Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I listened closely to the previous speaker. She concluded with some comments on aged care, and I think it would be an appropriate place for me to start my deliberations. Aged care is one of those issues that the government has attempted to address. Obviously a lot more can be done, and I would encourage that a lot more be done into the future. I think the judgment of our society, parliament and democratic process is very much based on how we look after our elderly and those who are less fortunate than most of us, such as people with disabilities and mental illness. I am pleased to see that there are attempts to bridge the gap between the Commonwealth and the states in terms of mental health care, aged care and also particularly young people with disabilities.

I think most people would be aware that something like 6,000 young people in Australia currently have some form of disability, a lot of whom are inappropriately housed in nursing homes and have devoted relatives and friends looking after them. I encourage the Prime Minister, who actually took the lead with the state premiers in coming to grips with this issue, to maintain that leadership role in relation to the provision of appropriate accommodation for young people who have disabilities.

We in the electorate of New England have been very fortunate in relation to aged care and health care. Out of all the country electorates in Australia, I think we have the highest number of multipurpose services being built. For those who do not know, they are the result of arrangements between the Commonwealth and state—which shows that it can work if they devote themselves to it. As I said, I hope they put that same devotion into the issue of young people with disabilities. In smaller centres, the Commonwealth provides aged care facilities and the state provides what we call the hospital or health facilities. In the electorate of New England we have multipurpose services in Emmaville. There are some being constructed and nearing completion in Guyra, Bingara and Barraba. There is a slight variation on the theme in Bundarra, Tingha and Walcha—I apologise if I have missed any out. My home town of Werris Creek is one of the few places that has not received a multipurpose service yet, so I will have to do some extra work there. I congratulate both the state and the Commonwealth governments for the way in which they have addressed the problem of the delivery of health care and aged care in smaller communities, where the general economies of size do not apply. They have been able to achieve a good economic outcome in the running of both those agendas by providing care, with appropriate arrangements for families in the areas from whence people come.

My headline for this budget is, ‘Budget 2006: good for families, superannuants and roads and no joy for petrol prices or renewable energy sources’. Obviously there are many things that could be said as well as that. And I think even the Treasurer would admit that the surplus and largesse have been very dependent on people who dig holes in the ground and sell products overseas. I have a coalmine next door to me; I am not opposed to the coal industry—I think they do a great job. But I think we have to be very careful that this reliance on a boom in natural resources is not taken for granted, because those things can change very quickly.

I would say the only long-term benefit of any note in this budget is the changes to superannuation. Although those changes have copped some degree of criticism, I think they are a step in the right direction. I would encourage the government to remove all forms of taxation from superannuation so that it does what it was originally designed to do—help people provide for their own retirement—and is not used as a source of revenue. I think that has to be the ultimate goal, and the Treasurer has probably taken a first step in that direction.

I would like to raise a number of issues that are not in the budget and some of the concerns that I have generally about government policy. On petrol prices, the government has virtually shrugged its shoulders and said: ‘It’s all global. We can’t do anything about it. Don’t blame us. We haven’t put the excise up for many years, so it’s really got nothing to do with us.’ That is a nonsense in my view.

If we look at the way in which fuel taxation is structured, we see that we are paying something like 51c a litre now, with the excise arrangements of 38c and the GST component as well. For every cent of tax, I think it comes to $360 million. I can see why the states are only hitting people with lettuce leaves when they say they have some concerns about the escalating oil price, because for every 10c it goes up they get an extra $360 million through the goods and services tax arrangements. The Commonwealth government has done very little to alleviate the concerns that citizens have about the escalation in the price of fuel. I believe there is a lot more that can be done in that respect. There is currently a bill before the House that I have some concerns about too, the fuel tax bill. I will mention that in a moment.

In the budget I think there was an extra $308 million allocated to Roads to Recovery. The Roads to Recovery scheme has been a good scheme in a sense. I think it has bypassed the states and given a direct line from the Commonwealth government to local government and provided a source of funds to do something about local roads. I believe that the next speaker is going to be the member for Gwydir. I congratulate him in advance for being involved in putting together the Roads to Recovery program.

Having said that, there is an odd sleight of hand in this budgetary process. In 2000, when the goods and services tax arrangements were being put in place, the Commonwealth brought into place what was called the Fuel Sales Grants Scheme, which was to compensate for the difference in the GST on fuel for country and city motorists. Because country motorists were paying more for their fuel, their GST would be higher. To alleviate that problem the government brought in the Fuel Sales Grants Scheme. At the time, that was lauded by the National Farmers Federation, the NFF, and local government groups et cetera. It was, in my view, a way of equalising the scheme. It cost about $270 million to do that.

In this budget, as of 1 July, the Fuel Sales Grants Scheme is removed. So $270 million will be removed, not from city motorists but from country motorists. They have tried to cover that up by saying, ‘Here’s another $308 million for Roads to Recovery.’ Roads to Recovery funding goes to country and city motorists. I am pleased to see the member for Gwydir here to hear this. He did not hear me congratulate him on the Roads to Recovery program. I extend that congratulations once again.

Eighty per cent of the $308 million for the Roads to Recovery program will accrue to country roads if the old formula is maintained. Obviously the other 20 per cent will go to city motorists. Essentially what you have in this budget is $308 million in extra Roads to Recovery funding, 80 per cent of which would accrue to country motorists. So $246 million will go to country roads, whereas they have lost $270 million under the Fuel Sales Grants Scheme. That means that country motorists will pay probably 1c to 3c a litre more for fuel at the bowser. The Commonwealth government says that the Commonwealth cannot do anything about the price of fuel. This budget, as of 1 July, will quite deliberately increase the price of fuel for country people by 1c to 3c, depending on where they live. I believe that is an absolute disgrace.

There are some other issues relating to fuel, particularly in the current legislation before the House, the fuel tax bill, which impact not only on the way in which fuel tax is paid but, regrettably, very much on the possible growth of renewable energy resources. Given the debate that has taken place over the last few days over the future of the National Party in particular—or the New Liberals, as they now refer to themselves—there is an issue here that really does need to be outed. There is currently a stunt before the parliament. I think it shows the role that the National Party, and the National Farmers Federation for that matter, have played in the weak bargaining positions and the weak positions they accept on a lot of issues.

The fuel tax bill will allow for the rebate of excise for off-road use—farm use, essentially—to be provided back to farmers. Under the current scheme the fuel truck arrives on a farm, the docket is received, it is sent to the appropriate body and the rebate of the excise is immediately posted into a bank account. What this legislation is attempting to do is put it in line with the current BAS, so that every three months—or annually, depending on how people operate their businesses—the rebate will be reimbursed through that particular process. That will have enormous cash flow implications for the farming community. If you buy $40,000 worth of fuel—and it is not impossible to do that—there would be about $16,000 outstanding in rebate. To wait three or 12 months to get that money back would not be appropriate. I hope the government will see their way clear to amending that and maintaining the current system.

But the rub in this for the National Party is that this is an absolute stunt. This has been set up to be one of those weak victories that they have. The Liberal Party have gone out on this and said, ‘We’re going to put it under the BAS arrangements; it is more appropriate that it be paid that way,’ knowing full well the trouble that this would cause. The National Party would come in and champion the view: ‘You can’t do it that way; we’ll have to return to the existing processes.’ A great victory will be lauded and the National Farmers Federation will be seen to be in a very strong position, having claimed this great victory. What absolute nonsense. For a coalition party to even allow this sort of stuff to get into legislation, to come before the parliament, knowing full well that it is like this, that it has these implications for the farming community in particular, is a disgraceful act in itself. I have absolutely no doubt that this will be changed in the parliament. I will be moving some amendments, and I am sure there will be others in the Senate doing the same thing.

I think there are also some great concerns with how the same bill relates to the renewable energy industry. The renewable energy targets that were put in place by the current government, you may remember, were put in place back in 2001. Then they had a revamp back in 2005. We are still looking at something like 360 megalitres of renewable energy—less than one per cent of our energy needs, so doing very little to encourage renewable energy into the future. But a number of things happened with that particular bill. One of the things that happened was that part of the process was to encourage domestic production of ethanol and biodiesel, for instance. Part of the rebate mechanism that was put in place was such that domestic production would receive a 50 per cent discount in the energy discounts that were available, which gave it a distinct advantage over imported fuels. This legislation wipes out that advantage, so it takes away the recognition that there is a domestic industry and that there are other regional impacts and benefits that can take place that should be recognised by the legislation. That needs to be removed.

I spoke about the Fuel Sales Grants Scheme earlier. The legislation also has negative impacts on the entry of particularly biodiesel into large-vehicle and off-road farm use of biofuels. It sets a discriminatory field for biodiesel. Regrettably, this government does not seem to be terribly concerned about the price of fuel and particularly about the renewable energy industry—ethanol, for instance. There are plants being built in the States at the rate of about one every fortnight. They have recognised the problems that are coming. Even George Bush has attempted to put in place some long-term arrangements to overcome some of the problem. Twenty per cent of the US corn crop is now going into renewable fuels. A lot of the canola crop now—I cannot think of the exact percentage—is being used in European countries for biodiesel. Just the implications that that is having for the price of those products must surely send a message to the country members of this government that they can do a lot more. And, if in fact they do a lot more, the regional implications are enormous for not only the investment in jobs in regional areas but also the underpinning of the grain price.

We have an absurd situation in this country, and it relates to the boom that we were talking about earlier. We grow things in this country, and we recognise that we need to trade. No-one argues about that. Eighty per cent of our produce is exported. Some of what we grow is grain—and we have been through this fiasco in Iraq with the Wheat Board. We sell the grain on a corrupt market. There is argument about how corrupt that market is and how corrupt the sellers should be. Essentially, it is a corrupt market because some of our competitors are subsidised, some of our markets are subsidised and there are a whole range of other things happening with fees and kickbacks. So we sell that grain, and then we enter another corrupt market to buy energy: oil. With the renewable energy industry, we can cut that corner and have the investment, the jobs et cetera and the impact on the grain industry, the sugar industry or whatever that can be maintained domestically. So I am highly critical of the government’s inactivity on that particular issue.

On infrastructure: although, as I said, there is Roads to Recovery and there is some AusLink money for road and rail, it is mainly being generated out of fuel revenues et cetera. But I think there are some good things, and I congratulate the member for Gwydir, who is here today, on the Murrurundi Tunnel feasibility study, which is very important for coal development and the development of the north-west of New England. There is also a feasibility study going into the Melbourne-Brisbane freight route. Obviously there are a number of routes. I think there are 83 variations to a theme that are being examined.

But the New England route is a corridor that is already there. It does have some problems with gradients. It is shorter than the western route and some of the variations of that particular theme. Very importantly—and I think this is where the Murrurundi Tunnel becomes a very real issue in the determination of the Melbourne-Brisbane route—by far the greatest amount of freight between major centres is going from Sydney to Brisbane and Brisbane to Sydney, not Melbourne to Brisbane and Brisbane to Melbourne. That says to me that, in any long-term infrastructure approach, you cannot just look at two cities in isolation; you have to look at the impact that Newcastle particularly and Sydney freight, northern freight, will have into the future. So the tunnel through the Ardglen range or—for those who do not know it—a more appropriate means of getting over that mountain range where 82 wagons can be towed, whereas at the moment only half of that can be delivered over the mountain range, is going to have an enormous impact on infrastructure. So I would encourage the government to move quickly on that.

There are other issues. I mentioned mental health earlier. Then there are the taxation rulings on the water entitlement for the holders in the Namoi and other valleys across New South Wales. There needs to be some tidying up to put some consistency into the inconsistency in tax rulings on adjustment and compensation arrangements where there is a loss of entitlement—whether it be timber, water, dairy, sugar, fishing licences et cetera. (Time expired)

See this speech in context