Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Hansard source

It is always interesting following the member for Grayndler. It ran through my mind at the time he was putting out all those doomsday predictions that Hanrahan said, ‘We’re all rooned.’ By the sound of the member for Grayndler, that seems to be his position. But his arguments do not stack up. I listened very closely to some of the arguments he put forward. On one hand, he does not want any coal-fired based generation because of the pollution that might come from that, and he puts forward the proposals of wind farms and solar energy. But, if you look closely at the cost of wind farms and solar energy, he is really saying to the Australian people, ‘You’ll pay 30 per cent or 40 per cent more for your electricity,’ because that is what the extra cost from those methods comes down to.

I would say to him that, if he genuinely wants to look at a product that produces cheap, green electricity, he should look at an invention called the Aquanator, which has been invented in my area. It produces electricity from a water current. It can produce electricity for somewhere near—a little bit higher than—the price of electricity generation from coal. So, if he really wants to look at something that is practical and might give some results, I suggest that he has a very close look at that.

This is a very good budget as far as I am concerned. I have been in this parliament now for 10 years, and I have seen the government gradually overcome the problems that it inherited—the $96 billion worth of debt that was irresponsibly run up by the Labor Party. The savings that have accrued from that, the $8 billion in interest that we do not have to pay on that debt, are now available to the government to do some good in the community. As I walk around my community and talk to people, I wonder where some of the findings of polls come from, because I cannot find anyone in my electorate that is disappointed with the budget.

For the last four or five budgets—I think it is five budgets now—the Treasurer has been able to give tax cuts. I have not heard anyone in my electorate complain about a tax cut, I can assure you. If you look closely at it, the tax cuts over that period of time have been very fair across the board. I think this year we have done even better. We have been able to deliver some real tax cuts to the community. If you look at the change in the rates, the 30 per cent threshold has gone up to $25,000; the 42 per cent tax rate has been cut to 40 per cent and the threshold taken to $75,000; and the 47 per cent tax rate has been cut to 45 per cent and the threshold taken up to $150,000. That means that the vast majority of Australians are now paying fairly low tax rates. If you look closely at those rates—the percentages—across the world, Australia is now in a very competitive position as far as other countries are concerned.

Roads are a very important part of my electorate, and I dare say that the member for Paterson and other rural members in this House take a very keen interest in roads and road funding, because in this day and age, the age of the motor car, obviously the community are very keen to see that their roads are kept in a reasonable condition. I am pleased that there is more money for the Pacific Highway. The Pacific Highway, of course, as is often forgotten, is a state highway, and the amount of money that the federal government has been able to inject into that highway over the last 10 years is quite considerable. I recall that, when we first won government in New South Wales from the Unsworth government, the budget for the RTA from Port Macquarie to the Queensland border was $25 million. I remember the divisional engineer saying to me, ‘With $25 million I can hardly fill the potholes between Port Macquarie and the Queensland border.’ If you think back over those 20 to 25 years, the changes that have taken place in the Pacific Highway, the improvements that have been made in that period of time, are quite extraordinary. Now, of course, we are prepared to put extra funding into that highway.

I saw the most ridiculous headline I think I have ever seen in my life in a local paper, the Northern Star, which I would have to rate as one of the poorest papers in Australia. All they wanted to do was to look at the figure that we put in this year’s budget and say, ‘We’re only going to get about nine or 10 kilometres of road on the Pacific Highway.’ Of course, they forgot that we already committed last year to $660 million, and the state has matched that funding. We now have on the table $1.3 billion, unspent, for roadworks on the Pacific Highway. If you look closely at the people we have available to construct the highway, we physically cannot spend any more money on that in the next two or three years. I think that that was one of the most ridiculous and irresponsible headlines I have seen in my 23 years in politics.

The other issue that I am extremely pleased to see is the Roads to Recovery funding. Roads to Recovery was something that many of us fought very hard for because local councils were stretched to the limit; they just did not have the money to spend on local rural roads. Then we were able to find some money for Roads to Recovery. It was quite a surprise to hear in the budget, quite frankly, that we were going to double the Roads to Recovery money this year. I can assure you that most rural people were extremely excited about that, because we are getting some very good results out of Roads to Recovery. It shows me clearly that, if you can bypass the state bureaucracies, you are going to get some money on the roads. In the past it was gobbled up by all sorts of planning issues and excuses as to why the state government should take part of the money. We are now getting results on the ground because the councils are constructing these roads. I am also pleased to see that we have continued with the black spots funding. I know that the member for Paterson gets more than his share of that on Buckets Way.

There is so much in this budget. I know we have 20 minutes in this particular debate, but you could speak for a long, long time on this budget. There is something that I think needs to be put very clearly. I know it came through in the poll the other day saying that people would rather have funds spent on infrastructure. They were particularly talking about health, education and roads as well. If you have a look at it, those are state responsibilities. People are confused. I know that the media does not help them, because they do not try to explain the difference between state and federal responsibilities, but those are state responsibilities.

A typical example of that is in the city of Lismore in my electorate of Page. Last budget I was asked by the local health authorities to try and get an oncology unit for the Lismore Base Hospital. The Minister for Health and Ageing, Tony Abbott, certainly helped me with that. He gave me a commitment last budget of $8 million towards an oncology unit at the Lismore Base Hospital. The problem we have is that there has to be a building built for the oncology unit. It is a state government run base hospital. They have to shift the mental health unit to put in the oncology unit. I am not opposing that, because the unit we have there at the present time is very run down and we certainly need a mental health unit. But we have not even called for tenders at this particular stage, even though it has been promised for about six years. If I am generous I could say that we might build that in two years. Then we have to build a new building for the oncology unit, which will take at least another two years, if I am generous. So we are looking at four or five years down the track to get an oncology unit. Why? Not because of the federal government; because of the incompetence of the state Labor government.

I have to ask one simple question of this parliament: can someone tell me where the money has gone in New South Wales? I was in the state cabinet, as most members know, when we lost government in 1995. The money available for the budget in that year was $25 billion. Last year, some 10 years down the track, the state government had $44 billion to spend. And we have seen none of it in health, nothing in public education and certainly nothing on roads, which is a state responsibility. I would love to know where the money has gone, because it has certainly disappeared—and a lot of it.

On that note I look at the budget and see that education funding has risen to $16.6 billion from $10.8 billion in 1996-97. That is a considerable increase. I again challenge members opposite to go and have a look at the state budget and see how much education has increased in their budget over that same period. We get people standing up from the opposition and talking about TAFE, for instance, but we never hear discussed what the state government have done with TAFE. They are the ones who run it. They are the ones who will put on the extra fees. They are the ones who have reduced the number of students in the TAFE areas. But we get this criticism coming from the opposition that somehow it is all the fault of the federal government. I suggest to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that there are a few reasons for it. Probably one of those was the Dawkins plan, which started the whole change in the education area, and the fact that the bureaucrats have taken control of TAFE. You would remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I do, that technical colleges were run by the local communities in the past. They were run by local people who had trades skills and knew the requirements of training in those particular areas. But that has all changed and we have gone to some academic area in TAFE.

On that note, I might say that the Australian technical college that was proposed for Ballina-Lismore on the north coast of New South Wales was stopped by the state education minister. Why? Because they had an ideological problem. I was told by the area director of TAFE New South Wales that he believed that he had met all of the criteria of both the federal government and the state government. The two basic sticking issues in the Australian technical college include the fact that we require a community board. We are not going to give the money to the state government, because we know what would happen to it: it would disappear. So we want to give the money to a community board. We also expect that teachers would be offered—we are not saying they have to be—an AWA. That is already available in TAFE. But because the state Labor government did not like the idea of an Australian technical college, the minister for education in New South Wales would not allow TAFE to make the bid on those conditions. They went ahead with a bid that they knew would fail because it did not meet the criteria.

I know that regional partnerships are very dear to our hearts in regional New South Wales. They came out of an initiative of the member for Gwydir, the former Deputy Prime Minister. And we know why: because of the fact that rural areas often do not enjoy the same growth in the economy that other areas of Australia do. We have had some very good results out of that—not just Sustainable Regions but also Regional Partnerships. I have a Sustainable Regions program in my area that now covers the Casino, Grafton, down towards Coffs Harbour area. That joins with the electorates of the member for Cowper and the member for Lyne. It does give opportunities. In the past we had opportunities around the Ballina, Lismore, Kyogle and Tweed areas. We have had $10 million worth of investment in the local industry there, which has done quite a lot for the employment opportunities in those areas—areas that always have difficulties with employment. They still have unemployment of around nine per cent.

But I have businesses in my electorate that cannot get labour. I was in the chair this afternoon and listened with interest to some of the debate on the so-called skills shortage. The meatworks at Casino, which is a very big employer in the township of Casino, continually advertises in the paper and on radio for boners and butchers and cannot fill the positions. Yet I have an unemployment rate of nine per cent. I have a big chicken producer in the area called Sunny Brand Chickens. They cannot get workers in their chicken farms. I have a number of piggeries. It is labouring work, I know. I have done plenty of labouring work in my days, I can tell you. People are too picky. They do not want those jobs, they will not do those jobs and they say they are unemployed. I think there has to be a tougher line taken in some of these areas, quite frankly. With the unemployment rates today down to just over five per cent, people cannot be picky and people cannot sponge off the taxpayer. They have an obligation to go out and look for work and to take up work at every opportunity. I will be pursuing that quite vigorously in the future.

Also, I would like to note the increases in the budget for health and aged care, particularly aged care. There is $48 billion in funding for health and aged care, up from $20 billion when we took over government in 1996-97. The North Coast—and I dare say other areas along the coast—is a very big retirement area. The need for aged care is great. I am glad that we get the home care packages, because I think they are a very good idea. Most people like to live in their own homes until they have to go elsewhere. They can get care and support, with the government giving extra money for those areas. It is pleasing to note that we have the money to give carers a one-off $1,000 bonus. I think that is very important. Carers do an enormous job in the community, sometimes under very trying conditions, with loved ones. It is a very difficult job that they do. Also, there is the utilities bonus. I know that whether people are pensioners or superannuants they really appreciate that little bit of help to pay for utilities.

As a rural member, I was also very pleased to see addressed in the budget a number of issues that really affect rural Australia. We are continuing with the scholarship process for young doctors. I notice that over the next few years there will be another 400 scholarships. We tie those to the fact that we expect these graduates to work in country areas for a period. It is very difficult to get doctors into some country areas. We note that if country students get a scholarship, and even other students who come to the country and spend a bit of time working out there, often they will stay. We are trying to encourage that as much as possible. Also, there is $3 million over five years to allow services in small rural hospitals to be billed to the Medicare Benefits Schedule. That is a very good initiative, I believe, for those small country areas. There will be $7.6 million over four years to address specific health challenges in rural and remote Australia. There will be $134.2 million over four years to continue assistance to help aged care providers in rural and remote Australia build and upgrade infrastructure. There is a $19.4 million supplement for rural and remote community aged care packages.

I have probably left the most important thing to last. I really believe that one of the great things that this government has done is support families in the community. Now 500,000 families will be able to earn $40,000 and still get the $4,200 family tax benefit A. That is a very big help for families. Even though they might pay the lower rate of tax during that period, by the time the tax cuts out from family tax benefit A their income will be reaching the late $40,000 mark. In real terms families with, say, three children will not pay tax until they reach the late $40,000 mark. That is something that is not known and is not accepted. I think it is very important. That is why families vote for us. They vote for us because we look after them. This goes even to the tax schedules. Anyone earning up to $10,000 will not pay tax. These are very big benefits. Probably the greatest surprise in the budget for me—and I think for many other members of the government—was that we are not going to argue any longer over the numbers to be allocated to child care. It has been deregulated. The opposition can argue all they like about what is going to happen, but it has been deregulated. If the need is there, the places will be funded. That is an enormous step forward, a tremendous step forward, for our community.

For a mid-term budget, I think this is marvellous. When you look at the projection of a $10.8 billion surplus, which will keep pressure down on interest rates, I think the Treasurer has to be congratulated. There is no doubt he has done an extraordinary job in the management of the finances of Australia, and only a Liberal-National Party government can do that.

See this speech in context