emden, which occurred on 9 November 1914, is remembered with a significant memorial and commemoration near the spot where the battle took place, on the 100th anniversary, on 9 November.
As federal member for the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, I have found the topic of the 100th commemoration of the Sydney-Emden battle has been a regular part of my chats with community members over many years. The islanders are very keen that this centenary be commemorated as an Australian story of great significance, not only for the Royal Australian Navy but for the Australian nation as a whole. As well as islanders commemorating the centenary of their community's direct involvement in the First World War, there is also considerable interest from historians, families and members of the Royal Australian Navy and the German Navy with an interest or link with the HMAS Sydney and SMS Emden. The Cocos Island community has a link to the Anzacs, as HMAS Sydney was an escort ship for the convoy that took the first Anzacs across the Indian Ocean from Albany to the Middle East. I will be attending the events in November, and I encourage all Australians to take an interest.
This government believes an effective education system is one where students come first. I recently had the pleasure of visiting schools throughout Dobell to witness firsthand how our students are receiving a quality education through the tremendous work of our principals, teachers and P&Cs. As a mother, I understand the importance of engaging with students, families and the broader community to cultivate a strong learning environment which supports our students beyond the classroom.
I recently had the opportunity to visit the Wyong High School to meet with Principal Megan Johnson, teachers and student leaders. Wyong High School is a diverse school, home to 760 students and offering a range of educational pathways for students. It is important that we acknowledge the ways in which our local schools are developing educational responses to meet the diverse needs of students in our community. At Wyong High School, year 7 and 8 students are offered information technology and 'yearning for learning' classes which promote specific engagement outside the mainstream curriculum. The school has also developed a strong relationship with Central Coast-Hunter TAFE to offer a comprehensive range of VET courses. This partnership has enabled opportunities for senior students to undertake traineeships and apprenticeships. Trades and apprenticeships are also supported through an internal trade school where students complete their senior studies with an HSC credential, completion of their first year of an apprenticeship and paid work in their chosen field.
Wyong High School boasts state-of-the-art facilities, including, in addition to the aforementioned trade training centre, a primary industries facility and a commercial grade kitchen; thus allowing students to access diverse skilled employment opportunities and options. In addition to providing an array of learning options for students, Wyong High School also encourages student input into how the school operates. The student voice project recognises the importance of students' opinions about learning in their school. The project offers opportunities for students to work in partnership with school staff to plan, investigate, design and implement strategies and ideas to improve student learning and teaching practices. This program in conjunction with the various educational pathways available to students highlights the vibrant learning environment provided by Wyong High School.
In conclusion, I would like to congratulate principal Megan Johnson, the teachers and the support staff for their dedication and leadership, which is enabling outstanding education and vocational outcomes for students at Wyong High School. I was very impressed with the students that I met that day and they are a credit to the future generation of Wyong and Dobell. Congratulations to Wyong High School.
Like most MPs, I have talked now to literally hundreds of people in my electorate about the budget. I have had a range of reactions but one of the very common reactions is that people are confounded and confused about why a government would hand down a budget that takes so much from the people in our community who have so little. Why would the government hand down a budget that attacks right at heart of some of the foundation institutions of our country like Medicare? Why would the government hand down a budget that is going to see young people in this country face incredibly large barriers to get tertiary education? What I am starting to realise is that Joe Hockey and Tony Abbott, the people who created the backbone of this budget, just do not get it. Their lives are so divorced from the experiences of ordinary Australians and the experiences of people who live in my electorate of Hotham.
Let us take a look at some of the numbers. Eighty-two per cent of those in cabinet have a private school education. In my electorate of Hotham, just 14 per cent of kids go to a private school. Most of these cabinet ministers went to university either for free or heavily subsidised under a very generous HECS system. These same people are making decisions that will see students in my electorate stare down the barrel of $80,000 for a nursing degree and that does not even account for the interest that will go on top of that upfront fee. Look at the income of these cabinet ministers: $7,000 a week. The median income of a person in Hotham is about $500 a week. So for every dollar that is earned by a person in Hotham, $14 is earned by one of the cabinet ministers.
We are learning a little more every day about the Treasurer of this country and where his values come from. Many of you would have seen him on Q&A. The Treasurer was asked: 'How is it that you maintain a link with ordinary Australians? How do you maintain an understanding of what life is like for ordinary Australians?' Most of us in this parliament do not live an ordinary life and we need to accept that. He told the story about his family. It was a rags to riches tale and it is one that I admire about him. His family came to Australia with very little and used it to make their way in this country. The important thing here is not to attack what happened to Joe Hockey, and I accept that the Treasurer has a good story to tell; it is simply to point out that all we know are our own experiences. As members of parliament, one thing we must do is to try to make a way to understand the lives of ordinary people and not just draw from our own experiences.
When I think about the story that the Treasurer told, it explains to me how he could be so incredulous that some Australians would baulk at paying $7 to go to the doctor. He defines $7 as just two middies. I could not think of a more offensive analogy. For some people that $7 will mean the decision between going to the doctor and not going to the doctor. (Time expired)
One of the joys of being the member for Reid, and I say this in all sincerity, is that 18 months ago I had a job and now for a short period of time, as I serve with pleasure the people of Reid, I do not have one anymore. But I have a unique chance to make a difference.
Following on in my area, the area that has been home to three generations of my family, and knowing that we are temporary custodians of our communities for our children, I cannot help but look at the generation before me through wonderful institutions like Rotary and others that give us a road map to a time when people found a way to volunteer and give back to the local community. In the short time I have in this place—more importantly, away from this place, back in my electorate—I hope I can work with institutions like Rotary to develop a road map to reinvigorate them with the youth of today, because they are just an amazing institution. It is not just them. It is institutions like them. One generation ago, whether it was because we did not have smart phones, whether it was because life was simpler, whether it was because we did not have to have two incomes to pay the mortgage—I do not know the reasons—people found ways to find the road map to give back.
I had the honour in the period that we were away from this place of being made an honorary member of Drummoyne Rotary. I have five amazing Rotaries in my electorate of Reid: Drummoyne, Five Dock—who fight each other tooth and nail over who can be better—Concord, Strathfield and Auburn-Lidcombe. Drummoyne paid me the ultimate honour of asking me to become an honorary member. I did that in the time we were away. I have just received a text, in sending a text to a friend of mine to ask who it was that nominated me, from Michael Megna: 'Five Dock's changeover was last Friday night and I could not be there. But at that dinner they have asked me to be an honorary Rotary member, too.' Apparently that is in the by-laws—you can do that.
An honourable member: You will get fined.
I will get fined; you are right, Melissa. During the week just gone I also attended the Youth Achievement Awards with Strathfield Rotary, giving back to the area, acknowledging the youth of the future and developing a road map for them to become the Rotary members of tomorrow. My challenge to the people of Reid, and it is one that I will take into battle day in and day out in the short period of time I have the honour of representing them, is to engage with institutions like Rotary, to all of those at Drummoyne, Five Dock, Concord, Strathfield and Auburn-Lidcombe. Thank you for all you do for our wonderful community. Long may you continue to do so. May your ranks be filled with the enthusiasm that comes with youth.
In this week of reconciliation we focus on the disadvantages continuing for Indigenous communities throughout our country, whether they be in urban capitals like Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane or Perth; whether they are in regional centres like mine, Shepparton and Echuca; or whether indeed they are in some of the remotest communities you will find anywhere in the world, places like Areyonga and Haasts Bluff. In those communities we are deeply concerned that one of the scourges that are now well and truly entrenched is the problem of high-risk consumption of alcohol. I am not suggesting for a moment that Aboriginal people only have problems with drinking, or that they cannot drink responsibly, which may in fact contribute to their enjoyment of life and wellbeing. But the fact is that, although many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians are teetotallers, those who do drink tend to drink at much higher rates of risk and harm than non-Indigenous Australians.
On Friday of this week we are going to take the Standing Committee for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs inquiry into the harmful impacts of alcohol use to the heartland of Melbourne. We have some excellent contributors to give evidence to this inquiry, which amongst the terms of reference includes the social and economic determinants of high-risk drinking; some of the strategies that have been tried to overcome the problems to give Indigenous high-risk drinkers a chance to break their addictions and to get back to a normal life; the trends, which appear to be increasingly harmful uses of alcohol; and international comparisons to see if other countries, particularly countries like ours—Canada, the United States and New Zealand—have come up with better strategies, strategies that have real impacts on human communities.
Also, we want to investigate very carefully what the cost of alcohol and access to alcohol do in terms of high-risk drinking. Then with the special support of our Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Senator Nigel Scullion, we are including a reference to foetal alcohol spectrum disorder problems. FASD, as it is more commonly called, is not just terrible brain damage afflicting Indigenous communities where mothers have been drinking during their pregnancy—of course that is not the case. FASD, at times also called FAS—foetal alcohol syndrome—is a scourge, a word I use deliberately, which in some cases is endemic across Australian communities, particular as young girls join their male partners in binge drinking episodes, often over a weekend. They may have become pregnant and, with a mixture of drink and drugs, may not seek any support for their pregnancy for several months. Indeed, they may not even be diagnosed as pregnant and, by the time they are aware that they are in their second or third month of pregnancy, damage has been done to the foetus and the child is born with brain damage or with physical disabilities, depending on when the mother was drinking and what quantities.
It is irreversible harm. The child is born irreversibly damaged and all you can hope for is, if the child is diagnosed young enough, that some special care and strategies will ease that child's life. But too often in Australia, where we have no diagnostic clinics at all for foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, these children go undiagnosed. They move into the school system where they immediately become a problem, given they have serious learning difficulties. Their memory capacity is impaired. They have great difficulty in controlling their inhibitions, including their libido. As children reach puberty, girls have serious problems being preyed upon or there are other difficulties if they are boys. It is not long at all before most of them end up, particularly the boys, in contact with police and in jail. This is a problem right across Australia which our magistrates, our judges, our police and our social workers understand only too well.
We still do not have a corrections systems geared up to provide diversionary treatments or support for people who are brain damaged and are unable to be rehabilitated, whose reoffending when they are released is virtually guaranteed. We had a recent tragic case where a young woman was incarcerated indefinitely in Western Australian with foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. She had experienced a life of shocking deprivation and was a victim of so much violence herself, but, because there was no other place for her protection, she was being kept in custody in Western Australia. The expectation was that she may be relocated closer to her home community in Alice Springs. That was a work in progress last time I checked.
We have this prolific problem in Australia of high-risk drinking. It was highlighted in the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs inquiry into FASD. The report, called The hidden harm, was released in November 2012—that is, nearly two years ago. The reference came jointly from the Minister for Health and Ageing at the time and the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. The series of recommendations which came out of that inquiry led to an Australian government action plan to reduce the impact of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder being announced for 2013-14 through to 2016-17. Some $20 million over four years were to be committed to this action plan. Unfortunately, as was the way with Labor, we had a lot of commitment and not much cash underpinning the commitments that were made. So it has fallen to this government, the coalition government, to find that $20 million, or as close as possible to that amount, to get the work under way.
The original response of the previous government was an action plan which was to have further development through consultation with key stakeholders and agencies. In one of our key inquiry recommendations, we wanted a panel of experts to be brought together to advise government on exactly what was needed, whether it was the Australian medical diagnostic tool to be completed; whether it was the multidisciplinary diagnostic centres to be set up to make sure that these babies and young children were diagnosed as soon as possible so that some interventions or therapeutic strategy could be put in place; or whether the advice was about what we should do to prevent another child being born in Australia with this irreparable brain damage, which is 100 per cent preventable if the mother does not drink a drop when she is pregnant.
It is no surprise that we have the recommendation from the 2009 National Health and Medical Research Council statement, which is for zero alcohol consumption for women who are planning a pregnancy, who are pregnant or who are breastfeeding. Tragically, that is one of the best-kept secrets from the National Health and Medical Research Council's listings of recommendations. We still have a significant proportion of women who drink while pregnant. We have a significant proportion of medical practitioners who do not advise the women presenting to them asking for pregnancy tests or knowing that they are pregnant about the dangers of drinking alcohol while pregnant. We still have maternity hospitals, particularly private ones, which advertise the wine list in their maternity wings and how wonderful it is that, if women come to that particular hospital, they can have the very best of the reds and whites on offer. We have, of course, denial, often from young female journalists in the media, saying: 'It's not really true. I drank like a fish, or my mother did, and, look, my children are little Einsteins.' Tragically, there is too much research evidence from around the globe that foetal alcohol spectrum disorder is sapping the potential of children in ways that we have never seen before in the history of human development.
The one study that has been undertaken in Australia, the first comprehensive multidisciplinary team assessment of the incidence of FASD in an Australian community, has found that we have in that community the highest rates of FASD in children under eight in the world. This is horrific. How can it be the case? And yet we still do not have a national alcohol strategy or a national foetal alcohol spectrum disorder strategy.This would aim to make sure that every man and woman, every male and female—this is not just woman's business—and every family in Australia is aware that, if they wish to protect the potential of their newborn, if they wish to protect the brain of their newborn, the mother simply does not drink alcohol for nine months. I would not have thought that was a very big ask to protect the child; all of their future opportunities; their capacity to learn, to grow, to get a job and to stay out of prison; and their capacity not to be bullied, misunderstood or called simply 'naughty' because they cannot take instruction. All of those are problems that our FAS, or FASD, children experience, and we are still very much turning a blind eye to them.
I am hoping that in my community of Shepparton, in northern Victoria, where we have a serious problem of binge drinking amongst our young men and women, we will see a multidisciplinary diagnostic clinic established sometime soon. We have a specialist in our community who is now taking his work into our schools, where teachers are in despair—and that is not just in regional Victoria but in places like Tennant Creek and Darwin and right throughout Australia. They are in despair about these little children in their classroom who have very limited capacity to learn. They have no aid funding or special support in trying—as they described it in Tennant Creek—to just keep these kids in the classroom.
One of the tragedies of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, or FAS, is that it is not inheritable—it is not a condition passed from mother to child genetically—but, too often, women who suffer from FASD themselves give birth to children who are also brain damaged from alcohol because the mothers typically are heavy drinkers and drug takers themselves. There is very little support for women whether or not they have FAS or FASD, or anyone else in our community. If they have an addiction to alcohol, there is very little support for them when they are pregnant to reduce drastically their alcohol consumption or to cut out their drinking altogether.
One of the pillars of the action plan that was identified in 2013-14—and this plan was to go on to 2016-17—was the fact that we must have targeted measures supporting prevention and management of FASD, which would include targeting women with alcohol dependency. There was to be $4.8 million for that but, as I said, the promise was there but not the cash. There was an understanding that the action plan would have to promote consistent messages through primary care providers about the risk of consuming alcohol during pregnancy using the Medicare Local network and that they had to promote and embed awareness of the risk of FASD.
Again, in Australia we have this unnacceptable situation where we allow alcohol companies to advertise in children's' TV viewing time through the sponsorship of sport. We do not have labelling on alcohol mandated, which is extraordinary given the efforts we made with tobacco. As a cost to the Australian community, tobacco has far less impact than alcohol consumption in terms of violence, premature death, a whole range of diseases and, of course, the brain damage done to the unborn. So why is it that we are out there on tobacco as an addiction and as a horrific health problem for Australians but we are pretty much silent when it comes to the impact of alcohol in our communities? We seem to have so much bravado associated with how much you can drink. Can you remember your party? If you can, it was not a great party. Or let us celebrate you are pregnant with a bottle of bubbly or let's celebrate you winning anything with some alcohol, and, if you are not smashed, you do not have many friends. We have this unfortunate culture in Australia that has taken drinking to excess as some mark of manhood and, increasingly, a mark of you being a good-time girl as well.
Let's get grownup about alcohol consumption in Australia. I am not a wowser myself. Let's drink wine, beer and spirits in moderation and sensibly, but let's not touch a drop if you are pregnant or breastfeeding. Let's help our Indigenous communities, who are most severely affected by high-risk drinking, to stop a whole generation being written off by a form of cultural genocide because their children are born irreparably brain damaged when every baby's birth with that brain damage is totally preventable.
In this week of reconciliation, I beg our collective effort from both sides of parliament to focus on this issue. I am disappointed the Victorian government chose not to make any submission at all to this Melbourne alcohol inquiry. That is a disappointment. (Time expired)
The member for Murray made some important points, and I am pleased to associate myself with many of them. The OECD has developed a really interesting alternative method of measuring social performance and wellbeing to the widely discredited GDP. As part of this they have been asking people to tell them what issues concern them the most. The issue that concerns people around the globe the most, it turns out, is health. Given that I have said a number of times that we as members need to be more responsive to our constituents and do what people want, I have decided to make it my business to become more expert in health issues and health policy.
One of the key features of this budget is its impact on health. These impacts are extremely adverse. Do not take my word for that; do not take the word of other Labor personnel; do not even take the word of Liberal premiers; look at the comments of those who work in this area and who are most familiar with the probable impacts of the government's proposals. The welfare agency Anglicare said it is particularly concerned about the $7 Medicare copayment levy. For families and individuals on Newstart and on very low incomes, this represents a significant proportion of weekly income. People with a disability, families with young children and the elderly have higher access rates to medical services. Copayments for these groups and for low-income households generally will lead to delays in seeking medical assistance. The end result will be reduced access to medical support for those most in need and, in the longer term, increased costs for the health system. That was Anglicare.
The Mental Health Council of Australia said that any changes to the assessment of eligibility for the disability support pension will have a significant impact on people living with psychosocial disability and those who care for them. What did MS Australia say? They said they were deeply concerned about the effect of budget measures on people with multiple sclerosis. They said it was a major concern that people under the age of 35 on the disability support pension will be subject to medical reassessment and may be moved onto Newstart or youth allowance. They seek an exemption from medical reassessment for people with MS. The chief executive of the Consumers Health Forum said:
The introduction of a $7 co-payment to see the GP , the prospect of charges to attend public hospital EDs, plus a $5 increase in PBS fees, shatters the notion of universal access to primary care under Medicare … Other shocks are the $635 million cut to dental spending over four years when poor oral health is widespread among low income Australians, $121 million cuts for indigenous health "rationalisation" and nearly $100 million in cuts to eye health services.
The Consumers Health Forum chief executive said:
This is a retrograde health Budget … The removal of the Australian Preventive Health Agency and proposed shrinking of Medicare Locals reveal a disturbing absence of recognition of the pressing health needs of Australia in 2014.
The Rural Doctors Association of Australia said:
… the introduction of a $7 Medicare patient co-payment for GP consults is of serious concern to rural patients and rural doctors.
The $7 Medicare co-payment—together with patient co-payments for pharmaceuticals, out-of-hospital pathology tests (like blood tests) and diagnostic imaging services—will impact significantly on rural patients and could lead to much greater costs on the health and hospital system in future years…
The Services for Australian Rural and Remote Allied Health described the budget as a:
Horror budget for rural and remote Australians
In the lead-up to the federal budget, Treasurer Hockey made a point of saying that everyone in Australia had to do the heavy lifting in order to bring the budget back into surplus. But this budget is not within a bull's roar of the Treasurer's stated intention. It is about draconian savings measures and an ideological crusade against the social wage and universal health care. It is not equitable; it is regressive.
The ramifications of the cuts are that a newly unemployed university graduate or retrenched worker must live with no income for six months before claiming Newstart, forgoing benefits of more than $7,000. Interest payable on student HELP loans will increase from the CPI—2¼ per cent in 2014-15—to 6 per cent, and there will be a 20 per cent decrease in the government contribution to university funding and deregulation of course fees. Hospitals and schools—vital pillars of our society—will lose projected funding of $80 billion on the rationale that they are state responsibilities, creating a pretext for an increase to GST, a regressive tax. There will be a $7 tax on GP visits, an increase to PBS co-payments of $5 for general payments and 80 cents for concessional payments, and provision for state governments to introduce emergency room or hospital taxes. There will be $534 million cut from Indigenous affairs programs and cuts in indexation for the aged pension and the disability support pension. This will lead to the bottom one-fifth of earners losing around five per cent of their disposable income, compared to the top one-fifth who will lose only 0.3 per cent, based on modelling undertaken by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling, who point out that the burden of this budget overwhelmingly falls upon people in the most precarious position.
In a litany of cuts to our social wage it is the changes to Newstart that really stand out. In relation to the proposed changes to Newstart for under-30s, we are told that young people should be earning or learning. It is fine in theory. But the reality is otherwise, with those applying for Newstart having to wait six months while still having to service their rent or mortgage. If that is not bad enough, when you do receive it but do not find a job in six months you are booted off it again. This is a recipe for misery, poverty, physical and mental health problems and crime.
Youth unemployment is at 12.4 per cent, and the budget is projecting that unemployment will rise. So where are the jobs going to come from? The situation is compounded by cuts in the budget to organisations like Youth Connections which specialise in helping young Australians who are unemployed.
There is the distinct possibility that the problem of homelessness will be exacerbated. Advocacy groups are warning that thousands of young people living in community housing and low-rent private apartments face eviction if their Newstart and Youth Allowance is cut off as a result of new measures in this budget.
It is alarming that long-term youth unemployment in Australia has tripled in the past six years. In 2008 there were 19½ thousand long-term unemployed young people in Australia. Now there are over 56,000. In Victoria, there are now over 81,000 unemployed young people, and 14,000 of them have not worked at all in the past 12 months.
It is not that young people do not want to work. Many of them apply for dozens or even hundreds of jobs without success. If, through structured training, the long-term unemployed can gain formal skills in areas where demand from employers exists, then there are likely to be positive employment spinoffs. However, for such programs to be effective, employers would need to be willing to provide the necessary training—and yet the government's loosening of 457 visa rules will undermine employer incentives to train the long-term unemployed. Long-term unemployment is likely to become a growing issue in the event that the labour market deteriorates as the mining investment boom unwinds and the car industry turns out the lights.
It is outrageous that we make it so hard for young people to break out of this trap by bringing in ever-increasing numbers of migrant workers on both the permanent and temporary migrant worker programs. Last year, net overseas migration was 240,000, and we now have over a million people from overseas in Australia on temporary visas which give them work rights. How can we seriously expect to bring down the unacceptable number of young people who are long-term unemployed when they are subjected to such ferocious competition for entry-level jobs? Australia is not short of people or short of workers. What we are lacking is the sense to realise that our migrant worker programs are way too high, given the number of people here who are ready, willing and able to work.
Increasing the age pension eligibility to 70 is another regressive measure in the budget, with the IMF noting that adverse increases in retirement ages disproportionately affect the poor. Australia is one of the wealthiest developed countries, and its share of age pension spending is comparatively low. Age-related spending in 2013-14 was estimated to be 2.6 per cent of GDP, against an average spend among developed economies of 3.9 per cent. The idea that we have a budget crisis caused by welfare spending on the age pension is a sham and a nonsense. Those receiving an age pension are being targeted with indexation changes which will cut the real value of pensions, which, in today's terms, will be a cut of about $200 a fortnight by 2030 to people who can ill afford it.
This will be made worse by the introduction of the Medicare copayment which will lead to the process of unravelling universal health care. The Liberals and Nationals have always hated universal health care—as far back as the Whitlam government, forcing the government then to a double dissolution and joint sitting of parliament before it was passed. The copayment represents the thin end of the wedge.
As the Consumers Health Forum of Australia research shows, copayments will result in people delaying treatments, leading to higher health costs overall. There is a significant body of international evidence to show that copayments create barriers to access to health care for many consumers without decreasing overall healthcare costs. The eight-year-long RAND Health Insurance Experiment found that greater cost-sharing reduced appropriate or needed medical care as well as inappropriate or unnecessary medical care. In fact, the experiment also found that the poorest in society are most likely to defer medical treatment when the price increases, meaning that the health costs of this policy will disproportionately fall on our poorest citizens, including the unemployed and the elderly. This longer-term impact will be compounded by the $5 copayment for PBS-listed medicines, and the abolition of, among others, the National Preventive Health Agency, which is focused on promoting preventive health approaches and primary health care designed specifically to reduce pressure and costs in hospital and acute settings.
The myth that everyone is doing the heavy lifting in this budget is also apparent with the money that has been slashed from clean energy innovation and the protection of nature in favour of subsidies for polluting industries. There was no reform of the fuel tax credit subsidy—the cost of that to the taxpayer over four years is a cool $28 billion—and no change to the accelerated depreciation statutory effective life caps rules that allow resource companies to claim that their equipment lasts half the time it actually does, with a cost to the taxpayer over four years of $6.9 billion. The fuel tax credit subsidy alone costs more than the federal government provides to public schools.
The government managed to make the following cuts, however: $1.7 billion from the abolition of the clean energy measures, including the Australian Renewable Energy Agency; $150 million from research programs, including CSIRO, the National Environmental Research Program and the Australian Climate Change Science Program; and a $438 million loss to Landcare. These cuts are deeply damaging to the environment. As the Australian Conservation Foundation has pointed out:
The government had a chance to continue cutting pollution through a carbon price that works. It has chosen to forego $18 billion in revenue, instead handing taxpayers' money to polluters through the Emission Reduction Fund.
… The cuts to renewable energy risk keeping Australian workers and businesses using 19th Century technology to address a 21st Century challenge.
… Rather than boost investment in clean energy jobs and innovation, the government chose to scrap the profitable Clean Energy Finance Corporation.
In a speech to the parliament earlier this year, I outlined how the richest one per cent in Australia have doubled their share of national income since 1980 and inequality has widened significantly. We were told before this budget that everyone needed to do some heavy lifting, but, with a nod and a wink to those vested interests that could do more, they were spared, and the heavy lifting will be done on the backs of the working poor, students, pensioners and the unemployed. Economic disadvantage for the overwhelming majority translates into ill health, missed educational opportunity and, increasingly, the familiar symptoms of depression: alcoholism, obesity, gambling and criminality.
What matters is not how affluent a society is but how unequal it is. Sweden and Finland, two of the world's wealthiest countries by per capita income or GDP, have a very narrow gap separating their richest from their poorest citizens, and they consistently lead the world in indices of measurable wellbeing. Conversely, the United States, despite its huge aggregate wealth, always comes down low on such measures. This budget is about greedy, well-funded, vested interests looking after themselves through the Commission of Audit, driven by a narrow and discredited ideology rather than a nation-building, burden-sharing policy solution for all.
This is what happens after Labor governments have a go at running the country. This budget is a clean-up job. Under Labor, the spending gets out of control, the country gets into debt, and then the electorate votes the coalition in to sort it out. It reminds me of a jingle that was put together in 2007 for the 2007 campaign in my electorate of Swan. They wrote a jingle saying, 'Vote Labor back in and you'll just vote for debt and deficit,' which turned out to be what it was. This more than any other is the reason that the coalition was voted in last September, and the people of Australia now fully expect us to sort out Labor's mess. The Howard government did it in 1996, and now it is the responsibility of the Abbott government to do it in 2014. History repeats itself in that respect.
The challenge facing the Abbott government is unfortunately on an altogether different scale compared with that confronting Treasurer Costello in 1996. Howard and Costello faced a Labor debt legacy of $96 billion, and that required some difficult and unpopular decisions at the time to bring the budget back under control. To pay back the $96 billion debt inherited in 1996, there had to be some quite severe expenditure cuts. Again, it was about cutting expenditure, not about increasing revenue through taxes. These were, of course, opposed by Labor. If you remember, there was a riot by the unions outside Parliament House. Now there are riots in universities. But the government stayed the course and turned Australia's financial situation around, paying back the debt and leaving money in the bank and a $20 billion surplus, saving Australia in the process.
At the time, I was running a small business under the Keating government. I know there are some other people in the room who were high-profile business people then. The member for Fairfax might have gone through that period in 1992 when interest rates were up to 22 per cent. To save my business, I went without wages for 12 months. All my staff got paid but things were that tight that it was a terrible experience, again under a Labor government.
So a debt of $96 billion confronted the Howard government after 13 years of Labor government. In September 2013, the Abbott government inherited Labor debt of $667 billion and projected deficits of $123 billion. If you listened to those on the other side of the chamber and to the previous speaker, they think that is a good economic record. Incredibly, $1 billion is currently being spent every month on interest payments on the debt we owe to those from whom Labor borrowed the money.
This is the scale of the job confronting this government and the people of Australia. This is the money which has to be paid back and the problem we have to confront as a nation. All Australians recognise that the $667 billion of projected debt cannot be paid back without some tightening of the belt and some restraint. All Australians recognise that you cannot go on borrowing money to service interest on debt. It is unsustainable and eventually leads down the path of some of the debt-ridden European countries. It gets to a point where you no longer control the debt but the debt begins to control you. All Australians recognise that, just as a household has to balance its books, so does this country. So after six years of Labor chaos, what do you get? You get a bill and this is where the country has to pull together to get rid of that bill.
Sadly, the debt is a burden for all Australians to pay. It is a burden which the Labor Party, to its shame, has put on the shoulders of all Australians. We must make sure that that burden is fairly distributed. We must all do our fair share. While there will be people who do not like some of the measures, I think this budget attempts to share that burden. In the context that I acknowledge this budget is tough and tough in a number of areas, at a local level it certainly delivers for the people of Swan.
At the last election, in addition to promising to get the budget back under control, to stop the boats and to scrap the carbon tax, the coalition also made a commitment to build the roads of the 21st century. This budget delivers an unprecedented amount of spending on road infrastructure in my electorate of Swan. I say unprecedented because $300 million is budgeted for the Gateway WA road upgrade project in my electorate of Swan during the 2014-15 financial year. We have been working on this project for some time. It was under a cloud of funding uncertainty under the Labor Party.
The previous government said they would fund Gateway WA entirely through the proceeds of the mining tax. That became an impossibility. Like some of the surpluses they produced, it became a terrible uncertainty. The uncertainty generated was typical of the uncertainty that proliferated during the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years. It became the hallmark of how Labor ran the nation.
By contrast, the coalition has had an unambiguous commitment to Gateway WA for the past two elections and we will deliver it without a mining tax. The election of the Abbott government last September has finally given the project the certainty it needs. I included it as part of my five-point local plan for the electorate and we are now delivering on it for the people of Swan. The spectacular part of the funding in this budget is that the Abbott government has looked beyond isolated projects and to the integrated Perth road network as a whole. This is the first time I have seen a federal government look at roads funding in this way since I have been a member of parliament. This is a model of strategic thinking which the previous government and ministers just did not possess. We see the Abbott government's vision in projects such as WestConnex and the Western Sydney airport plan and here we see it in my electorate of Swan with the Perth freight link announced in this budget.
The budget looks beyond Gateway WA, with an integrated freight transport route which is the connection between Perth airport, Kewdale freight terminal and the Fremantle port. This is a joint project between the WA state government and the federal government. It will include a five-kilometre Roe Highway, a four-lane dual carriageway extension from the Kwinana Freeway to Stock Road in Coolbellup and improvements to Stock Road and High Street. What a great vision for Perth and a great boost to economic productivity in the state. As a result of this strategic thinking, there is much more bang for the buck both in the immediate sense in the funding of the project and the long-term impact of the productive infrastructure.
In the immediate sense, this is a $925 million contribution from the Commonwealth to a $1.6 billion project. The Commonwealth and West Australian governments will be seeking opportunities for private sector co-contribution to fund the balance, and this will ensure maximum value is achieved from taxpayer dollars with minimal impact on the federal budget. In terms of long-term benefit, the Western Australian government estimates that the Roe Highway extension will deliver benefits of $5.20 for every dollar invested—a great return for the people of Western Australia. I would say at this point that I think the Howard government also possessed this strategic approach to infrastructure demonstrated by the Abbott government in the budget. At the 2007 election at which I was elected, John Howard announced the Perth roads package, which focused significantly on the Great Eastern Highway. My Liberal campaign for the seat of Swan was thrilled at the time as we had run a community campaign for an upgrade to the Great Eastern Highway with Belmont Mayor and now MLA for Belmont Glenys Godfrey. But John Howard and then minister Truss had not just seen it as one-off project, or an opportunity to win a seat; he saw the broader strategic importance of the Eastern Gateway to Midland and the East, which is how the Perth roads package originated. After John Howard announced the package, I must admit that Kevin Rudd at the time thought it was such a great package that he announced it four days later, so it was a benefit to the people of Swan and to Western Australia.
Labor and the previous minister did not possess this thinking or vision about the Perth roads package in the original instance. Consider the money shovelled out the door over the last six years, the borrowed money that has left the country in the perilous financial position that it is in. It was not carefully targeted or spent as part of an overarching strategic vision or strategic plan. It was just splashed out on pink batts and overpriced school halls. I remember a particular roads example in my own electorate of Swan where the Labor Party candidate promised before the 2010 election to build a roundabout at the corner of South Terrace and Labouchere Road in South Perth. It was ranked over 270 on the black spot roads program but all of a sudden it became a priority for my seat of Swan. I know this intersection particularly well. It is at the bottom of a steep hill just round the corner from my house in South Perth. This was clearly no place for a roundabout. There had been another one 500 metres the other way that had to be taken out because it caused a road blockage. There had clearly been no real thought put into the suggestion by the Labor candidate and the Labor Party for that roundabout. It was just about doing something for the sake of doing something. The road of course never went ahead in the end, to the embarrassment of the Labor candidate. The money was actually sent to the city of South Perth, which on investigation thought it was such a bad idea it returned that money to the government. Can you imagine how much economic benefit this would have generated? I think it would have had the opposite effect as it generated congestion and road problems. I am pleased that the Abbott government infrastructure package in this budget continues a great tradition of coalition roads funding for my electorate of Swan that started in my political lifetime with the Great Eastern Highway and continues with Gateway WA today.
In addition to our roads funding commitments in the electorate of Swan during the last election, we also put forward a proposal for a $1 million Swan-Canning River recovery program. This particular commitment was one I started working on in 2008-09 after consulting with the environmental groups in the electorate and took to the 2010 and 2013 federal elections. It was a fantastic moment to see this project in the black ink in the budget papers and I thank the Minister for the Environment for his personal interest in the program and for ensuring that it can be delivered at the first possible opportunity. I do not propose to say too much more on that recovery program today, as I spoke about it in some detail during the debate on the Social Security Legislation (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014 recently. Last Monday I went down to the Canning Wetlands to celebrate the grant with the Wilson Wetlands Action Group, who were coordinating a day of planting with Wilson Park Primary School. Along with Russell Gorton I donned some waders and went into the Wilson Lagoon to help remove some of the hydrocotyl weed on the surface. This grant will be significantly aimed at getting on top of the hydrocotyl problem once and for all. If you go into a lagoon, make sure the waders you are wearing fit you, otherwise you will end up in the drink, which I happened to do. The local media did not get a copy of that, fortunately. I can say to the House that the local environmental groups are very happy with the $1m commitment and already have some good plans for putting it to use, which will develop in due course.
Also in the budget was $45,000 for the City of South Perth Aquatic Centre feasibility study, delivering on another election commitment that we made locally to the people of Swan. This is another very pleasing commitment to see in black and white, in the budget papers. The South Perth Aquatic Centre is a local issue campaign that I started working on in 2011, after being contacted by a constituent. We ran a survey in the local area and had over 1,000 responses from members in the community, saying that they wished they could have an aquatic centre. After consultation, we were told that a detailed feasibility study was required to take this proposal to the next level, and that is what this funding provides. So we will continue to fight for money and, hopefully after the study from the $45,000, we will come out with a positive response. The City of South Perth has voted to accept the funding, and I look forward to working with them on the feasibility study over the course of the next budget period. I know that the people of South Perth and the aquatic organisations in the local area are pleased to finally see a feasibility study budgeted for. I am pleased that the Abbott government has seen fit to deliver on this 2013 election commitment at the first opportunity.
The coalition takes a strong stand when it comes to crime and anti-social behaviour and has had a particularly strong record on delivering security infrastructure in the City of Belmont. The Howard government pioneered the rollout of CCTV in Rivervale and Kewdale. This budget builds on that legacy, with a $100,000 CCTV grant for the perimeters of the Belmont Forum and the Belmont Village. This funding will be delivered through the $50 million Safer Streets program. The City of Belmont supports this commitment, because CCTV is already working to make Belmont safer. In Belmont, between January and August 2013, some 48 incidents recorded by closed circuit television were given to the police, with 20 positive results where offenders were identified and prosecuted; 24 were filed, pending further information; and four are still under investigation. These are all results which could not have been achieved without closed circuit television. So I am pleased to be able to help deliver these security improvements at what is the main shopping and meeting place in the Belmont area.
While this is no doubt a tough budget, it is a budget that delivers for my electorate of Swan. We are delivering on the local plan put forward to the people of Swan at the last election. And we are delivering on our national commitment to get the budget back under control—a commitment that the public expects us to deliver. We hear from the other side many things about the budget, and how it is cutting here and there, but I think we need to stop scaring the pensioners, to stop scaring the people who want to go to university and to clearly explain to people in Swan in Western Australia that there are safety nets. I am happy for people to contact my office about them. We need a budget that gets rid of the debt. We see one of the major business people in Australia in this room. I know that he has no debt. He understands that no debt is an important part of running any business and being successful in that business.
I seek leave to table to two documents from the City of South Perth in regard to the aquatic leisure centre.
Leave granted.
When truth prevails over injustice, we are all the winners. Last week in Australia, the truth prevailed over injustice and the Australian people were the winners and the government was a loser in the court of public opinion. Australia's debt is around 12 per cent of GDP, according to the OECD, and the average debt for the OECD is 73 per cent. The IMF confirms this position. Australia's debt is 12 per cent of GDP and the average in the OECD is 73 per cent. So while Australia is only one of 13 countries in the world with a AAA credit rating—the best rating in the world—and one of the lowest debt levels in the world, the Treasurer and the Prime Minister tell all Australians that we have a debt problem.
Why do they tell such untruths to the whole country? No member of parliament should vote for any appropriation bill for a government that lies to Australians and does so for an improper purpose. It seems the Liberal Party wants to fool Australians and grab their money and grab control of their lives. How can an appropriation bill for any purpose be believed? How can we have faith in appropriating one cent to a government that has misled the Australian people over our debt levels? The Treasurer and the Prime Minister seek to destroy Australia's standard of living. Every Australian in and out of parliament must hold the government to account. These bills stem from the Treasurer's betrayal of the election promises made by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer in the election campaign, after the campaign was called. While the Prime Minister was very quick to attack former Prime Minister Julia Gillard for breaking promises, these bills break many, many promises and together with the appropriation bills for the budget and the accompanying legislation will destroy the livelihood of millions of Australians. Now is the time for the nation to unite and make it clear to the government that these changes to our lives will not stand. As a great man once said, 'An injustice done to a man anywhere is an injustice to all men everywhere.'
Four female members of my electorate contacted me last week. They are aged between 73 and 86. They are living in a nursing home and for the last 50 years they have voted for the Liberal Party. They informed me that they did not vote for me at the last federal election, that they had always voted Liberal. They reminded me what a great Prime Minister Sir Robert Menzies was, how important the work that Malcolm Fraser had done was for Australia and what a great friend John Howard had been to the elderly people of Australia. Every payday, they handover their pension to the nursing home that looks after them and the home gives them back $15 a week. It is enough for them to pool their money every Friday, so that they can catch a taxi and based on their concessions go and see a movie. Sometimes a relative will give them some additional funds and they can buy a chocolate or have a coffee. That is their life, but not anymore since the budget was brought down. They have done nothing but worry that that $15 will have to be kept for maybe a visit to the doctor or maybe two at their age.
Fifty years of voting Liberal means nothing. Their lives are shattered, their lifestyle diminished. They informed me, like many Australians have, they will never vote for the Liberal or National parties again. Why be elected to parliament if you are going to make pensioners suffer and cause misery to so many people? No senator of the Palmer United Party will vote for any change to the pension or the co-payment imposed by the Treasurer, the Prime Minister or Minister for Health in this budget. Trying to reduce the rate of increase in the pension is a cut to the pension, a breach of another election promise. The Prime Minister is talking semantics and, yet again, trying to mislead the parliament.
To extend the eligibility for pensions to the age of 70 years is not just an extension to the age of the pension. It is more than that; it is an attempt to set up conditions to extend the entitlement date for super to 70 years, so that fund managers of Australia will be able to earn fees over 50 years from the savings of average Australians. Thirty per cent of all Australians who may die before they reach the age of 70 will never receive their super and never receive access to their life savings before they die. Imagine working as a tradesman or a labourer and having to retire at the age of 50 because you are worn out, and you need to get access to your super but you will not get the pension or your super until you are 70 because the fund managers have it. They have your life savings. They have the sum total of your work as a tradesman because they want to earn excessive fees out of it every year. If the fund managers want to sell their businesses, the value of that business increases dramatically if the entitlement age for Australians receiving their super is, as has been foreshadowed by the government, extended to 70 years of age. That is what it is about: selling their business, making money on the quick at the cost of the people of Australia.
The cost of 12 years education is equivalent to the cost of one year's unemployment to our nation. A good education policy is not only good social policy but good economic policy. We rob the nation of the creativity and the excellence of its most promising citizens if we load them up as soon as they leave university with mountains of debt to handicap them or to inhibit their choice in careers. When you are 20, 22 or 30, it is the time of your life to take risks and to be bold. The history of the world tells us that it is the young, the cream of the nation, who create the need and the leadership for incentivising the nation to do better. It was a young Thomas Jefferson aged 30 years who wrote in the US Constitution that all men are created equal. Silicon Valley in the United States stands as a testimony as to what can be done and what has been done by so many young Americans. They gave the world Facebook, Yahoo and Google. None of these leaders of the world's industry were saddled with HECS debt. They were free to pursue their lives and their dreams in their 20s at a time when life was as it was meant to be: free and independent. They were free to provide real leadership.
The cost of the Paid Parental Leave Scheme will be nearly $20 billion and still a stay at home mum with four children will not receive anything and still a mother in part-time employment juggling two roles will get a pittance. The cost of a free university education in Australia is around $12 billion a year. I think freeing the best among us is more important than creating a scheme designed to make well-off women in our society more well-off by burdening our youth, senior citizens and those who cannot fend for themselves.
When I left school I registered for unemployment at the age of 18. I did not know what I wanted to do in my life. Sometimes I was depressed. Sometimes I felt a failure. I tried a number of times but could not find employment. After a few months I got myself together. Since that time I or my companies have paid millions of dollars in tax to the government, employed thousands of people, and invested in the nation through billions of dollars in investment and exports. The small investment I received from the Australian government when I first left school was paid back many times over.
Australia cannot abandon its young citizens. The whole move to deny government assistance to one group of citizens because of their age would, if implemented, increase the crime rate and youth suicide. All Australians—whatever party they belong to—must stop moves by the government to destroy the lives of Australians before they start on their journey in life. Palmer United will vote in the Senate against any attempt to make any citizen ineligible for government assistance on the basis of their age.
Queensland and Western Australia are vast states. The use of motor transport in those states is not a luxury; it is a necessity. Australians living in these states, especially in the bush, more than any other state, will suffer from the increase in fuel excise. The government fails; Australians pay. Palmer United will join with our colleagues in the Senate from the Motoring Enthusiast Party to vote against changes to the fuel excise. The most disturbing feature of this measure is, however, the fact that increases are indexed. This means every year, regardless of the state of the economy, regardless of the state of the debt of Australia and the states, the excise will increase—regardless, they will pay more. This indexation will avoid political and public notice, but it will mean that millions of Australians will pay more each year without any announcement in any budget, without any political responsibility.
As the OECD tells us, confirmed by the Australian Parliamentary Library, Australia's debt is 12 per cent of its GDP, and the average debt for the advanced economies is 73 per cent. So for the Treasurer to say that we have a debt problem is just untrue. It is not one promise that has been broken by the Liberal government; it is many. The government is seeking to change our way of life as Australians, to scare us so that they will destroy us out of fear.
If I told untruths as a director of a company to my shareholders and raised money for them or got elected to a board position on false representations, I would be charged with deceptive and misleading conduct. So it must be with the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and all the ministers that serve in the government. To seek to impose a new tax in the form of a debt levy, when our debt is not a problem based on its national standards, goes against every Liberal policy, from the day of the foundation of the Liberal Party, and is a betrayal of not only all members of the Liberal Party but all members of the community. The Liberal Party has always been a party that sought to reduce taxation. How can a Liberal government betray their members by imposing a so-called debt levy? The government is trying to create a false impression that there is a debt problem when there is not. Australia's public social expenditure is less than half of the average of the OECD. Now, more than ever, we need to unite all Australians and oppose this sham budget, make it an election budget for the government and allow the people to vote on it. That is what democracy is all about.
I wish to make it clear that no government ever wants to have to introduce a difficult budget, but a responsible government realises when it is necessary and acts accordingly. For six years the Labor government engaged in the biggest spending binge in our nation's history. They saddled Australia with a $123 billion deficit and a national debt on the way to reaching $667 billion in 10 years—the fastest deterioration in debt in dollar terms and as a share of GDP in modern Australian history. Every one of Labor's governments since Federation has left Australia's public finances in worse shape than they inherited, but never have we faced conditions as perilous as the conditions we face today. Once again, it falls to a coalition government to clean up Labor's mess and pay off their bill.
We all have to live within our means. Governments are not an exception. Putting government expenditure on a credit card, like the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments did, mortgages our future and transfers the economic pain onto our children and grandchildren. I strongly believe that it is immoral to shackle future generations with debt because of the incompetence of Labor governments which cannot keep their economic house in order.
The 2014-15 federal budget makes the tough but necessary decisions to put government finances on a more sustainable footing so that Australians can all share in prosperity and not crushing indebtedness into the future. This budget is a key component of the Abbott government's Economic Action Strategy, and it calls on everyone and every business to contribute, to join or grow the workforce, to boost productivity and to help build a stronger economy with more investment.
This budget takes responsible steps to strengthen our economy, promoting jobs, growth, infrastructure and education. The Infrastructure Growth Package will take the government's transport investment to $50 billion by 2019-20. As a result, total infrastructure investment from Commonwealth, state and local government, as well as the private sector, will build to over $125 billion by 2019-20.
The government are expanding opportunities for more people to study through our reforms to higher education. Australian universities will be able to compete with the best in the world by being given the freedom to innovate, a greater ability to invest in world-class research and the capacity to respond to the needs of students and business. Education is our fourth-largest export after coal, gold and iron ore. Our universities have been held back and are starting to be outdone by our neighbouring countries. Many fewer students are coming to Australia, and therefore billions of dollars annually are being removed from our economy. The government's education plans will see that our universities become competitive with those in the United States and Europe.
I would like to point out that, contrary to the scaremongering by Labor and the Greens, the coalition has not cut any funding to schools. In fact, we have increased funding to schools by $1.2 billion in the forward estimates after Labor snuck it out in the lead-up to the last election so they could hide the true state of their budget. The $80 billion alluded to by Labor was never in their budget. It was a pie-in-the-sky pipedream of funding that Australia could never afford because of Labor's poor and reckless fiscal mismanagement. Labor hid this $80 billion beyond the forward estimates so it never had to be written down in any budget papers and was never committed to by their government. It is disappointing that so many were deceived by these empty promises. Australian schools are $1.3 billion better off under the coalition. We are increasing funding in line with CPI and enrolments after the 2017 school year.
The coalition government is investing in our future health with the world's largest medical research endowment fund, the $20 billion Medical Research Future Fund. This means that Australia can continue to advance world-leading medical research projects, attract and retain first-class researchers like Professor Ian Frazer and deliver improved health and medical outcomes for all Australians.
This government has an earn-or-learn philosophy, where young people with a work capacity will be required to work for the dole. Otherwise, they can choose to learn, studying a now uncapped tertiary education course or undertaking an apprenticeship, which can now be put on HECS, with an additional $5,500 allowed for the tools of their trade. Businesses will receive up to $10,000 for employing workers older than 50 who have been on income support for six months or more, meaning that there will be stronger incentives to hire older workers.
For veterans, the government are delivering on our commitment to fairly index the Defence Force Retirement Benefits Scheme and the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme.
However, the budget repair does require everyone to do their part. Family payments will be changed to target payments to those who need it most. Eligibility will be tightened on family tax benefit part B to those families where their primary income is under $100,000, as opposed to the $150,000 it was previously.
There are no changes to the pension supplement in the 2014-15 budget. The pension supplement will continue to be paid to eligible pensioners. Age pensioners will also continue to receive the energy supplement, formerly the clean energy supplement, even after the carbon tax is scrapped. The coalition government is honouring its commitment to make no changes to the age pension during this term of government. From September 2017, the government will link pension increases to inflation.
There seems to be a lot of speculation and misinformation about the eventual increase to the pension age. It is a sign of a healthy, strong nation that Australians are increasingly living longer lives. An Australian woman born today can expect to live for 85 years, and an Australian male can expect to live for around 81 years. When our pension and welfare system was introduced it was a very different story, with life expectancy of 59 years for women and 52 years for men. This is why we need to take a good look at how to make our age pension system strong for all our futures.
The government understands the challenges facing older Australians. Many seniors have not benefited from a lifetime of superannuation, and for many the age pension is a wage replacement. Changes announced to the age pension will not start until 2017. This is a continuation of the Labor government's policy, which had already increased the pension age to 67 by 1 July 2023. This government will continue this growth and increase the age pension age to 70 by 1 July 2035.
The family home will not be included in the pension means test. All pension assets test and income test thresholds will be fixed for three years from 1 July 2017. Maintaining these thresholds will not lead to any reduction in the rate of the pension. From 1 September 2017, the government will link pension increases only to inflation.
The coalition government is honouring its commitment to self-funded retirees to index income thresholds to the consumer price index for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card. This means that even more retirees will be eligible for the benefits of the Commonwealth concession card. This change means that modest variations in income will not affect eligibility and will reduce uncertainty for people in this group. The threshold did not increase under the last six years of the Labor government. The Commonwealth Seniors Health Card income test will include the income from superannuation from 1 July 2015. This is in line with the income test already applied for the age pension. All current holders of the Seniors Health Card will be grandfathered, meaning they will not be affected by the change. The benefits of the seniors card currently include and will continue to include lower Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme medicine costs, lower general practitioner appointment costs and lower out-of-hospital medicine costs.
I wish to make it clear that, with regard to the state and local government concessions, these are provided by state, territory and local governments for state and local services such as public transport, utilities costs and local government rates. The concession amounts vary between each state. Previously, the Commonwealth provided a relatively small proportion—approximately 10 per cent—of the overall funding directly to the states and territories to offset the costs of these concessions. The Commonwealth does not and never has provided the assistance directly to the concession card holders. State and territory concessions are the responsibility of the respective state or territory government. The changes announced in the budget will mean state and territory governments fully fund their concessions in the future. The Victorian state government has already said that they would match the original Commonwealth contribution.
To assist in paying down Labor's deficit and the $1 billion per month we are paying in interest on the debt they left, there will be a three-year temporary budget repair levy. It will, from July 2014, be payable by individuals with a taxable income above $180,000 at a rate of two per cent. The levy will raise an estimated $3.1 billion over the forward estimates period and will ensure higher income Australians contribute to the budget repair.
The coalition is determined to deliver an ambitious infrastructure program. The government will secure funding for additional road infrastructure by reintroducing twice-yearly indexation of fuel to CPI from 1 August 2014. In difficult budget circumstances, this is the responsible way to immediately start building the productivity-boosting roads Australia needs, and this will be linked, and protected by legislation.
The coalition budget will take steps to put health spending growth on a sustainable path. All Australians will need to make a greater contribution to the cost of their own health care. While continuing to support the most vulnerable in the community, government spending must be targeted to those most in need. The reforms this government is making will ensure all Australians have access to world-class health care and affordable medicines. Every dollar of savings from health expenditure reforms in this budget will be invested in a new, capital-protected, Medical Research Future Fund until it reaches $20 billion.
From 1 July 2015, previously bulk-billed patients can expect to contribute $7 towards the cost of standard GP consultations and out-of-hospital pathology and imaging services, meaning not more than $70 per annum in total across all services.
The PBS safety net for all patients will be increased from 1 January 2015. A general patient and their family will now pay an expected $145 more to reach the safety net, after which they can purchase medicine at the concessional rate. A patient with a concession card and their family will pay an expected $61.80 more to reach the safety net, after which they can receive free medicines. Currently, the government spends almost $10 billion a year on providing Australians with medicines on the PBS.
It is quite clear that our government have inherited a budget position that is unsustainable. There is a strong case for change. Health is a key area of spending growth. Health expenditure is currently 4.1 per cent of GDP, but the Productivity Commission recently estimated that, without changes to government policy, over time this would rise to seven per cent.
In particular, high growth in spending on Medicare and public hospitals is projected to place the budget under increasing pressure. Medicare levy and Medicare levy surcharge revenue will not be enough to offset the increasing cost of health care. The combined revenue from these sources is less than 20 per cent of total Commonwealth health spending.
Advances in medical technology mean that demand for medicines and health services is expected to grow for all age groups. Demand is also expected to grow faster, as Australia's ageing population increasingly relies on the health system for care. Between 2010 and 2050, the number of people aged 65 to 84 is expected to more than double and those aged 85 and over to more than quadruple. Given these pressures, government spending on many health programs will continue to grow at an unsustainable rate, unless fundamental changes are made.
I would like to touch on the government's plan for foreign aid. In psychology 'behaviour' is defined as irrational if an action continues to be repeated despite its repeated failure to achieve the desired outcome. On this definition, aspects of our foreign aid budget have, for many years, been irrational.
Despite many millions of dollars in Australian aid to address key development indicators, such as literacy rates, infant mortality, life expectancy and real income per capita, they are in many cases deteriorating. While this has started to turn around in recent years, we have known for decades about our delivery shortcomings. In the light of inherent failures, many advocated for a more interventionist aid policy on our part. While this view may have had popular appeal in the media, it would have had serious adverse implications for our relationship with aid recipients, including Pacific island countries and even Indonesia.
This is why it is vital for our foreign minister to continue her efforts to improve the efficiency of our foreign aid program, realising that success should not be determined on dollars spent, but rather on actual results on the ground.
This budget ensures a sustainable pathway, while ensuring affordability and fairness. Yes, it is a tough budget, but it is the budget that Australia needs. It is the right and responsible action to take if we are to have a stronger, more sustainable future which will benefit all Australians.
In the weeks leading up to the budget, a conservative Treasurer—not just any Treasurer but a conservative Treasurer—Joe Hockey, started talking about the year 2050. For a moment, I thought we might be about to hear something quite interesting. There are so many countries to our north and around the world that are actively building their nations for long-term growth and prosperity. There are happily talking in decades, even 50-year plans, in terms of their education and infrastructure spends. We need to be considering our long-term objectives. Much of the talk about the budget challenge, the actual challenge—that is, the talk from economists, not the political spin of the government—is in the changes in the world. Growth and increasing sophistication of our neighbours, new competition coming from nations as they develop, not just low-skilled manufacturing jobs but competition for higher skilled jobs, tourism, education, services, innovation, R&D, leaps in technology, challenges in climate change and change itself are at a speed which is unimaginable. We will not have the historical advantages of high skills and technological superiority for long. The advantages that we have had will slip away unless we act. Every year that we fritter away our talent for the new is a year lost.
Unfortunately, when the Treasurer was looking forward to 2050, it was only to demand that we cut pensions. He looked ahead and did not see the challenges of climate change and the possibilities of renewable energy. He did not see an explosion of innovation and skills among emerging economies, with all the opportunities and threats that brings. He did not see the inevitable slowing down of Australia's advantage in mining. He did not see the real need to innovate in agriculture. He did not see the opportunities that grow an economy. He saw only threats and the simplest of threats. He saw a threat to the government's bottom line: if the government did nothing for the next 35 years and if the trajectory remained the same, the bottom line would be in serious difficulty.
He showed an extraordinary lack of imagination and in almost every case, every area he dealt with, he made the problem worse. He tried to fix his own bottom line by attacking the bottom line of families and households around the country and those that are least able to sustain such an attack. He thinks there are too many people on the pension or that there will be by 2050. Well, if you think there are too many people on the pension, one of things you can do is try to reduce the number of people that need it by 2050. Superannuation, for example, is one solution. But no, they slowed the rate of the increase in superannuation and, in doing so, have made it more likely that by 2050 people will need the pension And then they cut it. They make it more likely that you will need the pension and then they cut it.
We remember what CPI adjustments were like in the 10 years of the Howard government. Last time we had CPI adjustments, we saw pensioners struggling in the last years of the Howard government and it is hard to believe that this change in indexation is a permanent change. In 10 years' time we will once again see pensioners struggling and there will be remedial action without doubt.
He saw too many young people unemployed but rather than help them get work, he cut the programs that helped them get jobs. He cut Youth Connections, for example, and industry partnerships. And then, having made it less likely that they would get jobs, he made it harder for them to get unemployment benefits by requiring that they wait six months for Newstart. Undoubtedly, these changes for people under 30 and the changes in the pensions will lead to a greater need for social housing. Did we see an increase in social housing funding? No. We saw an increase in the need for it and we saw a cut to affordable housing. We saw public transport and infrastructure projects all around the country cut, making it more likely that you would have to drive and then they raised the cost of petrol—not good for most of us but good for the government because if you drive, you have to pay. It is good for the government's bottom line but bad for families and households.
They were concerned about the rising cost of hospitals but, rather than try and find ways to have fewer people need those hospitals, they have actually cut preventative health funding. They have cut $703,000 from Holroyd City Council's health programs, for example. Holroyd has: incredibly high obesity rates of 19 per cent; 52 per cent of people are overweight; and 10 per cent of the population of Holroyd has diabetes. They are preventable illnesses but they have cut funding to preventative health and they are cutting funding to the preventative health agency. In doing these things, they are making it more likely that you will need to go to a doctor and when you do need to go to a doctor, they hit you with a $7 per visit GP tax.
They have deregulated university fees so that there will be more places. But, in doing so, they have made it less likely that people will be able to afford them. They have done it, supposedly, to raise standards but it will undoubtedly hollow out our newer and our regional universities and lead to a drop in standards in some universities. But, hey, it improves the government's bottom line and that seems to be what this conservative Treasurer cares most about. If you graduate from university as a doctor, for example, you will have higher fees with a bigger debt. You will find that the Abbott-Hockey government has cut funding to clinical placements so you will be less likely to get a job that you trained for. It is not such a problem for the government because they made it easier for people to bring in people on 457 visas, so we will have more foreign doctors coming in. But if you trained as a doctor, you will be less likely to get a job. And then, of course, every year that you do not get a job, there will be a six per cent compound interest on your HECS so your debt will go up—good for the government, more money for the government but more debt for the community. Less debt for the government means more for the community. It is almost a transfer of debt.
They do not like debt, they say. They rail against debt but they have cut funding for a tool allowance for apprentices and instead brag in parliament about providing them with $20,000 of debt. Take away the funding for tools; give them debt instead. Debt is bad for government. It is really good, this government thinks, if they transfer it to families and to the community. If you put off having children until your 30s because you have been carrying the extra HECS debt that the government has given you, you will discover in your 60s, when you are eight to 10 years off Abbott's new retirement age, that your late 20-something children have lost their jobs and are moving home because they are not eligible for Newstart. You really will have to work til you are 70 under this government's plans for you.
If we prosper in 2050, it will not be on the back of cuts to vulnerable families in our communities; it will be on the back of people born today who go to school today, get a university education and graduate. It will be highly skilled people that will drive this economy in 2050.
We will prosper on the back of two great strengths: our minds and our diversity. We have the world within us. There is not a language we do not speak. We had the stuff in the ground in the era when that was important and we have an extraordinary capacity to think and innovate at a time when that will be the driver of growth. Coal will not be king in 2050. It is assets that are created from the mind that will drive prosperity.
We have to ensure that our young people and those to come have the best possible opportunity to own part of the new economies growing through, for example, action on climate change, through renewable energy, through all those technologies—yet the government cuts that. The government cuts the possibility of Australia being at the forefront of the exponentially growing field of renewable energy—knowing full well that every year delayed is a lost opportunity to cash in on the new and raises the cost of acting on climate change. We have to ensure that our young people, from the day of their birth, have the best opportunity to develop their minds, their capacity and their strengths, yet the government cuts funding to early childhood support, it slashes money to schools, it rips money out of universities and it reduces the number of people who will be able to access university.
The world will be connected in 2050 in ways that we cannot imagine. We need the best cutting-edge communications technology and we need it now—so that our young inventors and entrepreneurs can own the very way that things will be done in the future. Copper will not be king in 2050; copper is not king now. To pull back from investments in things like renewable energy and fibre to the home puts this country back. It sets us back and it does not serve well the people who will drive this country's prosperity in 2050. We need serious investment in R&D and innovation and funds to commercialise the intellectual property of Australians. Yet the government cuts billions from innovation, R&D and science and withdraws the very funds that Commercialisation Australia should be using to assist Australians to commercialise their work.
This government is about the government's bottom line today. It is not about Australians, it is not about growth and it is not about prosperity. The government protects its bottom line by tearing away at the bottom line of Australians now and in the future. You think there are too many pensioners? You stop them from finding ways to avoid needing the pension, then you cut the pension. Do you think there are too many young unemployed? You make it more difficult for them to get a job, then you cut support through Newstart. You cut funding to public transport, making it more necessary for people to drive, then you raise the cost of petrol. You deregulate university fees, then you make it harder for people to afford those fees. You cut funding to preventative health, then you charge people more to go to the doctor.
But perhaps the biggest contradiction in all of this, in everything we have heard from the government in the last few weeks since the budget, is on the issue of debt itself. They claim that they have made these terribly harsh cuts—which they accept are harsh—right across the Australian landscape. They claim they have done this to fix what they call the 'debt and deficit disaster'. Unfortunately for them, anybody who actually pays attention to this—and I know a number of economists have—knows that they have not actually reduced the projected debt and deficit. In fact, the 2014-15 debt is actually higher than in the pre-election projections. The debt in 2017-18 is also higher than was projected. In fact, the projections through PEFO were for a sliver of a surplus. Remember how they used to get up and say that there would be a sliver of a surplus in 2017-18? Now there is a sliver of a deficit. So the debt in 2014-15 is bigger than the PEFO projections and the level in 2017-18 is also bigger—and so is the deficit.
The reason I go back to PEFO rather than MYEFO is a simple one. When Joe talks about MYEFO, as in the midyear economic forecast, he is really talking about Joe's EFO. It is based on figures that the Treasurer has had a hand in. He increased spending by $10 billion between the election and the midyear economic forecast, or Joe's EFO. He increased it by $10 billion and changed a whole range—
Mr Deputy Speaker—
Order! The member will resume her seat.
No, I am not prepared to accept a question.
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: please ask the member for Parramatta to refer to the Treasurer by his correct title.
I was referring to the mid-year economic forecast as Joe-EFO; I was not referring to the Treasurer at all, and I have referred to the Treasurer by his title for the entire speech.
The member for Parramatta has the call.
The reason I choose PEFO, the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook, is that it was used the last time the Treasury and the Department of Finance actually considered the finances of the country and produced the projections without the influence of the Treasurer. I am not convinced that treasurers do have that much influence on the Treasury but the Treasurer Joe Hockey seems to think they did in the Labor years, so I am assuming that they do for him now.
Just before the election, PEFO was done in a period where the government and the opposition were separate and Treasury and Finance put together the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook. Again, when you look at PEFO, the deficit for 2014-15 is actually higher than PEFO. They have increased the deficit. You can see what they have done. They have cut billions from the vulnerable through cuts to family payments, through the GP tax, through tax increases that they promised they would not make et cetera. But they have spent it in other ways. There is $20 billion on paid parental leave. They reversed the tax cuts for the high-income earners through superannuation, so there is quite a bit there. They have given enormous tax cuts to the miners through abolishing the minerals resource rent tax and of course enormous tax cuts to the biggest polluters if they manage to abolish the price on carbon. There are quite a few there.
Essentially, they have cut from the poorest section of the community and given back to areas that they obviously see as a priority. This is a clear example of a twisted priority, that you would cut so much from the vulnerable in society for no improvement in the 'debt and deficit disaster' as they call it at all. In fact, it is worse than it was in PEFO. So every time the Treasurer gets up and talks about these harsh measures and 'We all needed it, we had to do this—we had to cut $5,000 from single-income families earning $50,000 because we had to put our budget back on track,' remember there is no improvement in the budget position because of these harsh measures to the most vulnerable in our society. These broken promises—promise after promise after promise broken—for no gain in the financial position of this country. For zero—in fact, slightly worse, a 'sliver worse', to use the words that they used when they were in opposition. It is a fraud, it is a broken promise, it is based on lies and it is a deception of the highest order.
It is always entertaining to listen to members opposite in their various states of denial in relation to the budget. I urge the member for Parramatta to refer to today's editorial in The Australian Financial Review headed 'PBO confirms the budget problem'. Perhaps the member for Parramatta would also like to read the attached article 'Budget crisis is real, says PBO.' It goes on:
In remarks that effectively endorse government warnings that left unchecked gross debt would balloon to $667 billion, Parliamentary Budget Officer Phil Bowen said it was time to begin the return to surplus to protect the economy against future crises.
And just as those opposite did as they built up the accumulated debt and deficit, and accumulated a mess for the coalition to clean up, the member walks out of the chamber laughing. I encourage all members from the opposition to read this article. It goes on:
It is time to start coming out of [debt and deficit] otherwise the longer you leave it the more exposed you become and the harder it is to wind it back. If you just continued on the trajectory of payments and revenues prior to the budget net debt is forecast to grow rapidly. I think at the highest rate in the OECD.
I do not think that is a fiction at all, but neither am I saying that we have an immediate emergency. And I recognise the Parliamentary Budget Office's Mr Bowen for his comments. Surely we are currently at a very low level relative to the rest of the developed world, but frankly we do not want to find ourselves where the rest of the world is. We have to have a buffer. One of the reasons we came through the global financial crisis so well was because we started with assets.
How did we start with those assets? Could it have been through years of good financial management by the coalition, by Liberals and nationals in government? Then we had the Labor Party in office, racking up year after year of deficits, despite promises by the former Treasurer, the member for Lilley and despite the repeated promises of a surplus which never eventuated, and now it is up to the side of the House to clean up the mess. I urge those members opposite to acquaint themselves with the facts, to stop being in this process of denial and let the coalition get on with the job of cleaning up the mess.
There are two other matters I want to raise today in relation to the Appropriation Bills. One is a far more bipartisan initiative which I am sure the Deputy Speaker is aware of. It is the formation of the new Parliamentary Friends of Road Safety group. It is a friendship group which has the support of me as a co-chair and Senator Alex Gallaher and has been initiated by members from both the House of Reps and the Senate and has received strong support in the six or eight weeks since its formation. The new parliamentary friendship group has an aim to elevate the issue of road safety to a new level within the Commonwealth and to help provide national leadership on issues relating to road trauma. One of my key concerns in joining the group and agree to be the co-chair is a disproportionate number of rural and regional road users, motorists, pedestrians and cyclists, who continue to die or be seriously injured on our regional highways and our local road networks. It remains an enormous challenge for us as a community and at all levels of government to address the road trauma which continues to exist.
I acknowledge that increased enforcement activities and improved driver behaviour are important. We must also recognise in this place that investing more funds in roads and building a safe road network is a critical aspect in reducing the incidence of road trauma in our community. The research that underpins the National Road Safety Strategy found that 50 per cent of the anticipated reduction in road fatalities in the future would come from building safer roads. That is consistent with the earlier work by the Australian Road Assessment Program, which argued that building safer roads had the capacity to save more lives than the combined impacts of improved driver behaviour and increased law enforcement put together. So I am very keen to work across the party divide with the Parliamentary Friends of Road Safety group in this coming term of parliament and I encourage other members who are keen to participate in a bipartisan manner for projects to reduce road trauma right across Australia in the years ahead.
The first event which was organised by the friendship group involved our public support for an event called Fatality Free Friday. Fatality Free Friday provided an opportunity for members and senators to sign the Fatality Free Friday pledge. We had many parliamentarians attending on that day. By taking the pledge the members in this place were joining a large group of Australian people taking the pledge online. I checked this morning and more than 80,000 people had signed the pledge in relation to road safety. By taking the pledge what you are doing is promising that on Friday, 30 May, this coming Friday, you will remind your family, friends and workmates to take extra care on the roads. You will put your lights on for safety. You will be mindful to drive safely and follow the road rules. You will not speed are not drink and drive. You will take care at level crossings. You will slow down in the wet and drive to suit the conditions. You will not tailgate other drivers and you will look as far ahead as possible. Your will wear your seat belt. You will not use your mobile phone while driving. You will set a good example to your passengers by driving calmly and safely, and you will take care as a pedestrian when crossing the road or street. I must say that that list of things that we pledged to do only a matter of two weeks ago is pretty much common sense, but I guarantee you that every member of this place and everyone who happens to be listening tonight would have broken one or two of those the last time they drove. It does help to remind us that some of the road safety initiatives really come down to common sense and come down to us repeating appropriate behaviour time after time.
Fatality Free Friday is just one day and we acknowledge that the road trauma issues in our nation will not be solved on Monday. But it does serve as a reminder. Since its inception in 2007 the campaign has continued to expand its operation and is now recognised that Australia's only national community-based road safety program. It has successfully fostered community ownership for complex road safety issues and encourages those who can make a significant difference in reducing road trauma. As I indicated, this campaign is more than just about a single day. Our target is to have a fatality free Friday this week but ultimately we are aiming for a longer term change in community response. Last year's Fatality Free Friday event was a great success nationally and the organisers would like to thank everyone for their support and also encourage them to be supportive in the future.
It is an alarming fact that since records began in 1925 there have been 180,000 deaths on Australia's roads. That is a staggering figure—180,000 deaths since 1925. However, we need to take some heart that road trauma has declined considerably in the past 40 years and we have been making some improvements.
The national road toll fell from 3,798 in 1970 to 1,192 in 2013. That is quite a remarkable achievement over the passage of about 40 years. We have seen the toll drop from almost 4,000 to about 1,200. I recognise that a whole range of measures have led to that, and road safety is recognised primarily, perhaps, as a state responsibility. States have responsibility for funding, planning, designing and operating our road network, and for managing vehicle registration and driver licensing, and for regulating and enforcing road user behaviour. But there is a federal responsibility as well, and I think that is why it is so important that we have the Parliamentary Friends of Road Safety. The federal role includes regulating safety standards for new vehicles—an incredibly important opportunity for us to reduce the road toll. The federal responsibilities extend to allocating infrastructure resources, including for safety measures across our national highway and local road networks.
The federal government, under the coalition, has continued many initiatives that were supported by the previous Labor government. It also decided to continue to fund the successful keys2drive program, which was in danger of losing funding under the previous government. The Roads to Recovery model is continuing under this government. It will have expanded funding, which I think is a great initiative. The Black Spot Programme will continue and be expanded into the future. The national network of funding priorities will continue.
I am pleased to acknowledge the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, the member for Mayo, Mr Briggs, who announced only a matter of days ago that the coalition government would continue to provide funding for ANCAP, the Australasian New Car Assessment Program, which works on improving road and vehicle safety. I had the opportunity, as the Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Transport, to work very closely with ANCAP, and we should be very proud of the work they do. The 2014-15 federal budget commits $1.1 million to support ANCAP in its work over the next two years. ANCAP is the leading independent vehicle safety advocate in Australia. When any members have the opportunity—and perhaps we will seek to organise this for our parliamentary friendship group—to see ANCAP in operation, the crashing of a test vehicle is quite confronting. It is quite sobering to see a brand-new vehicle smashed into a concrete block. Then the researchers get to work on making the measurements and checking how the occupants of that vehicle would have fared in an accident. If you get to see that crash testing in person, it rapidly reminds you of your responsibilities on the road, perhaps unlike anything else. So I am very pleased that the assistant minister has been able to announce that funding commitment. I am very pleased that ANCAP will continue to do its very good work across Australia in the two years ahead.
In relation to the budget measures and road safety, I would like to acknowledge the work of the minister himself, the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of The Nationals, Warren Truss, who has provided for ongoing funding through the Roads to Recovery Programme, which will see in my electorate of Gippsland something in the order of $6 million made available for local road funding initiatives in the 2013-14 period. This ongoing commitment to Roads to Recovery is something that the parliament can be part of. It is a program that was initiated many years ago under the previous Howard coalition government. It was continued to be funded under the Labor Party during its time in government. It is one of the few programs I can think of which has survived the change of government and has not had its name changed, which is quite an achievement in itself. There is a recognition across the party lines that Roads to Recovery is an important issue and works well in providing local governments with the opportunity to fund important local road priorities.
In my electorate I have had the opportunity to meet with many of the councillors and to inspect some of the programs which are underway, many of which have a safety aspect to them. I am very pleased to see that the local shires are working to improve road safety on their own road networks.
Also in the budget from a road safety perspective is $565 million to fix dangerous and accident prone sections of local roads and streets through the Black Spots Programme. There is an additional $100 million for that program in 2015-16 and 2017-18. Again, it is an important initiative because it addresses one of the fundamental challenges of improving the actual safety of the road environment. As I said at the outset and as I mentioned through the Fatality Free Friday initiative, driver behaviour enforcement measures are important but in the complex equation of road trauma and improving road safety we cannot be shy as a state government or as a federal government in recognising that the investments we make in road safety and infrastructure help to improve the outcomes for drivers, their passengers and other road users.
In addition to the Black Spot Program, the coalition government, under the stewardship of the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, will be providing $300 million for its new bridges renewal program, which again has a safety aspect to it. For many of our regional councils, it is very expensive to try to replace or repair local bridges, and what we have seen in many parts of rural Australia is load limits being placed on those bridges. A load limit placed on a bridge inevitably has a productivity impact but also has a safety impact. It means that things like local fire tankers cannot necessarily access all parts of the community until the bridge is repaired or replaced. So the $300 million for the bridges renewal program, operating in much the same way as the Roads to Recovery program, will be very welcome across regional Australia, particularly since it is going to require the states and the shires to match that funding, so we will leverage off the $300 million from the Commonwealth and provide $600 million worth of work.
In my own electorate of Gippsland, I was very pleased to see that the federal minister visited, met with me and discussed the importance of a number of road safety initiatives in the Gippsland region. The budget provides for the ongoing funding for the Princes Highway duplication between Traralgon and Sale. It is a program that has had bipartisan support throughout its history. There has been $175 million allocated over the past five years, a mixture of Commonwealth and state funding. The next stage involves $40 million under the new coalition government. There is a genuine desire within the community, and there was a recognition by the minister himself during a visit in January that funding will need to be forthcoming for future stages. In the order of $250 million will be required to finish that duplication work between Traralgon and Sale. I am also very pleased that in the budget there is some funding for the Princes Highway east of Sale, in the order of $11 million of combined funding from state and federal budget commitments, to install three overtaking lanes, which will have a significant benefit, again, in terms of road safety on the Princes Highway in my electorate.
I have tried to illustrate through my comments here tonight that road safety is a complex equation. It is very satisfying that we now have a Parliamentary Friends of Road Safety group working in this place. I look forward to working closely with Senator Gallacher and the other members of the friendship group as we endeavour to promote and strive for national leadership on what is a very difficult area of public policy. It is not just about driver behaviour, although that is important. It is not just about enforcement, but again that is important. And it is not just about improving the safety of the road environment, although, as I have illustrated with my comments tonight, that is also important. The efforts to improve the safety of the vehicles on our roads are another critical factor. So it is a very complex equation, and it is terrific to see that this term of parliament will have members from both sides working in a spirit of bipartisanship to address the horrific road toll we have in Australia. Still in excess of 1,100 people died on our roads in 2013. We have made some improvements in recent years, but the challenge is ahead of all of us to continue to strive towards a toll of zero in the future.
I want to start speaking on these appropriation bills by reading from part of an email I received from a constituent just this afternoon. As the member for Richmond would know, when you start receiving large amounts of email expressing very similar sentiment and your mobile offices and other interactions with your community start saying the same thing, you know that, broadly, this is the opinion of the people whom you were elected to represent. I will just read from part of this. This is from a lady named Fay who lives in Lalor Park. It says: 'Thank you for your efforts on behalf of those in your electorate, most of whom will be adversely affected by this cruel and unnecessary budget. Please keep pushing the government on this and other aspects of the budget, especially all cuts to health and education and also welfare changes. I truly feel that this budget, if it gets through, will create a very divided society in Australia, with a much larger gap between the rich and the struggling. They appear to be keen to squash the poor and push the middle class downwards as well, while shaking hands with the rich and making life sweeter for them.' That is the view of a real constituent whom I represent and, as I said, many of my constituents feel very similarly, and so they should.
I firmly believe that, when you examine all the evidence and all the impacts of this budget—and I am not the only one to come to this conclusion—this is an anti-Western-Sydney budget. I want to focus on the cuts and the impact of those on the people whom I represent, including Fay, and also to touch on the areas of citizenship and multiculturalism and the communications space. I have been out and about in the electorate of Greenway, from one end to the other. It is a very diverse electorate with lots of new housing estates and lots of established areas. It is one of the youngest electorates in Australia. The message is very clear that constituents feel betrayed by a government which has made it clear that nothing and no-one is off limits when it comes to the most vulnerable in our community.
It is a budget which punishes low- and middle-income earners, as Fay has said, and I want to highlight that you do not have to take this from me. I am looking at an item that appeared in the Daily Telegraph which ranked electorates hit by measures in the budget. It looked, for example, at the number of bulk-billed services, the amount of family tax benefit and youth unemployment rates. Right up there throughout, when you look through the list, are the electorates of Western Sydney: McMahon, Blaxland, Macarthur, Chifley, Watson, Fowler, Parramatta, Werriwa and Greenway. On all of those criteria, these are the electorates that will be hit particularly hard, and Greenway being on that list is something that my constituents are acutely aware of, as am I.
I want to point out that before the election the now Prime Minister was very keen to talk up a big gain in Western Sydney. In just one of many examples, as reported in the Daily Telegraph on 28 August, when he went out for a leaders' debate in Western Sydney, he said:
I look forward to the debate and talking about our positive plans for the people of western Sydney…
Well, he did not mention the cuts. He did not mention the impact of a Medicare co-payment. He did not mention the impact of increased fuel prices. He did not mention all of these things. So it is no wonder that a key word which comes up when I go out in my electorate is 'deception'. These are people, constituents, who heard these promises, including promises he even made the night before the election—standing in Western Sydney—no cuts to health, no cuts to education and all the rest of the promises that are gradually being broken one by one.
Turning to some of the specific examples, one of the ones that is really irking people more than anything is the attack on Medicare. Despite promising no new taxes and no cuts to health, this government is slugging local families with a GP tax. It stands to hit Western Sydney families harder than anywhere else, costing families nearly $100 million every year. I think it is up to the Prime Minister to explain why he thinks families in the western suburbs of Sydney should bear this. When you look at the bulk-billing rates, for example, of the electorates Australia-wide that will be hardest hit by this new GP tax, Greenway is again right up there with one of the highest bulk-billing rates in all of Australia at 97.53 per cent. So we are going to be particularly hard hit by this new tax, and it will hit everyone. For the first time we are going to have people, such as pensioners and concessional patients, charged for services that they would have previously received without a co-payment.
On top of that, this government has broken its promise to steer clear of cuts to Medicare Locals. We have no certainty for the Medicare Local system. WentWest, the Western Sydney Medicare Local, has done some extraordinary work under Labor in addressing issues such as chronic disease—diabetes, cardiopulmonary disease and many other chronic conditions—which end up costing so much more when prevention is not put first. What we are talking about here are front-line health workers providing services in crucial areas of primary health care and, as I said, the management of chronic and lifestyle diseases. If it is the case that Medicare Locals, such as WentWest, are eliminated, it will be in addition to this new GP tax which is going to be hitting the people of Western Sydney.
I want to also highlight one of the issues—and I know it probably does not make the front page too much—that is really raising the ire of the people I represent. It is the issue of young people being left to wither. They are not being supported when they find themselves in tough times and in a cycle of unemployment.
Western Sydney again is listed in most statistics as having a very high youth unemployment rate. I only have to look at some of the partnership brokers in the area who have been particularly hard hit. I would really appreciate an answer to some of these questions, and I hope to get them through the budget estimates process. With youth unemployment at unacceptably high levels, especially in Western Sydney, what evidence base was used to inform the government that axing all youth transition funding in the budget would actually be a saving into the future? There is no long-sightedness here when it comes to young people—when it comes to assisting youth to transition through school to employment, and, in turn, reducing the demand on social welfare, health and juvenile justice, as well as returning a dividend to the government in the long term by way of the taxes they will pay when they are actually employed. They see nothing, and I see nothing, in this budget which this government is doing to assist young people to gain practical, pre-employment work skills, experience and work placement so that they are ready for work when they leave school.
These are fundamental areas for assisting young people, especially young people who are at risk. I know that the member for Richmond represents many of these people. It is only through these programs that we can actually address these issues and, in the long term, assist young people to be involved in society and to have the meaningful experience that comes through work. The changes that are being brought through in this budget have not gone unnoticed by people who are concerned about young people. There is a whole generation of young people at risk of being lost as a result of this budget.
I want to also touch on the National Crime Prevention Fund. Speaking of Western Sydney, I noticed, as reported in The Guardian just recently, on Friday, 23 May, that the Prime Minister was in Western Sydney. Just to give you some quotes from that article:
Tony Abbott has attempted to draw a line under two weeks of budget controversy by declaring that the "watershed" economic plan included funding for a crime crackdown.
… … …
Making a law-and-order pitch, Abbott visited Campbelltown to highlight the allocation of $20m over the next 12 months to install new CCTV cameras and fund other safety projects around Australia.
He said the program—funded by seized proceeds of crime—was "an important element in our budget".
It is a sad fact that organisations which had been awarded funds from the National Crime Prevention Fund under the previous government in Blacktown were actually cut. One of them, COM4unity, was to be given a $270,662 grant to enhance a contemporary music program and expand the capacity of its SWITCH program; that was cut. Blacktown City Council had been going to receive nearly $200,000 to fund the installation of CCTV cameras in a hotspot area of Blacktown, the Patrick Street precinct between that Westpoint shopping centre and Blacktown railway station—that is gone too. I just find it incredible that this Prime Minister went to Western Sydney and spruiked what he termed the benefits of this budget, and crime prevention as being an essential element of it. Did something happen overnight to suddenly mean that Blacktown was no longer an area in need?
I would use COM4unity as an example of the positive things that can happen when the government and non-government sectors and members of the community and businesses get together to make a positive difference. This is a program supported by local businesses, the police, the council and, supposedly, the federal government. This program was making real inroads into turning young people's lives around. I will tell you this story to show why it drives me and my ethos in terms of policy initiatives in the multiculturalism space. After seeing some of the outcomes of COM4unity, I asked one of the young blokes who was involved in it a couple of years ago: 'How has this changed your life?' He had just finished a dance performance in front of a lot of people—one of the first times he had done that. I asked him, 'How has this program changed you?' And he said, 'Lady, if this was a year ago I would've been out the back stealing your car.' This is the kind of thing that turns young people's lives around. But it is not important enough, apparently, for this government to fund it. We can laud all of these crime-prevention grants that go to other areas, but Blacktown has been robbed of them—absolutely robbed.
I want to briefly turn to the area of communications. I especially want to talk about cuts to the SBS and also to the ABC. We know that, before the election, as I said, this Prime Minister said there would be: 'No cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to pensions, no change to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or SBS.' In Senate estimates earlier in the year, the managing director of the SBS could not guarantee that Abbott government cuts to the SBS would not affect SBS language services. He said:
… I would find it very difficult to imagine being able to absorb any material cuts without a change in services.
The SBS provides vital services to migrant communities, and these cuts in the budget will hurt these communities. Many migrant communities rely on ethnic-specific news and important language services, many of which are only provided by the SBS. As well, $33 million has been cut from multiculturalism in the budget. There is no detail given as to what programs will have their funding cut, what will be abolished completely and what programs, if any, will be safe and will continue to be funded. A lot of the multicultural programs funded by the government, and the many organisations that rely on these grants, are now bracing themselves because these cuts that we have already seen in this budget have created huge uncertainty in the multicultural services sector. They are already putting many critical programs and services at risk. Many organisations that rely on government funding work hard to build a cohesive Australia, often on very modest budgets, and the best way, as I said, that governments can help build harmonious and inclusive communities is by supporting initiatives like the Building Multicultural Communities Program, which unfortunately was axed by this government in December, or the Diversity and Social Cohesion Program. Cutting $33 million from important programs like these will have adverse effects on communities around Australia.
The Settlement Grants Program is not mentioned as an individual line item in the budget, so the budget does not say how it will be affected, but it is a fact that people rely on this program and the people who rely on it have been left in the dark by this government. Their future is uncertain as they await detail on whether the Settlement Grants Program will continue or if it will be abolished or if it will be changed. This government has not to date answered any questions on the status of the Settlement Grants Program. If this program has been scrapped, then traditional migrant resource centres will struggle to fund services to support new migrants in their transition to life in Australia, and ethnic community organisations will have a very similar fate. Humanitarian settlement services are also without specific line item mention but, again, newly arrived migrants rely heavily on this program to assist them in adjusting to their new life in Australia.
Making all these cuts that I have mentioned is not an efficient way to run a government—it is not an efficient way to ensure social cohesion in our community and to cater for young people. This is not the budget that Western Sydney needs. Western Sydney, as one of the fastest growing areas in Australia, needs support. This government needs to recognise that the big cost of living issues that they spruiked before the election are being betrayed in this budget.
This is a tough budget and one we would have preferred not to have had to deliver. The reality is that we have one of the highest rates of increase of spending and debt increase in the developed world. This projected trajectory cannot be maintained, and measures have to be put in place to reverse the trend and get the budget back under control. It is all very well for Labor to bleat about tough measures in the budget, but in most cases they are measures that have been forced on us as a result of the dire position regarding the projected trajectory of Commonwealth spending.
Having said that, there are aspects of the budget that I find troubling. First, I do not believe that we should have increased taxes—and, no, the GP co-payment is not a tax. The GP co-payment is something that I agree with as it will ensure that Medicare remains sustainable. One of the decisions I have real concerns about is buying joint strike fighters, or JSFs, for over $190 million a copy—over $100 million more than Defence is advising the minister and the Commonwealth. I was with the Defence Science and Technology Organisation when the decision was originally made, and the Air Operations Division had just worked up a methodology for comparing contenders. The analysis was never undertaken. The decision was made contrary to advice provided to the defence leadership group by experts in Defence as well is industry and academia. The agendum to the Defence Capability and Investment Committee of March 2002 clearly shows this.
The recommendation was not to proceed with the JSF for cost, capability and schedule reasons, in that there was significant risk of changes or lack of information on all counts. The advice of the DCIC was that the JSF would not be the most expensive option. That is ironic in the context of it being the most expensive fighter on the planet now. Despite expert advice given to the DCIC, Defence, in gung-ho fashion, recommended proceeding with the SDD phase of the JSF project.
I have to admit concern that senior officers who provide critical advice on capabilities that cost billions of dollars have no requirement to have a register of pecuniary interests, as politicians do. Indeed, I am aware of influence peddling by defence contractors with both Defence personnel and some journalists in the media, with all sorts of benefits provided. I believe we should implement a register of what largesse has been provided to senior Defence personnel by defence contractors. We also need to ensure that these personnel do not get jobs in the defence industry immediately they leave the services, gaining very cushy jobs following their retirement from the services. There are too many who get jobs with contractors where they have provided advice favouring that contractor's product. For transparency's sake, this must end.
All contenders that should have been part of a detailed analysis comparing contenders in the new air combat capability were 'switched off', to use Defence parlance, and all that has occurred since is that a watching brief has been maintained. The JSF has remained the solution despite huge blow-outs in cost, significant schedule slips and capability being redefined down. In fact, a Vietnam-era F4E Phantom out-accelerates, out-turns and has a higher speed than the JSF. Yet the current answer remains the JSF, despite the fact that we have seen the shape of threats in the J20 and the T50 from China and Russia-India respectively. These are stealth fighters in the F22 Raptor class, which will significantly overmatch the JSF.
In fact, despite the Lockheed Martin and Defence salesmanship of the JSF, it is not a true fifth-generation fighter. For fifth generation, the critical elements as defined by Lockheed Martin—before they changed the definition to force the JSF to fit the definition—were stealth, supercruise or the ability to cruise at supersonic speed without using thirsty afterburners, super manoeuvrability and sensor fusion. Some of the current European fighters better meet the definition than the JSF, which lacks two of those measures: supercruise and super manoeuvrability. These missing capabilities cannot be put into the design by modifications or upgrades. They are absent forever.
The term 'strike fighter' is also little understood. In globally accepted terminology, it would be a light bomber with some self-defence capability, and indeed that is what its design brief was, hence its initially only carrying two air-to-air missiles internally.
At a time of budget constraint, the JSF cheer squad, who are more interested in toys than anything else, are now pushing for a STOVL variant of the JSF for amphibious assault ships. There is no defined strategic requirement for this, no identified capability gap, just a wish by aficionados. This is no way to ensure that Australia's defence requirements are met and offer the best value for taxpayers' money.
The correct way to come up with the best defence force structure is, first, to define the strategic requirements, or what you expect the defence force to be able to achieve against known capabilities of strategic competitors or potential adversaries. The Howard government's 2000 defence white paper did this well, only to be ignored by the Defence leadership group at the time and replaced with their own agenda. From that, the next level down is to define the capabilities that will be required in order to achieve those requirements. In some cases, the difference may not be immediately obvious. Take World War II, where aircraft carriers more ably filled the capability requirement traditionally achieved by battleships. Thus the focus must be on capability, not platforms.
Once the capability requirements have been drafted, there should be consultation with industry. More particularly, there should be detailed analysis conducted to compare the various options for filling the capability gap—to compare the various capabilities and contenders. In this context, DSTO is critical. At a time when our Defence Force is undergoing a comprehensive restructure, we are at the same time significantly cutting funding to DSTO—at precisely the time this capability should be increased in order to save the taxpayer money.
In this context, the need for a dedicated science minister in order to achieve a coherent policy is critical. On one hand, we are setting up a huge medical research fund to massively increase medical research. How is this coherent policy when we have significant cuts to CSIRO, DSTO, ANSTO, the Australian Research Council and the Australian Institute of Marine Science. One of the advisers even suggested that a physicist working at CSIRO who lost their job could get one in medical research! I know that some people think that 'physicist' and 'physician' sound similar, but this is too much.
There are a lot of questions with this policy. Is the funding to medical research going to be general or specifically targeted at cancer, Alzheimer's and the like? How are we going to source those researchers? They do not grow on trees and the training required is long and arduous. Very long lead times are required. What is this saying to those might want to become mathematicians, physicists or chemists—hard sciences that are already in crisis?
As an aside, the PM asked me to draw up recommendations on science to improve the area, saying that, of those in parliament, I was the most interested in science. I consulted widely and I worked hard on my recommendations, which I presented a few months ago. They are now up on my website for anyone who wishes to see them—and please feel free to comment to me. Unfortunately, I see no evidence to suggest an improvement in science policy. In fact the reverse would appear to be the case. Not only are we not putting in place policy to improve science but we are putting disincentives in place for people who might consider careers in the hard sciences and maths.
I am not saying that the likes of CSIRO, ANSTO and so on should not be subject to review and restructure. Far from it, I believe there are issues that need to be addressed. Once again I refer to people to my website for some suggestions in that regard. However, it is foolish to have such a policy disincentive while at the same time massively incentivising medical research. This is not just about people's careers, important as that is, or about taxpayers, who have a huge interest in the money they have spent to train this cohort of scientists; this is about our national interest and how to maximise economic and other benefits to our nation.
There appears to be a lack of understanding of how science works. Many advances, including in the medical field, are not the result of directed research but arise out of more fundamental research that was not directed. Think of some of these advances. X-rays, CT scans and radiotherapy for cancer came from fundamental physics—looking at atomic structure. Similarly, magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI, which was previously called nuclear magnetics resonance imaging, also came from fundamental physics. PET scans resulted from fundamental work on antimatter. These were not the result of some effort coordinated by government to achieve a specific breakthrough. They were the result of work driven by a quest for knowledge and understanding that had fortuitous benefits.
Consider that one-third of the world's economy is based on the work of what some would consider obscure physicists, mainly German, in the first quarter of the 20th century—nearly a century ago. Here I am talking about quantum physics and solid-state electronics, which resulted from fundamental insights. Consider 19th century physicist Michael Faraday. When asked by then Chancellor of the Exchequer William Gladstone what value electricity had, he replied, 'Why, sir, there is every possibility that you will soon be able to tax it.' Consider Albert Einstein in 1916, who rushed back to his wife, also a physicist, saying, 'I have seen a beautiful light' . He was talking about what is known as population inversion in electron energy levels—very esoteric!
That resulted in the first laser in 1960, which, at the time, critics referred to as 'a solution looking for a problem'. Now of course lasers are ubiquitous in Blu Rays, DVDs, CDs and even in communications where lasers are used in fibre optics for communications.
Consider general and special relativity without which an accurate GPS system would be impossible. How could Einstein have known these applications at the time? How could a government have directed research to that end? Indeed, you need look no further than Australia, where wi-fi came about as a result of radio astronomy research. It came about as a result of a failed experiment into finding atomic sized mini black holes. Herein lies the problem with the way that scientific research is being viewed and funded. Where is the coherent coordinated approach to science policy? Herein lies the problem with not having a dedicated science minister.
I have been quiet on the lack of a science minister since I first criticised when the ministry was first announced. It is the first time we have had no science minister since 1931. I am bitterly disappointed that my fears have come to pass. This is a critical portfolio. As I stated at the time, the issue is not necessarily one of a lack of coverage by the ministers responsible for various parts of the portfolio but the fact that there was a lack of coordination, a lack of a single chain of command, a lack of a clear line of communication not only within government but among those working in science. Not a single G8 nation lacks a dedicated science minister and this bodes ill for our future.
Our Western Australian Premier, Colin Barnett, clearly sees the importance of science and recognises the need for an identified single minister responsible. Premier Colin Barnett has seen the portfolio as so critical that he has taken portfolio on himself. These issues of defence and science are critical to our future. We neglect them or downgrade their importance at our peril.
I would like to acknowledge at the beginning of my contribution to this debate the passion, the knowledge and the commitment of the member for Tangney, and say on the record that I think it is a great disadvantage for this parliament that his knowledge is not being utilised properly. I think he can contribute so much to the scientific debate. We heard him tonight. It is really sad that his knowledge is not being utilised in this place.
This budget would have to be the most unfair budget that I have seen delivered in this parliament in the 15 years that I have been here. This budget attacks those people that look to government for support whilst on the other hand, as we have just heard from the member for Tangney, it is not really building our knowledge base for the future.
This budget is working towards creating a two-tier society in Australia. It is a budget that is based on ideology, not on what is best for Australia. At the end of the day, what will happen to Australia is it will have an underclass. We will have those people that can afford to enjoy the best that the country has to offer and we will have those people that struggle from day to day, week to week and find life extremely hard. On the global perspective, we will be missing opportunities when it comes to science and technological advancements, and we will also be missing out when it comes to being out there and being really active in the global market.
This budget has delivered a number of cuts in areas where, prior to the election, the Prime Minister said that would be no cuts. He said there would be no cuts to health. There will be cuts to hospital funding plus add to that the $7 GP copayment. There will be extra charges for x-rays and blood tests and there will be extra charges for medicines, an increase of five dollars for prescriptions. These things really will impact on the people that I represent in this parliament. Shortland electorate is not a wealthy electorate. There are a lot of senior Australians living there. It is one of the oldest electorates in the country. I know why represent find it really difficult to make ends meet. They will have to pay more for prescriptions. It is going to cost them more for fuel. Once again, the fuel excise is another of the 'no new taxes'. This is something that people in my electorate are very upset about. It is all very well to say that the pension is not going to be cut and that people will still get increases, but in actual fact the increases that they will get will be a lot less than what they would have received if the indexation method were not being changed. It is really important to put on the record that, if the indexation method to be implemented post this budget were in place, a single pensioner would be $1,560 worse off today than they were a year ago. It does not stop there.
Health and education cuts will have an enormous economic impact. A cut to education means a cut to our future knowledge base, our future expertise and our opportunities to be at the cutting edge when it comes to creating new jobs. With the cuts to health, the up-front payment may be less—people may contribute through a co-payment—but people will end up being sicker. People will not go to the doctor when they need to. They will not manage their diabetes. They will not have the immunisation that they should have. They will not do all those things that are about preventative health care and that make us a healthier nation. It is so important that people go to the doctor when they need to and not put it off until they are really sick. At the other extreme, it can lead to loss of life.
There are the increases to university fees and the higher HECS debts. The interest rate that will be placed on those HECS debts will create long-term debt for those young people. It will act as a disincentive for some people to go to university, particularly if they come from a fairly disadvantaged background. I struggle to come up with any positives in relation to this budget.
I look at the families in my electorate and at what the cuts to the family tax benefit will mean for those families. Family tax benefit B finishes when a child turns six. For some people in my electorate, this will have a devastating impact. People who cannot get a job or who do not have the skills to get a job—or the jobs just are not there—will be forced into a situation where they will receive a lesser amount of money. The 'earn and learn' aspect of this budget has created some concern for me. It is going to put additional pressures and costs on job seekers and low paid workers, amongst others.
This budget has also removed the majority of support programs that people who are looking for jobs rely on. Hundreds of jobs will be gone from the Hunter and Central Coast region, which is the area that I represent. We are still waiting to see what is going to happen in areas such as AusIndustry and Enterprise Connect. The Partnership Brokers will be cut from the end of this year. Youth Express in the Hunter, Carelink in Lake Macquarie in Newcastle and Youth Connect on the Central Coast provide great services and support to people who are out there looking for work. Youth Connect providers have been involved in a lot of the work that I have been doing in my office in looking job creation and setting up forums and activities to create employment. But Youth Connect providers will be gone from the end of this year. JobQuest is another group that has been actively involved in my Shortland group that has been working on job creation. There is also Joblink Plus in the Hunter and Youth Connections on the Central Coast. The Apprenticeships Access Program is gone. The Local Employment Coordinator is gone. All the pressure will be on the job seeker and job seekers are going to be paid less money. If they are under 30 and unemployed, they will receive nothing. What does that mean? The pressure will be placed on their families. If this is not a move towards creating a very unfair and inequitable society, I would like to see something that is more unfair. These are not changes that will actually bring about what the government is seeking to do. It will actually make things worse for a lot of people.
Whilst I am talking about that issue, one of the factors that determines whether a country is a happy country, a prosperous country, is social mobility. Australia has a high level of social mobility. It is one of the top six in the world. Social mobility is an incentive that helps people be productive and active members of the community. The changes that I have outlined will lead to a decline in social mobility.
In the time I have remaining, I will share with the House the thoughts of three constituents who have contacted me. I have been contacted by hundreds of constituents about this. I have had my weekly street stalls in shopping centres and people have come up to me and have made really strong, negative comments. I do not accost people; they come up to me. Members of the government really need to understand that people out there are hurting and this budget is not going down well.
Cam wrote to me about the budget. He said:
I don't understand how the clear, direct, unequivocal comments/promises, core or non-core made are different to the reality now, and for you Mr Hockey to stare down the camera in my parliament and tell me the age of entitlement is over and we need to do heavy lifting sticks in my ribs.
Why?
He earns over $119,000 per year. He is too well off for his wife to qualify for the Disability Support Pension. His wife is 40 and far too young to qualify for aged-care assistance. The GP has indicated that they only have a month left together. She is terminal. It is inevitable that soon she will no longer be with him. But they have fallen through every assistance program because of his salary and age, and they still owe $300,000 on their house. Cancer has depleted all their savings. He said:
I don't know how much more heavy lifting I can do ... We don't have spare money to make up for increased fuel costs, we have a weekly $70 medication bill and our GP does weekly home visits for my wife.
… … …
Cancer makes you strong, my kids have seen their mother fit on the floor—
and many other terrible things. He went on to say:
We know how to heavy lift, we do more to look after each other with no assistance from the FEDS—
the government. He then said:
Do you see what the Libs have achieved with this budget.
Then he makes a comment about politicians:
You have kicked and kicked hard the heavy lifters and you tell us to lift more!
He said the government thinks they are 'hopeless money managers on the drink, smoking cigarettes and need a lesson to become a good Liberal'. I had never met Cam before I received this email. I met with him last Friday and I know just how hard his life is, how he has tried and how he has worked so hard.
The next letter is from Anthony, who is employed full time in the research area. He earns $68,000 a year, is paying off a HECS debt and takes home $49,301 after tax. He pays $18,500 per year to the ATO. His wife gets family tax benefit A and B, and a part carer's payment of $168 per fortnight. He has a daughter with cerebral palsy. His wife is in a wheelchair after being injured in a motor vehicle accident. He has car repayments of $387 per month and spends $20 a day on petrol. They have private health insurance. He said to me that he throws all the bills in the air and whichever one lands on the table first is the one he pays. He is another man who has done the heavy lifting and done it hard. My heart goes out to them. I do not know where it will end for them.
Finally, I will read the words of Susan. She wants to voice her extreme displeasure about the budget. She has worked for 43 years in both private industry and public hospitals. She says the system is overloaded and 'the budget will disadvantage everyone'. She goes on to outline her problems in the budget. I include that in my speech.
I conclude by saying that this is an unfair budget. It is going to hurt those people who can least afford to be hurt. The government had choices they could make. They have made the wrong choices and they have done so saying one thing before the election and another thing after the election—and the Australian people recognise this. (Time expired)
It has got to a situation where our country is at the crossroads. With $1 billion worth of interest having to be paid every month, each and every Australian owes nearly $25,000 to get our debt back to zero. It is time we turned this country around. If we do not take that step now, our kids will suffer. We have just blown the biggest mining boom of the last decade and have nothing to show for it. That is a disgrace.
During the global financial crisis, Labor compared us with Greece, Italy, Ireland and those European countries; they did not even look at Asia, which was quietly going about its business. The growth rate in countries like Thailand, Indonesia and China was seven, 7½ or eight per cent and Korea was going along just fine. But we wanted to compare ourselves with Greece and talk of how much better than Greece we were travelling. They inherited a surplus back in 2007 and we inherited a great debt of some $300 billion at the start of our term in 2013. During those six years, Labor went on a high-spending spree. There were school halls, pink batts, $900 cheques and an NBN with no plan and no funding. The NDIS was talked about and agreed to but not funded. It was the same with Gonski. We saw a growth in public servants of 23,000 in Canberra alone. This has all taken its toll. We have a record deficit, locked in at $123 billion. We have not seen a positive budget from Labor since 1987 and it is all catching up on us. Gross debt has jumped from $75 billion to over $300 billion and continues to climb. If we do not do anything about it, it will gobble us up. The gross debt for the next 10 years if we do not make changes is forecast to be $667 billion.
I would like to quote an independent budget adviser, who says that he has rejected Labor and the Greens' claim that the Abbott government has concocted a budget crisis, saying that without action Australia's debt will grow at one of the fastest rates in the developed world. In remarks that effectively endorse government warnings that if left unchecked, gross debt would balloon to $667 billion, Parliamentary Budget Officer Phil Bowen said it was time to begin the return to surplus to protect the economy against future crises. 'It is time to start coming out of debt and deficit, otherwise the longer you leave it the more exposed you become and the harder it is to wind it back.' That is what he told The Australian Financial Review. Personally, I have never seen so much government debt in my life, whether it be federal government, state government or local government. In fact, government debt has never been so high. Labor turned gold into mud. There is no doubt about that.
During their reign, unemployment jumped by 200,000 and 50,000 illegal immigrants came in on boats. Labor say debt is not a problem. I do not get that at all, when we have one of the fastest growing debts in the OECD countries. Our election promises to the Australian people are quite simple, and revolve around four main points. The first is to get rid of the carbon and mining taxes. The second is to stop the boats—and I am pleased to say that Minister Scott Morrison has stopped the boats. There has not been one here now for maybe 150 days. We have given up counting, but it could be longer. That was costing the nation a lot of money. With the displacement of people, we encouraged people smugglers. What sort of a system was that? The boats could not be stopped by Labor, but Scott Morrison has stopped them. The third of our promises was to build infrastructure for the future. That is infrastructure that will return money to the coffers, to the people and to businesses and, of course, provide jobs for our workers. The final promise was to repair the budget, which we want to do but we are running into a lot of hurdles there.
My primary focus is to look after my electorate, which covers big and small industry, small business, retailers, all primary producers, resource companies and fishing and forestry. They all exist in my electorate. By fixing the budget, we fix jobs. We fix business profitability, we build infrastructure for the next century and we enhance R&D in our regions. The 1.5 per cent tax relief for small businesses will go a long way to restoring some confidence in business and them employing more people. I am pleased to say that the fuel rebate has been maintained. As the excise on fuel goes up, the rebate goes up accordingly. So the people who do not use the roads but use diesel fuel on properties and those in the fishing and forestry industries will not be disadvantaged.
The budget is fair and responsible and most sectors have had to take a hit. You cannot improve a budget unless everyone across the board takes a hit. We are investing $50 billion in transport infrastructure over a seven-year period. There is an $11.6 billion infrastructure growth package and $6.7 billion to fix the Bruce Highway over a 10-year period. When you put that with the state government contribution, it is a very worthy figure and it will enhance the Bruce Highway—the condition of which, as some people say, is of a 1990s standard. It also includes measures to ensure safer travel conditions on our internal roads and all black spots will be looked at.
We will improve the transport corridors. There are a lot of bridges in our area that do not have the weight limits. Consequently, where we do have the roads to a standard we have not got the wooden bridges up to a good weight limit.
We are building our mobile phone service. We will spend $100 million in rural areas. Our towns and cities in the main have a good mobile service but many country areas are suffering. We have a program to fix that. After Minister Turnbull sorted out the NBN and put on the board people who could actually understand what the problems with the NBN were we got it up and running.
We intend to upgrade our ports. There are three ports in my area, Gladstone, Port Alma and Bundaberg. Money will be spent on those ports to enhance what they can export. I would like to see Gladstone, Port Alma or Bundaberg get involved in more grain exports, boxed meats and live cattle.
We have two free trade agreements signed up in Asia, with Korea and Japan. Our trade minister, Andrew Robb, has done a great job there. He has more work to do on China, but hopefully by the end of this year we will have an agreement signed with China. A free trade agreement has worked wonders for New Zealand, especially in dairy and beef products. We can only think that, eventually, it will be a good future for our agricultural businesses, which are very prominent in Flynn. We would like to fully restore the Indonesian trade in live cattle. Everyone, including the Indonesians, took a hit when the Labor government stopped the live trade to Indonesia. It put the villagers of Indonesia in turmoil. It put our own industry in turmoil. It wrecked cattle prices down the east coast of Australia. When the drought came graziers could not get rid of their cattle and the hardship suffered by our beef industry is still prominent today. It sent many graziers to the wall. They were unable to move their cattle to market when they normally would have, which would have avoided the big drought. A lot of Queensland—I think 80 per cent—is still drought.
In conclusion, the debt trajectory is one of the worst in the developed world. It is simply unsustainable. It must be turned around. The budget must be allowed to pass. In this budget the coalition government is making modest changes to ensure that Australia does not become a basket case down the track. Labor's alternative is no alternative. It is simply trying to stop the government fixing the mess that it created. Unless the government is allowed to make changes to turn it around the debt will become virtually insurmountable. Future governments will be forced to bring in drastic austerity measures to bring debt under control. Tough decisions have to be made and, once again, it has been left to the coalition to make them. The coalition government is committed to cutting red tape, building infrastructure and repairing the economy. Labor should get out of the way and let us fix their mess.
I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No.1) 2014-2015, Appropriation Bill (No.2) 2014-2015, Appropriation Bill (No.5) 2013-2014, Appropriation Bill (No.6) 2013-2014 and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) bill (no.1) 2014-2015 These bills are a part of the Abbott-Hockey budget that will go down in Australian history as the most un-Australian budget ever. These bills signify a step away from the Australia I hope to see, that I love and that I want my children and grandchildren to inherit. The Australia that I want to see and the Australia that I serve believes in giving people a fair go; this budget does none of that.
The Australia I serve gives our pensioners a fair income to live comfortably in their retirement after spending a lifetime contributing to our nation. I am not sure where the Deputy Prime Minister finds the pensioners he speaks to—the ones he said were blowing their funds on cruises and luxury items. They are not the people I talk to. Ann from Sunnybank, who I spoke to earlier tonight, has spent 12 years in aged care speaking to pensioners. They are not going off on cruises. The lives of the people I delivered meals to when I spent a day with Meals on Wheels a few weeks back were not ones of luxury items and throwing money away. Also, those Australians on disability pensions and their carers should be supported, not punished by a budget that delivers harsh cuts and gives what are effectively tax breaks to those at the top.
I believe in a prosperous Australia and I will stand up for the people in my electorate. They know that this nation will not prosper through us cutting pensions, cutting health care and introducing taxes such as the fuel tax and the GP tax. I believe in an Australia where your destiny is not predetermined by your parents' wealth or your postcode. I believe in a fair and prosperous nation populated by a creative and productive people.
But this is not the Australia we saw reflected in the budget a fortnight ago. It is a budget that targets our seniors and also schoolkids. Irina Bokova, Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, UNESCO, said:
From better health to increased wealth, education is the catalyst of a better future for millions of children, youth and adults. No country has ever climbed the socioeconomic development ladder without steady investments in education.
International research has indicated that early childhood education is crucial to promoting the educational and social development of disadvantaged children. In addition, measures to boost academic engagement and achievement—such as more hands-on learning, a positive school climate and mixed ability grouping—also emerge as key factors in retaining young people within full-time education. This is where we should be investing, not cutting.
In December 2011, the Labor government commissioned the most comprehensive review of our school education system in more than 40 years—the Gonski report. I remind those opposite that this was economic analysis of education by an expert committee led by a banker. It was not a bleeding heart lefty's plan for the future; he and his committee outlined an economic imperative in the Gonski education report. They indicated that there has been a performance decline in the last 10 years and a growing gap between the highest and lowest performing students of up to two years emerging by the time kids are 13 and 14. The Gonski report showed that to strengthen Australia's future the government must provide additional investment to schools, with greater concentration on disadvantaged students, needs based funding rather than the massive cuts to education outlined in the budget papers.
Labor invested $14.7 billion in additional investment in Australian schools because we know that education is fundamental to ensuring young people are equipped in the best possible way to take the path towards their passions and interests. I want to see educational inequality addressed in this nation by assisting disadvantaged schools, whether in Moreton or anywhere else in this land, whether in remote areas or lower socioeconomic circumstances, irrespective of the sign above the school gate. We do not need schools that are hampered by a lack of resources for our teachers or lack access to technology, which will inhibit learning in the digital world that we are embracing. In my electorate of Moreton, there are about 21,000 students attending 45 or so schools. Moreton is home to a large range of fantastic schools and I want to see these students given the best opportunities in life through education. We will not achieve that by cutting the education budget.
When voters went to the polls, they were told by the Liberal and National parties that in government they would not cut education. It was supposed to be a joint ticket. Instead teachers, parents and students were betrayed, with the biggest cut to school funding this country has ever seen. Higher education was not treated fairly. Education is fundamentally valuable because it allows children to develop, but these cuts to universities and TAFEs will restrict so many people who are not well off.
Labor has a strong track record that we can be very proud of when it comes to investing in our children's future at schools, in early childhood and at universities. After all, we are the party of Gough Whitlam, the political party that gave every smart Australian the opportunity to attend university, and we are committed to ensuring that higher education remains accessible and affordable for all clever Australians. This dumb-but-rich strategy that seems to be being advanced by those opposite, the member for Sturt leading the charge—this is a guy who, when he went to the university, according to the internet funded the Days of our Lives club at university and saw that as a significant achievement. I am hoping that that was a joke addition to the internet, but I am looking forward to him correcting the record.
When Gough Whitlam historically abolished university fees so that tertiary education could be more accessible for working-class people like me, Australia took a significant step towards bettering itself through investing in education. This current government is about to make another historic decision for Australia: a decision that reverses this accessible tertiary education and makes it harder for our children and grandchildren to attend university. On the radio today they talked about as much as a 33 per cent increase in the cost of degrees—maybe more at the sandstone universities and some of the red brick universities. I fear that Australia's youth will pay the price of the budget decisions of a fortnight ago. By cutting funds to tertiary education and deregulating university fees, we will return to a time when only the rich could afford to send their kid to university, which creates further inequality and unfairness across our great nation and misses the opportunities to harvest the great brains of those who are in poorer circumstances.
The future of our nation will be built on quality education, not on cutting. It will be built by focusing on skills and innovation, not by slashing these university budgets—especially if we are to strategically prepare for the Asian century, where we will be competing against these emerging nations on our doorstep. This is a budget built on the wrong choices and the wrong priorities. It is very short-sighted. There are short-term savings. Combine it with the Liberal and National parties' fraudband policy where they gutted the NBN, which was going to see innovation and the new jobs of the digital revolution rolled out, especially in services and education being delivered to Asia.
The LNP before the election made a promise to the Australian people that there would be no changes to higher education, and they broke that promise. It is basically the end of affordable higher education, and we will oppose the Abbott government's inequitable changes to higher education and fight to maintain the current assistance programs widely acknowledged and respected throughout the world as being fair.
I believe in a fair go. That is why I am a member of the Australian Labor Party. We are a party that believes in opportunity for all; academic freedom and autonomy; research that advances knowledge, critical thinking and, obviously, productivity; and that delivers access to university based on merit, not just the ability to pay. That investment in education has yielded significant economic and social benefits for our community. In the modern, competitive climate, it is important that the long-term importance of investment in education is not forgotten.
When discussing investment in our future through education, this goes hand in hand with effectively moving Australia towards clean energy and a sustainable environment and economy. Climate change poses a serious threat economically, socially and perhaps even militarily that will severely impact on the world's most vulnerable young people and future generations. Inaction proves that we are willing to pass on our issues to the next generation when it comes to environmental damage, and that is a short-term selfishness that no parent can be a part of. The Labor Party committed to addressing the big issues on climate change and pollution reduction. Those opposite supported that. I remember the 2007 and 2010 campaigns. The first act of the Labor government after coming to government in 2007 was to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, and we then committed to putting a cap on pollution through an emissions trading scheme—one supported by those opposite up until a change in leadership.
Let's see what happened. In six years of Labor Australia's wind capacity tripled and solar went through the roof—and on the roof. We established the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which are already hard at work developing, commercialising and investing in new renewable energy technology. We also established the world's most comprehensive network of national parks in the ocean. The Great Barrier Reef is a magnificent asset that people from all around the world come to enjoy. It is great for tourism in Queensland.
These budget papers reveal some horrible choices from those opposite and some horrible challenges for the future. They are attempting to fundamentally change the nature of Australian society, which is why I have called it the most un-Australian budget delivered in our history. As has been acknowledged by the Prime Minister today and yesterday, Australia's economy is fundamentally strong and this is the legacy that Labor has left behind. There are challenges on the horizon, of course there are. But lets look at what the reality is today. We have low inflation, low interest rates and net debt peaking at just one seventh of the level of the major comparable advanced economies. We have a triple-A credit rating with a stable outlook from all three international ratings agencies—one of only eight countries in the world to have that rating.
Our superannuation savings are larger than the size of our whole economy. Since Kevin Rudd came to office in 2007, one million jobs were created under Labor and then under the Abbott government—although it is looking a bit crook at the moment. That is the real budget environment that we need to look at. We need to look at the budget delivered a fortnight ago. There were challenges if we had continued on course but, obviously, the Global Financial Crisis and decisions made by Labor, which were supported by those opposite, were different. Those decisions were made in the context of the Global Financial Crisis and since then there have been recalibrations and adjustments made.
I saw the budget a fortnight ago as being like an approach to someone like myself who likes to eat hot chips. Obviously if I spent every day of my life eating buckets and buckets of hot chips then that would create a problem. But what do you do? As somebody who is campaigning to make sure that people are aware of diabetes, what do I do? I talk to people about the decisions they are making and try to change their behaviour. The budget we saw the other night was a drastic response to some challenges on the horizon. It was almost like that scene from Pulp Fiction where they dried the adrenaline into the chest of Mia Wallace, played by Uma Thurman. It was a drastic overreaction to a challenge that was coming. It was almost like you solve the problem of somebody eating too many buckets of hot chips by cutting off their hands or their arms. The reality is we have challenges but we have the time and the strategies to solve those challenges and to avoid the big problems.
Sadly, the current government has no consistency in its approach. We saw that with the announcement that they are going to cut thousands and thousands of jobs throughout Australia at the same time as they announced cutting funding to employment services that will actually help those people that are made redundant to find new work.
The reality is this budget from a fortnight ago saw the coalition turn their backs on public schools and disadvantaged students in schools. The education minister, the member for Sturt, said that Australia does not have an equity problem in education. But the reality is, even though he was able to put out a press release before the Gonski report had even been released, he did not read it in great detail. Education is what we should be investing in as it is the economy of the future. Investing in broadband is what is Australia should be focused on. Instead, we have a budget that has provided a savage attack on Australian families, on our pensioners, on young people and—heaven forbid—on anyone that misses out on employment.
It also attacks our environment, our education system, our health system and all of those strong social fabric items that Labor invested so much in over the years including things like Medicare. I believe in a strong and prosperous Australia. I am proud to be a part of the Labor Party that will fight this Abbott-Hockey budget and the broken promises that are contained in it. The legislation before the chamber is a betrayal of Australia as far as I am concerned and should be condemned as such.
I rise to speak on the appropriation bills. The government was voted in last year with a clear mandate. The people of Australia wanted change. Labor created an awful mess, and the people wanted it cleaned up. Remember the pink batts disaster—$4 billion wasted, 250 house fires and, most tragically, the death of four young Australians. We had the school hall rip-offs; cash for clunkers, Fuelwatch and GroceryWatch—I believe they were the favourites of the shadow Treasurer; and the set-top box farce. Then we had $900 cheques going out to deceased Australians and Australians living overseas, and that was done with the intention of somehow spurring on the economy. The list goes on and on—$100 million a day was being added to the national credit card to pay for all this mess; the Labor Gillard-Rudd mess.
The Abbott government was elected to stop the boats, repeal the carbon tax, build the infrastructure for the 21st century and get the budget back under control. We are getting on with what we were elected to do. The first duty of the government is not only to do what is easy; it is to do what is right and what is necessary for the country. Hard decisions on the economy are never easy. Governments, like families, need to live within their means. Decisions have to be made for the long-term welfare of our country, and the budget handed down by the Treasurer is the right budget for Australia at this time. From 2007 to 2013, government real spending outgrew growth in the economy by 13 per cent. We simply were living beyond our means. In those six years, household health costs increased 35 per cent, education costs increased 39 per cent, gas prices increased 71 per cent, water and sewerage prices increased 79 per cent and electricity prices increased 101 per cent. The government inherited a budget position which was unsustainable for the long term. Firm and decisive action is required to put the budget back on a secure and sustainable footing. To delay the action would only worsen the problem, imposing an even greater financial burden on future Australians. We could not go on running up massive debts for our children and our grandchildren to pay for.
After six years of Labor—who inherited a $20 billion surplus and left $123 billion worth of deficits, and turned nearly $50 billion in the bank into a projected net debt of well over $200 billion—we all face a record Labor debt and deficit situation. Each Australian's share of Australian government debt is currently $13,500. Unless we take action, this will have grown by $1,100 per year, reaching $24,000 in a decade. I must say, when the Labor Party sets out to destroy an economy, it really does a great job. We are paying $1 billion in interest a month on Labor's debt. Most people cannot comprehend paying $1 billion. It is one thousand million dollars—staggering. And this is just the interest. Can you imagine what we could do as a nation by just eliminating the interest payment? For instance, $12 billion, just one year's interest bill, could build us world-class teaching hospitals in every capital city in Australia. So what could we have done? Sat on our hands and left our children to pay off Labor's debt, or borrowed more money to pay off their interest bill? Not on the side of the House—we want Australia to remain the best country in the world. Without a healthy economy, this is simply not possible. We as a nation must live within our means. We believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes. We must give every Australian the opportunity to get on and make the best of their lives. Only through hard work can we get ahead—but, again, we need a healthy economy.
I congratulate Minister Pyne on the budget's higher education reforms. They are innovative and equitable. The reforms are designed to spread the opportunity of higher education to more students across more institutions in our society. The reforms will ensure that our higher education system is not left behind in an increasingly competitive international environment. Not all students leaving secondary school necessarily want to do a higher degree.
A budget initiative which I was very excited about is the $20,000 trade support loans. These loans are designed to help young people doing accredited apprenticeships by providing them with an allowance to support their incomes. The money can be used in any way the recipient chooses, such as to buy tools, to put towards their mortgage, to pay rent on their house, to help with a car loan or to pay for the phone. The allowance will be set up to provide $8,000 in the first year, $6,000 in the second year, $4,000 in the third year and $2,000 in the final year. The great news is that, when they complete their apprenticeship, they will receive a 20 per cent refund. That is the incentive to ensure they finish their apprenticeship.
The pathways initiative gives students choice about where they want to start their higher education journey. For the first time ever, the Australian government will provide support to all undergraduate students in all registered higher education institutions. We will provide Commonwealth supported places for higher education diplomas, advanced diplomas, associate degrees and bachelor degrees. About 80,000 students will benefit from this change by 2018. That is an additional 80,000 young Australians going to universities.
Universities will be empowered to set their own fees for their courses, which in turn will generate more competition for students between a greater number of providers. More competition between the higher education providers is good for students. They will have a greater choice when it comes to courses. Competition will drive quality and encourage providers to be more responsive to educational needs.
The deregulation of higher education fees will also fund a significant new Commonwealth scholarship equity initiative. Twenty per cent of any additional revenue of higher education providers from increased fees will be allocated to Commonwealth scholarships and bursaries for the disadvantaged. That is absolutely fantastic for the electorate of La Trobe—20 per cent of any revenue increase arising out of the charging of higher fees by education institutions must go into scholarships.
All students will still be protected by the HECS loan system, no matter which university college or course they choose. All students under this reform package will continue to access the HECS loan system, ensuring they will only begin repayment of the cost of their education once they are earning a decent income—the income level where it kicks in is $50,000.
The welfare reforms in this budget are necessary for the sustainable future of our country. They are aimed at increasing everyone's ability to contribute to the economy. The basic philosophy is that everyone who can contribute should contribute. The government will continue to provide assistance for families, seniors, people with a disability and their carers, and those most in need. The budget includes $146 billion of welfare spending, which is 35 per cent of the entire budget expenditure. This includes pensions, family payments, unemployment benefits and child support.
The facts are stark. If we do not act on the welfare cost blow-out, the system will slowly grind to a halt. For instance, the ratio of people of traditional working age to those over 65 will decline from 5 in 2010 to less than 3 in 2050. Between 2010 and 2050, the number of people aged 65 to 84 will more than double—and those aged 85 and over will more than quadruple. The coalition government is taking responsible steps to ensure a sustainable welfare system is maintained now and into the future.
A good example of this is the 'learn or earn' initiative. The government believes that assistance to the unemployed should help them move into employment rather than encourage them to remain on welfare. In order to reach their full potential, all young Australians who can work should be earning, learning or participating in work for the dole. From January 2015, new job seekers up to 30 years of age applying for Newstart or youth allowance will participate in job search and employment service activities, funded by the government, for six months before receiving the payment. Current recipients of Newstart up to 30 years of age will also be covered by these same requirements from 1 July 2015. Young people who do not have a full capacity to work—that is, their capacity is less than 30 hours—who are in education and training or who have a significant disability will be exempt from these requirements, as will those with parental responsibilities. This will help our young people into a more secure future, while taking the load off our already strained welfare costs.
In regard to building Australia's infrastructure, the budget is responding to the needs of the economy by building infrastructure that will drive economic growth, create jobs and improve productivity. In Victoria, the East West Link is vital to the Australian and Victorian economies, and will help address the major transport challenges currently facing Melbourne. The estimated $14 billion to $18 billion project will reduce travel times by up to 20 minutes for commuters travelling from areas such as Geelong and Ballarat to the city, but will also be of great benefit to those in La Trobe. The East West Link will improve accessibility to important economic and employment centres across the city and will provide an immediate boost to the economy by creating approximately 6,000 jobs during the peak construction periods of both sections.
On health, this budget has the Abbott coalition government creating the world's largest medical research endowment fund, the $20 billion Medical Research Future Fund. It will find the cures of the future and be funded by the health reforms. Contributions will come from a new patient contribution to health services and from other health savings from the budget. The endowment fund when mature will double current direct medical research funding with an extra $1 billion every year.
Locally, in La Trobe we received $500,000 to assist with the redevelopment of the clubrooms at Emerald's Chandler Reserve; $250,000 to assist the South Belgrave Football Club build a new pavilion—and this will be used by the entire South Belgrave community; $1.5 million to build a basketball centre at Emerald primary school—also to be used as a home base by the Emerald Lakers; $50,000 has already been delivered to the Olinda Reserve for their hilltop project; $380,000 to assist the Rythdale-Officer-Cardinia Netball Club develop a new netball pavilion; $500,000 to assist the development of the Upwey Tecoma community recreational sporting hub—and, again, there will be so many who will use this facility; $1 million to assist the construction of the Officer Toomah Centre to offer care and support for vulnerable families and individuals in La Trobe and other surrounding electorates; and $500,000 towards the Cockatoo Ash Wednesday memorial project.
I am very proud to say $1.5 million has already been committed to Insight Vision, the only primary school in Victoria for the blind and visually impaired. That announcement was made two days before the election. There was no media; it was just one of those great initiatives by the coalition which I am sure all members of the parliament would agree is a very worthy cause. I am also extremely pleased to see that the Dandenong Ranges have done exceptionally well. The major issues there are bushfires and weed reduction. There has been $450,000 provided for on-ground activities to be delivered by the Community Weeds Alliance. I look forward to seeing a biological control for wandering trad delivered by the CSIRO. There is $150,000 for the Bullen Bullen Bush Tucker and Medicine Tours, and I very much look forward to seeing Indigenous leader Murrundingi lead these tours. There is $2.4 million to a range of community groups for wildlife recovery, weed reduction and bushfire fuel reduction under the guidance of a project steering committee, including the Olinda and Gembrook Community Advisory Group.
Overall, I do agree that the budget made tough decisions but the constituents of La Trobe and all over the country must realise that the mess this country was put in was simply due to the overspending by the Rudd and Gillard Labor governments and their members who supported every single measure.
I rise to speak in relation to the appropriation bills. I want to put to bed and to rest this nonsense we keep hearing from those opposite. Let us look at the budget papers and the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook. These are the figures that are on the public record done by the Treasury. For 2013-14 under Labor the budget is better than under the coalition by $18.8 billion. In 2014-15 the budget is better under Labor by $5.8 billion. In 2016-17 the figures from Treasury show, across the forward estimates, that the budget would be better under Labor by $15.8 billion, and there is a surplus of $4.2 billion.
According to the budget papers—the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook—compared to the Treasury papers from the budget overview produced by this government on budget night on 13 May, there is a deficit of $10.6 million in 2016-17. So do not come into this place and tell us that you are getting the budget back into surplus, that you are reducing the footprint of government and reducing the debt and the reach of government! In fact, the reality is—and this is what you look at—you look at the spend and the revenue in relation to the budget. Stephen Koukoulas, the economist, has said this—and this is a very interesting point for those opposite, because this is what it clearly shows—if you add the spend and the revenue as a share of GDP under this Abbott coalition government, it is 49.1 per cent of GDP in this country. Under the last Labor government it was 47.4 per cent.
They are increasing the size of government and blowing out the debt. That is what the budget papers show! Do not come in here and give us these sanctimonious platitudes about reining in the debt. They have made choices, and they are cruel choices. They are cruel cuts to pensions, to higher education, to taxes and to those who are vulnerable. As a result of the decisions they have made in relation to the Paid Parental Leave scheme and the Direct Action policy, and giving back concessions to millionaires in relation to superannuation—by virtue of these billions of dollars that they have wasted—the revenue they have foregone is $7.4 billion in the budget from the MRRT and the carbon pricing mechanism. They have made those choices. They have made choices to hit the most vulnerable and weak people in this economy and in this society with cruel cuts and increased taxes. That is what they have done.
I read an interesting thing by Waleed Aly the other day which I thought really summed up the dilemma and the day of reckoning for this government. He said this in a piece in the Brisbane Times on 22 May 2014. I thought it was a terrific piece and a very interesting comment. I will read the paragraph, because I think it is germane:
The reason the government broke so many promises in this budget is simple: the promises they made from Opposition were wildly contradictory. You cannot rein in deficits and abolish two major taxes, and replace one of them with a climate change policy that costs billions and promise no tax hikes and quarantine education, health, defence, public broadcasting and pensions from cuts. That’s like a weight-loss diet that does away with protein but promises no cuts to cake and lard! A platform like that was always going to have its day of reckoning.
And didn't it get it on 13 May this year! Didn't it come in?
Campbell Newman, the Queensland premier—no friend of the ALP—says that the changes in relation to this budget in terms of education, health and concessions to Queensland and to local governments in Queensland is 'not fair and not acceptable'. He believes the cuts are an attempt to wedge the states into pushing for an increase in the GST, which is distributed to the states by the Commonwealth.
This is a confected budget emergency, with broken promises that punishes Australian families and pensioners, and which will particularly hurt people in my electorate, which contains 70 per cent of Ipswich and all of the Somerset region. It will increase inequality in this country. This budget clearly shows that the coalition thinks of Australians as numbers, not as people. It is a fundamental shift in the relationship between government and the citizens of this country. It is a budget cooked up by the Commission of Audit and the Institute of Public Affairs.
The Prime Minister knew Australians would not have voted for this budget. That is why the Real Solutions booklet had so little that you now find in the budget in it. Where was the levy on higher income earners? Where was the indexation in relation to fuel excise? Where was the pausing of indexation for family tax payments? Where was the change in indexation that will result in billions of dollars of saves across the forward estimates and beyond in relation to indexation on pensions? Where was that mentioned in Real Solutions? It was not, because the Australian public would not have voted for a government who said in opposition that they would deliver this type of budget. The coalition knew it. It was a hoax, a fabrication. The coalition were not up-front in opposition in relation to this. They promised one thing to Tasmania and another thing to Western Australia and another thing to Queensland.
Self-funded retirees will be further hit by the elimination of the seniors supplement and the means-testing of the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card. The Deputy Prime Minister went to a Liberal Party fundraiser up in Queensland and pilloried the people there, saying that self-funded retirees live the high life, splurging their money on cruises and the luxuries of life. That is what they think of our older Australians.
Now 91.44 per cent of people who live in Blair are bulk-billed by their GP. We will see, in my electorate, $6.4 million paid annually by the mums and dads and the pensioners in this GP tax, which was never promised in Real Solutions, ever. It was never mentioned. The coalition did not have the integrity to mention it when they went to the election, but they have brought this on. If they do not believe that is going to have an adverse impact on the health and welfare of this country, they are living in cloud cuckoo land.
In relation to education, there is a 20 per cent reduction, on average, in funding for higher education. Pro-Vice-Chancellor of the University of Queensland Alan Rix, at a breakfast I had last week at Brothers Leagues Club in Ipswich, told me that, at the University of Queensland—one of the sandstone universities and my alma mater—there would be a 29 per cent reduction in the money coming in from the federal government. That will be replicated across the country. We are going back to the pre-Whitlam days, where higher education was for the elites. The member leaving the chamber, when he went on about skills and training, did not say that half a billion dollars is taken out of skills and training. He did not even mention that $950 million is taken out of the Trade Training Centres in Schools Program across the country. We opened the biggest one in South-East Queensland last week in my electorate, the Ipswich Region Trade Training Centre, across five local high schools. The coalition said there would be an absolute unity ticket on education, but they put in $2.4 billion in funding and we committed $14.5 billion. How is $2.4 billion in four years the same as $10 billion in six years from the federal government? How is that the same? And the commitment to match $1 from the states and territories with $2 from the federal government is nowhere to be seen. It is not in the budget. There is no commitment. Instead there is $80 billion in cuts to education and health.
For the public hospitals in Queensland and elsewhere, there are billions of dollars in cuts. There was a promise to keep the Medicare Locals. The then Leader of the Opposition, during debates with then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, said he would not touch them. They are providing much-needed front-line services in Indigenous health, support for GPs, support for older Australians, after-hours clinics and HACC funding. All of that is being provided. The coalition said in the campaign: 'We won't touch them. We won't do away with them.' They have done away with them in this budget—another broken promise.
Then there is all the preventative health funding, like the campaigns against tobacco consumption. Because of what we have done in this country, we have gone from 47 per cent of Indigenous people over the age of 15 who consume tobacco to 41 per cent. Tobacco rates in this country have gone down to 15 per cent on average across the country because of the commitment of the federal Labor government. But they have got rid of it. Anything that had research, investment, innovation, climate change or prevention is gone entirely in the budget. Anything they could find that had any words like that were cut, slashed and burned. That is what they did, again and again.
Across Indigenous affairs, $534.4 million was taken out. The legislation is before the parliament right now. But they have not had the grace, humility and integrity to tell any of those organisations that they have lost their funding. They promised they would do exactly the same as we would. They committed themselves solidly. The now minister and the then opposition leader, the now Prime Minister who said he would be the Prime Minister for Indigenous affairs, slashed and burned across the area. Fifteen million dollars to the national congress has gone; $165 million across the four years of forward estimates years is gone in Indigenous health. There is no commitment to a national partnership in Indigenous health. There is no commitment in relation to a national partnership on Indigenous early childhood development. We put in $564 million, and it finishes on 30 June this year—gone. Thirty-eight centres, from Fitzroy Crossing to Ipswich, are under threat. This is so important in Closing the Gap. There is no commitment to Closing the Gap. There are cuts and slashing and burning across Indigenous affairs. They had the gall to say that the Prime Minister is a Prime Minister for Indigenous affairs. The minister is clueless on this stuff.
He claims all he is doing is reducing red tape and bureaucracy—slashing $534.4 million of red tape and bureaucracy and calling it streamlining. He has been reading 1984 by George Orwell, about freedom, slavery, peace and all that sort of stuff. He cannot get it right. That is what he has been trying to do. That is what they have done. We have seen it across the boundaries. This is a cruel budget. Its priorities are wrong. It is doing the wrong thing by the people of Australia. It is doing the wrong thing by the electors in my electorate: 22,700 pensioners are under threat in terms of their income and 8,000 people on disability support pensions are at risk.
A government member: There is no change.
Rubbish. That is absolute rubbish. They do not read the budget papers. Those opposite have no idea what they are talking about. They think they are in government. They might be in office, but they are not actually governing for the benefit of this country. They are not doing the best thing by this country, in health, education or Indigenous affairs. They are putting an impost of $653 million on the aged care sector, in my other shadow portfolio area. They are increasing the cost of aged care in this country, and they have put no conditionality on the work force supplement that they have rearranged—the nurses, carers, IT people and clerks who work in the aged care sector. We put the money aside to increase their wages and improve their training and professional development. They have slashed it with no conditionality at all. They are just rolling money out. They have cut funding in aged care. They have cut funding in Indigenous affairs. They have cut funding in health, education and local government—$925 million in local government.
They have even cut the funding for the flood reconstruction in Queensland and for flood defences and mitigation. That is what they have done across this budget. This government will hang this around their necks for the next election. We will make sure we campaign in every marginal seat—all of them—to tell the people in those seats what their members have done in this place and what they have said back home. This is a cruel government and a heartless government. They have committed a hoax on the people of Australia, and the people of Australia at the next election will have an opportunity to cast their verdict on a government which has betrayed them with broken promises, broken priorities and a broken record once again. This government deserves to be turfed out, and at the next election I have every confidence that the people will do that.
What an incredible performance from the member for Blair. What confected outrage. Not once during his tirade did he mention where any of these funds were coming from. He should sit quietly and hang his head in shame for being part of the worst government since the Commonwealth was started. He was part of the team that got this country in this mess. How did the debt come about? It came through school halls that were overpriced and pink batts that burned down houses. That is why we are in the position we are now. That is why the coalition has had to implement the sensible budget that is in these appropriation bills that we are debating.
The financial irresponsibility of the Labor Party is absolutely breathtaking. They have been here in the last couple of weeks with their confected outrage about money that has been cut out. The member for Blair mentioned money that was cut out of the Gonski reforms. The money was never there. It was in years 5 and 6 of the budget. It was not accounted for. There was no indication of where the money was going to come from or how it was going to be funded. It was off on the never-never. It was a fake promise. Quite frankly, the previous government's actions were very irresponsible. As a matter of fact, they deliberately lined up budget booby traps so that as year 4 rolls into year 5 and they come on the budget papers we have these unfunded promises with no possible way of funding them. Look at the money that was wasted on the $900 cheques. If you surveyed the people of Australia and asked them what they spent their $900 cheque on, I guarantee that 80 per cent of them could not tell you. There were cheques to dead people and to people who lived overseas—it was an absolute debacle.
We have come to the point where we have had to take sound economic decisions in these bills we are debating that make the appropriations for the 2014-15 budget. We have had to look at the debt trajectory out to the end of the forward estimates, which had us heading towards a debt of $670 billion, an unsustainable level of debt. Admittedly, some tough decisions have had to be made. If the members opposite think that the general public outside the confines of this parliament and outside the confines of the cloistered world of the press gallery care, I think they are mistaken. The people I speak to in the streets, the people of Parkes, understand that you need to manage the budget of the country just like you do your own budget. I was in business for over 30 years. At times I would like to have had the Labor Party's attitude and gone out and purchased whatever my heart desired, but I knew that, ultimately, whatever I spent I had to pay back. It is exactly the same with running the country.
We have reduced the deficit. We are heading towards getting back into surplus in a few years time. How can that happen without making the sensible decisions. Just once in a debate I would like to hear how members of the Labor Party were possibly going to pay for all the promises they made. If they had won the last election how were they going to fund these things we are talking about now? They were based on a mining tax that raised no revenue. It is said that this budget hurts low-income earners. One thing that the Labor Party could do right now to help low-income earners is repeal the carbon tax in the Senate. That would mean $550 to every household. A carbon tax is a tax that based not on wealth or otherwise but on merely existing. It does not matter whether you are poor or wealthy, you pay for the carbon tax. If the Labor Party were serious about helping people in Australia they would vote to remove the carbon tax right now.
There has been a lot of negative discussion from the other side about this budget. I am not here defending a budget that needs defending. I am here, proud of the job that we have done. I think that the Australian people were looking to the coalition for someone to take control, to make the hard decisions and get this country back on track.
The investments that were made in this budget are investments in things that will actually grow the economy. Governments do not create wealth; people create wealth. When they have got confidence that the country is being run well then that confidence will flow through to small business. When small businesses start employing people, when people have got the confidence to start to get on with her lives then we will start to see this economy turn around.
Australians understand that we need to live within our means. But they also understand that if this country is going to go grow and prosper, we need the infrastructure to carry that. This budget has the largest infrastructure spend of any budget in the country's history. The coalition knows that to put in the hard infrastructure to help expand our industries in agriculture, in mining, to unplug our cities, to make them more efficient you need investment that is going to last for the long-term—investment that is going to create wealth, investment that is going to grow wealth and investment that is going to encourage people to invest in the country.
There is no greater example than the railway line from Melbourne to Brisbane, the inland rail. It has been a discussion in Australia now for many years. Indeed, the previous minister would mention inland rail but had no real commitment to it. In this budget we see $300 million going towards the implementation of the inland rail. That will go towards environmental studies, finalising the final route and some preliminary infrastructure work. The inland rail will not only have a genuine ability to reduce emissions and do something about our climate but it will improve the safety of our highways. Double-stack container trains will be travelling at over 100 kilometres an hour between the cities and moving freight cheaply and efficiently. But not only that, it will act as—as I call it—the steel Mississippi, giving the inland areas of Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland an opportunity to grow. Businesses will grow. It will provide a corridor for agricultural and mineral exports to our neighbours.
With the free trade deals that were signed by this coalition government, by Minister Andrew Robb in Japan and South Korea—and we are very close to coming to an arrangement with China—we are going to see that the agricultural producers in my electorate are going to have access to markets that they only ever dreamed about. We will see a revolution. I will use that 'revolution' word only once. It was a favourite word of the Labor Party. We had revolutions here for everything a few years ago. We will see a revolution in agriculture as those markets to the north open up. We will see a change in the landscape where high-value produce can be delivered into the Asian market. But we need infrastructure to do that. We need that railway line and we need the roads that can connect the high-producing agricultural areas to that line.
In this budget, on a personal note, is money to complete the Moree bypass. One of great debacles in government misconduct was the previous minister, my predecessor, John Anderson, allocated $54 million to build a bypass around Moree on the Newell Highway. The New South Wales previous Labor government squandered that and ended up with half a bypass. Now, thanks to this budget and contribution from the New South Wales coalition under minister Gay, we are going to see that bypass finished.
In agriculture there will be $100 million over four years for a competitive grant program to deliver cutting edge technology. Australian farmers are the best farmers in the world. They are innovative and they understand research will drive that invitation to a higher level. The productivity of agriculture over the last six years has dropped by 1.7 per cent, and we need to turn that around, (1) by having infrastructure that can connect to markets, but (2) by research, and we have a commitment to the research.
There is $20 million over four years for stronger biosecurity. We nearly had a merging of our AQIS with other departments, and anyone who understands agriculture would know that we need to keep our borders secure when it comes to disease. What makes Australia such a valuable agricultural producing area is the fact that we do not have the diseases that many of our competitors do. So that $20 million will secure our borders and help with the ever-constant vigil against diseases such as foot and mouth.
There is $15 million to support small exporters with export grants to help them remain competitive. There is $8 million to improve access to registration of agricultural and veterinary chemicals. And there is $9 million towards fisheries projects, including OceanWatch, and more support for coordinated representation for the recreational fishers and an invasive marine pest review.
One of the big changes that is going to affect the people in my electorate is 'Earn or learn'. While there has been some criticism of this by those opposite, I can tell you that this program is going to be welcomed in my electorate. For too long, it has been an option for some people to opt out of school and go straight onto welfare. Not only has that been devastating for the individuals involved; the effects through entire communities have been devastating. We are going to see people actually out and doing things—for example, through Green Army projects such as the one that I have been working with, with the Moree Plains Shire Council in the Toomelah-Boggabilla communities. There is a Green Army project to improve the environment along the banks of the Macquarie River and give employment to young people.
We are going to see support for younger people to go into trades through the Trade Support Loans, which are similar to the HECS scheme. Now apprentices and people doing diploma courses can get similar help to university students. I have been overwhelmed by the response that I have been getting in support of this program. I do not think anyone quite realised how difficult it was for apprentices and people undertaking education that was not mainstream university education to gain financial assistance.
So this is a budget that I am very proud of. This is a budget that does not shirk the responsibility of being in government. This is a budget that clearly shows the Australian people that the government are in control and that they have their interests at heart. They are not pandering to interest groups. They understand that money borrowed is money that has to be paid back and that this is the first step on the long road for the Australian economy to get back on track.
No amount of denial, no amount of spin, no amount of pleading, and no amount of fudging the figures or selectively quoting will change the judgement of the Australian people that the Abbott government is indeed a government of broken promises, an arrogant government that treats the Australian people as mugs, a government with wrong priorities driven by extreme right-wing ideology, and a government led by a Prime Minister whom the Australian people simply do not trust because he cannot be trusted.
The polls clearly reflect the feelings and the judgement of the Australian people, and they also reflect the feelings of the people who have spoken to me in my electorate every day since the budget was handed down. In fact, I keep getting their emails on a continual basis, and if time had permitted I would have dearly loved to bring some of those emails into the House and read them out word for word.
No Prime Minister that I can recall has so blatantly breached the trust that was placed in him by the Australian people as has the member for Warringah. Not surprisingly, the member for Wentworth is strikingly quiet. He is not jumping to the Prime Minister's defence; he is just sitting back and smiling.
This is a Prime Minister who prior to September said that the trust of the Australian people had been lost in the previous Prime Minister but that he could be trusted, but nothing could be further from the truth. He promised that taxes would not rise under a coalition government and that health and education spending would not be cut. Those are critical issues for voters at each and every election. If you go to what matters most to people at each and every election, health and education are always at the top of the list, as is the integrity and honesty of the parties that are standing. On both those measures Mr Abbott has failed and he has betrayed the Australian people.
Whilst Australian people generalise about how politicians break promises and cannot be trusted, the truth is that they do not look kindly on politicians who blatantly lie to them and who have conned them. The Abbott government knew all along that they would not keep their election promises but they believed they could talk their way out of breaking their promises by telling another lie. It is common that if you tell one lie then you have to tell a second to try and get out of it, but ultimately you just dig yourself a deeper hole. That lie was to do with the state of the budget and the state of the finances of the federal government. The Abbott government confected a budget crisis through their own policies. When they came into office the budget debt was $58 billion and it rose by another 68 since this government has come to office as a direct result of policies that they have introduced and choices that they made. They made those choices quite deliberately to blow the deficit out so that they could in turn say, 'We have a budget crisis and we need to break the promises that we made to you in the lead-up to the election.' As I said earlier, these were promises they never intended to keep.
The Abbott government's rhetoric about a budget crisis simply does not withstand scrutiny. It is not just our scrutiny on this side of the House, it does not stand the scrutiny of so many others who have looked at it carefully. Firstly, we would not have a AAA credit rating from all three global credit rating agencies if our economy was in crisis. Secondly, we have a low debt of 11.8 per cent of GDP compared to about 65 per cent for the UK, 137 per cent for Japan and the US 81 per cent. They are just three of the countries I compare us with because those are three of our major trading partners.
I say to members opposite, if you genuinely believe there is a crisis, why would you support a very generous paid parental leave scheme that pays people up to $50,000? There is no pressure and no demand for that right now other than from a small sector of society, so why would you do that if there is a budget crisis? And why would you cut company tax by 1.5 per cent if there was a budget crisis? Sure, have that as an aspiration for the future, but why would you do it now? And why would you pay polluters $2.3 billion to keep polluting? When you do not care about the environment and you do not believe in climate change, why would you do that if there was a true budget crisis? The truth is that you would not. Again, if there was a budget crisis, why not close some of the loopholes that allow mining companies to get billions of dollars back in rebates? Why not close the loopholes that allowed some 70-odd millionaires in this country a year or so ago to pay not one red cent of tax? Why not close the other loopholes that allow people to transfer their money offshore and avoid billions of dollars of tax due to the Australian government? That is what you would be doing if you really believed there was a budget crisis. But there isn't, and the government knows there isn't. What there is is a confected narrative in order to bring about the real agenda of this government.
Nothing shows the truth about a government's agenda more than does the budget, because the budget exposes what a government's agenda is and what its blueprint for the future is. You can talk all you like about policies and what you believe in, but what you believe in is then reflected by the dollars that you put on the table, and that in turn reflects the truth of a government. This government's priorities are clearly reflected in this budget. The Commission of Audit appointed by this government has also prepared a blueprint for the future. This audit commission, handpicked by the government, handed down its 62 recommendations and I understand only two of those recommendations have been rejected by the government. That says a lot about the priorities of this government. I suggest that members have a good look at what those 62 recommendations of the audit commission are—they are certainly of concern to me and the people that I represent.
Adding $7 to the cost of each doctor's visit or pathology test or X-ray, adding $5.80 to the cost of prescriptions, cutting $50 million from our health funding into the future, cutting $30 billion of our education funding into the future, transferring young unemployed from Newstart to youth allowance and thereby cutting some $48 a week from their very low support in the first place, and making the under 30s wait six months before they receive Newstart and then after they are on it for six months taking it away from them so they have to start the cycle again are not the acts of a government that truly cares about the people who are doing it tough in this country. Changing the family tax benefit B so that the benefit cuts out when the youngest child turns six years old and indexing pensions by a lower rate than has been the case are measures that hurt the people who are the most dependent on government. In question time the minister talks about how they are not cutting pensions and how they simply used the CPI for the last increase. If that is what they believe, that the CPI is what they are going to use, why are they making the changes? The government is making the changes because it believes that by doing so it will save money because it will cut costs. If it is cutting costs, what it is really saying is that it is cutting the amount of money that goes into the households of pensioners. In my state of South Australia, some 200,000 pensioners are going to be directly affected by that.
As I have a specific responsibility for manufacturing on behalf my party, I note that this government does absolutely nothing to support Australia's manufacturing sector—a sector that has been abandoned by the Abbott government. The government has turned its back on the automotive industry and the 200,000-odd workers that directly or indirectly benefit from that industry in this country. It has turned its back on the fruit processing industry, and we saw what happened with SPC Ardmona—the state government had to support them. It has turned its back on the steel and aluminium industries right across the country. It has now done even more, by cutting industry support, to the extent of $845 billion, to programs such as the Australian Industry Participation Program, Commercialisation Australia, Enterprise Solutions, the Innovation Investment Fund, industry innovation councils, Enterprise Connect, industry innovation precincts, support for the textiles, clothing and footwear industries and small business, and Building Innovative Capability. These were all programs put together on advice, in most cases, from industry groups because they were of direct benefit and assistance to those industries. They have all been cut.
These are the industries that in most cases underpinned and supported the manufacturing sector of this country. They were not industries that the previous government had simply plucked out of the air and said, 'We will throw some money this way and we will throw some money that way.' This support arose out of industry groupings and industry need that had been demonstrated and highlighted and, in turn, those funds would help those industries grow their businesses, export their products, work together in a collaborative way and, where possible, even get management expertise and advice on how they should run their businesses. That has all been cut. There has been some attempt to reinstate a couple of other programs but, quite frankly, why would you cut programs which have been working effectively and well and then say you will substitute them with others? Just like the government turned its back on the automotive industry, the government is now doing the same thing across the board to so many other sectors. It is clear that this government believes there is no future for the manufacturing sector in Australia. I disagree with that view. I believe there is a strong future for the manufacturing sector in Australia and I will continue to support the manufacturing sector in any way I possibly can.
In a similar vein, cutting $1.3 billion from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency also directly affects manufacturing in this country. This agency has created thousands of jobs as a result of the projects that it has funded and been involved in. When the money is cut we will lose those jobs, we will those skills and we will lose the know-how and expertise that went with them. At a time when every other country is investing more in renewable energy and the associated support facilities that are required, Australia is going in the opposite direction. This does not make sense. The people who work in this sector have every right to be concerned not only about their jobs but also about the loss of the expertise and know-how as a result of these cuts.
The member for Parkes spoke a moment ago about apprentices. I just want to talk very briefly about the cuts to the apprenticeship scheme. Yes, there has been a program to fund apprentices. That program has come at a time when the cost for apprenticeships is likely to go up by 40, 50 or 60 per cent as a result of the cuts by this government to the higher education services in this country. So, yes, you will give them a loan, but you are increasing their fees and cutting $5,500 which they were otherwise entitled to—and then you say that they are on a good thing! Those apprentices are no fools. They will understand that they have also been dudded.
The other matter that I want to touch on very briefly is the cuts to science and research: $146 million worth of cuts to the CSIRO and similar institutions; $80 million worth of cuts to cooperative research centres; and $74.9 million worth of cuts to the Australian research councils. With those cuts, we will lose about 1,000 jobs—1,000 experts in the science and research area who have done great things for this country. Science and innovation equals competitiveness for us in a global environment. Science underpins the future sustainability of so many Australian industries, and that includes Australian manufacturing industries. Australian industry supports and creates Australian jobs. By cutting funding from science and research organisations, we cut our productivity and, in turn, Australia becomes less competitive in a global environment. It simply does not make economic sense to do so. Even if you want to do it for ideological reasons, it does not make economic sense. No smart company will tell you that they do not invest in research and development.
The last matter that I will quickly touch on, because it pertains to South Australia, is road funding. For years South Australia has been getting supplementary local road funding. We have been getting it because we have 11 per cent of the nation's roads and seven per cent of the population. We get about 5½ per cent of the national pool for road funding. This is as a result of a flaw that was implemented years ago and that has never been corrected. This government has now seen fit to cut that supplementary local road funding to South Australia after years of it being there, including by previous coalition governments. In addition, by freezing federal assistance grants to local government, local councils get even less money because most of the road funding goes to local councils. This cut will directly hit local communities right around Australia. The Australian people have already passed their judgement on this budget and the Abbott government, and it has failed their test of honesty and fairness.
The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing 192.
Federation Chamber a d journed at 20:59