Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is with pleasure that I rise to speak about the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2006-2007 and the related budget bills. Firstly, I welcome the tax cuts and my constituents welcome the tax cuts and the family payment increases contained in the 2006 federal budget. However, in many other areas this budget has been a string of missed opportunities. One thing to remember in terms of the residents of Holt, many of whom have a taxable income between about $40,000 a year and $60,000 a year, is that they will get, according to budget documents, a tax reduction of about $9.80 per week. The tax relief in this budget is long overdue—certainly that is the feedback that I get from my constituents. After all, this is the highest taxing government in Australia’s history and families are going to need every cent of that tax cut to cope with the interest rate hike and record petrol prices.

When looking at the assessment of the interest rate increase that we had in May, a family who has recently bought a typical established home in Narre Warren faces increased mortgage repayments of $37 per month. A family who has recently bought a typical established home in Cranbourne has an increased payment of roughly $33 per month, and a family who has recently bought a typical Endeavour Hills house will pay up to $39 more per month as a consequence of this interest rate rise.

At the same time these families in Holt, many of whom are dependent upon cars for transportation, are facing record petrol prices and spending at least $40 a month per car extra on unleaded petrol compared to a couple of months ago. In fact when I was driving around my electorate at the weekend I noticed that prices of $1.33 a litre and $1.30 a litre were quite commonplace. The fact is that many of my constituents have two cars because their households have a mum and a dad. I have the highest rate of couples with dependent children in the country. I also have the highest rate of mortgagees in this country. The 2001 census data had it at 49 per cent and it must be well into the fifties by now, so an interest rate rise is going to severely affect families in my region.

What they are very disappointed about is that nothing has been done to tackle the record petrol prices that are increasing the financial pressure on families in Holt. There has been no specific funding in this budget for the ACCC to investigate widespread community concerns about price gouging within the petroleum refining and distribution industry and no funding for the ACCC to formally monitor fuel prices under part VIIA of the Trade Practices Act 1974.

It is interesting to contrast this with the action taken by President Bush, who recently instructed the ACCC equivalent, the Federal Trade Commission, to investigate whether the price of gasoline had been unfairly manipulated in any way. I would like to use the words of George Bush. He recently said:

Americans understand, by and large, that the price of crude oil is going up and that the prices are going up, but what they ... will not accept is manipulation of the market. And neither will I.

That is worth thinking about when oil profits for companies like ExxonMobil and other oil companies that produce most of the petrol we consume are expected to exceed $134 billion this year. ExxonMobil chairman Lee Raymond has an income of $200,000 per day and, when he retires, he is going to get the princely sum of $400 million.

I did not have the opportunity to raise this in my motion on fuel and petrol yesterday in the House, but there are serious concerns by elements associated with petrol refineries and service station operators about the price manipulation and the padding of what is called the terminal gate price by oil refineries owned by companies like ExxonMobil. The terminal gate price is determined by oil companies and then on-sold to petrol retailers. The VACC has investigated the practices of those refineries that are selling at the terminal gate price and assessed that the terminal gate price is 8c higher than it should be, with all the profits going to oil companies.

The VACC has something like 5,000 members—these are crash repairers, service station operators and petrol retailers—saying that they believe that there has been price gouging of up to 8c per litre in the terminal gate price. Why isn’t this being investigated? The American President, George Bush, when petrol hit, I think, the equivalent of $A1.20 in America recently, pushed the panic button and said something had to be done and it had to be investigated by the Federal Trade Commission, but there has been no action by this government. President Bush also released a comprehensive energy statement that spoke about biofuels and the need for the country in the future to diversify fuels.

I did not have the opportunity to raise this in the fuel motion that I put to the House yesterday, but why isn’t this an item on the COAG agenda? No-one can tell me and my residents that this is not an issue that is going to concern Australia into the future. I know it is not listed on the COAG agenda, and that is a serious issue. It should be front and centre. If it is good enough for President George Bush when the price of petrol hits $A1.20 a litre, it should be good enough for John Howard when the price of petrol is averaging, in my area, between $A1.25 and $A1.33. It is not good enough and it is certainly not good enough for the residents that I represent in Holt.

The other issue for families in Holt, who have experienced the second interest rate rise in 14 months, is that they feel the budget fails to make the investment needed to solve the skills crisis. We have heard a lot about that in parliament over the past couple of months. If we do not address that, there is going to be further upward pressure on interest rates. It is interesting that there have been fewer opportunities provided for young tradespeople in the area, and there is some concern about the wages that are being paid to apprentices in the area. Contrast that with some of the stories that we have been looking at in the papers with respect to cheaper imported labour being brought in which may take the jobs of these apprentices that want to establish a career in the area that I represent.

I would like to cite an email that I received from a resident in Cranbourne—I will not name her—in regard to her son Brett. This illustrates the issue. He is a first-year motor mechanic. He works 40 hours a week and receives $6.53 an hour before tax. Out of this he has to make repayments for his tool box and school books of $5 each per week as well as having to pay for the additional tools required and vehicle running costs. The son is disheartened by the amount that he is paid for the work that he is required to carry out, given that he could take an unskilled position and receive a much higher wage. We need these sorts of apprentices to keep our economy, our country, ticking over. When apprentices like this fellow feel that they would be better off getting out of an apprenticeship rather than into one, it shows that this government have failed to invest in our young people in Holt—and we have a large number of young people in Holt—and have missed the opportunity to build on the future economic prosperity of Australia. As I said, they are looking towards employing cheap labour from overseas.

The budget is also a big blow to parents in Holt who cannot afford or find child care in this area. We have a very high birth rate in the city of Casey—of the order of 3,000 births per year. Not a single extra place is guaranteed, child care in the area will not be a single cent cheaper and the issue of quality still has not been addressed.

The government announced that it will get rid of the cap that currently applies to outside school hours child care—before and after hours school and vacation care—and family day care from 1 July 2006. There is no evidence at all that this decision will result in any new places. The problems of affordability and availability of child care have nothing to do with the cap. I cite the example of a mother, also from Cranbourne, who continues to struggle with this child-care system. I received an email from this lady. She is currently studying an arts-law degree but feels she may have to give it all away due to lack of child-care options in the area. Her son goes to school and since she has started she has had nothing but trouble getting before and after hours school care for him. She wants to work while studying but cannot because of the lack of care. Now she may also have to give up her studies for the same reason. She says there is just one centre in Cranbourne that picks up from her son’s school and provides before and after hours school care, and that centre is full. She writes:

This is ridiculous, how many other people don’t work because of the same problem. The government wants to force people off welfare when their kids start school but how can this happen when the ratio for after school hours care is like this. I have tried family day care that the council organise and they don’t have anyone who will pick up from any schools. I have tried family and friends but that is not a long term solution as they have to work or go to school themselves. I have called every centre in Cranbourne and the situation is they are either full or don’t do this sort of care.

After seeing John Howard appear on the Sunrise program, which is a very popular program in my electorate I might add, on 10 May 2006, she writes:

Then I had a good laugh at Mr Howard on the Sunrise program this morning when he said there are enough before and after school hour programs in operation, and that people just need to look hard enough to find them.

I think from the evidence I have provided, she has been looking pretty hard. She continues:

I pose a challenge to anyone who dares to try, including Mr Howard, to come to Cranbourne and find a before and after school care place for my son. It’s not like the school he is in, is located within an area that is miles away from the town centre, it is in the centre of town.

She believes that it shows just how out of touch this government is with the everyday lives of families in Holt, telling them that the child-care crisis is their problem and that families need to look harder to find places. This is family belt central. The area I represent is a mortgage belt, growth belt corridor. These are the people that John Howard purports to represent.

At a time when families are working hard to pay off their mortgage and provide for their children, this budget lets families down on proper tax reform. The budget has done nothing to stop the tax grab on families extra earnings. Hardworking families in Holt will still routinely face marginal tax rates higher than 51c in the dollar on extra income due to the intersection of the tax and family benefits system.

Given the large number of families, it is also worth looking at the community based facilities, community organisations and the demand on services. The growth in this area has outstripped the social infrastructure capacity. So when looking at the budget that has been brought down and at how it might affect the provision of these services, I was very disappointed to find that there is no funding for local sporting clubs and community sporting organisations, which are the glue that binds the community in these sorts of areas. Their facilities, as I have said, are under pressure due to the rapid population growth.

A study prepared for the City of Casey in July 2004 of a recreation facilities development plan in Narre Warren and the surrounding areas found that total active membership of sports clubs in this area had increased by 25 per cent from 2002-04; of all active members, 82 per cent were juniors; and a shortage in facilities in cricket ovals, Australian rules ovals, soccer fields, netball outdoor courts for training, lawn bowls greens, tennis courts and indoor basketball courts. There are a lot of young people wandering around shopping centres in my area looking for these sorts of facilities. I was certainly hoping that there would be some funding and acknowledgement of that in this area. I will show you why. There is a contrast here, which shows the hypocrisy of the government. I will draw it to this chamber’s attention in a second.

The study found that a high number of young families in the area, almost 60 per cent of the residents, were under the age of 35 and that there will be continued high demand for facilities in the future. There was strong community support for additional facilities for junior sport expressed throughout these extensive community consultations. It is clear in this area in particular that sporting participation is rapidly increasing. Why not? Facilities are not adequate and they will not be adequate in the future, given the number of young families in the area. In fact, 65 families per week shift into the city of Casey. I think it is the third fastest growing council area in Australia. There is strong community support for additional facilities for junior sport, but this government is out of touch. Again, looking at the budget, there was no funding for sporting facilities for Holt.

There is no better example of this electorate not getting its fair share of sports funding than the Cranbourne Aquatic and Leisure Centre. The current pool in Cranbourne, the Cranbourne Indoor Heated Pool, is 25 years old. Part of the structure and plant are nearing the end of their life, so a quality state-of-the-art facility is needed. A new facility is also needed to cater for the massive population growth in the area. It is estimated that between 2001 and 2006 the population of Cranbourne East increased by 1,270 per cent, Cranbourne North by 16 per cent and Cranbourne West by 50 per cent. Whilst swimming and better facilities were the most requested future participation activities in the scoping study, no federal government funds have been provided. Here comes the contrast: the Frankston Regional Aquatic, Health and Wellness Centre, in the electorate of Dunkley, has just received $5 million for its construction.

See this speech in context