Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to address the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and related bills. I am the representative of the people of Grey, by any description a regionally and rurally focused seat. As a new member of parliament I come to this House still believing that whatever side of the House we sit on we are here to service not just our electorates but Australia as a whole. I am therefore more than a little disillusioned to find that we now have a government that is focused on providing for two Australias—those who have Labor members and those who do not. This is a pretty rich kind of attitude to take considering the Labor Party’s criticisms of the Regional Partnerships program, but more of that later. I am disappointed that I have just lost the audience of the member for Eden-Monaro, as he listed off the things that his electorate had been fortunate enough to gain from the Labor government. He should have a good talk with his friend the member for Corangamite.

I listened with great interest to the new member for Corangamite as he spent a good five minutes of his address in thanking the government for the largesse in his seat—$20 million for an Innovative Regions Centre; $30 million for the next stage of a ring route; money for extra road upgrades; $10 million for a water recycling project, which, by the sounds of his speech, is yet to even get approval from the relevant water authority. It sounds pretty good, doesn’t it? But there is more: $30.8 million for a university; $7 million for a GP superclinic; $4 million for a sports precinct, providing two new football ovals, three more soccer pitches, half-a-dozen more netball courts and a shared pavilion. And there is still more: lighting for projects for two sporting facilities; $3 million for a Leisurelink facility; upgrades to a senior citizens centre and a community house; $1 million for a weeds project on the side of a highway; and an upgrade to a surf lifesaving club. That is $105 million. I am sure that all these worthy community organisations will be thrilled with the largesse of the government—but, boy, they must have thought they were dealing with Father Christmas. There is no doubt that, if the Labor Party are into buying a seat, they know no equal. The good general Stewart McArthur did not stand a chance. He was fighting one of Santa’s little helpers!

I draw the House’s attention to an article by Lenore Taylor in today’s Australian titled ‘PM rolls out pork barrel of his own’. The article points out that, under the government’s $176 million Better Regions Program, 33 of 34 grants, worth a total of $145.96 million, went to either marginal Labor held or targeted seats. The Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government has admitted the government is still writing the guidelines for these projects. No wonder it is taking some time. The government has to write the guidelines so that the projects it promised can fit the criteria.

This comes from a Labor government that have loudly condemned the previous government for the Regional Partnerships program. Perhaps someone from the government could tell me how this fits with the Prime Minister’s commitment to clear public administration. Is it a fact that there is no process? Or is it just, as ex-senator Graham Richardson used to say, ‘whatever it takes’? The Labor Party decided that what it took was for them to target every seat they believed they had to win to form government and throw money at it until the citizens gave in. What a sad indictment this is of a government just six months old—a government the Prime Minister pledged would govern for all Australians.

What did this budget offer for the people of Grey? It has cancelled the highly successful and lauded Community Water Grants program. Can you imagine that—in the middle of the biggest water crisis Australia has ever faced? It shows just what standing the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts is held in within cabinet. This scheme has delivered 40 gigalitres of annual savings in water around Australia for a total cost of $327 million. Compare this with the planned desalination plant in my home state of South Australia—a very worthy project—in Adelaide’s south, which produces 50 gigalitres of water annually for $1.3 million.

Projects in local communities make a real difference. The Port Pirie water recycling plant is a project so worthy that, when the previous government committed to supporting it during the election campaign, the now Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government was moved to say on ABC Radio:

Labor has set a target of recycling 30 per cent of waste-water by 2015, and Labor will support practical water recycling projects ...

He said that Labor, if elected, would ‘give the Port Pirie water recycling plant proposal urgent attention’. I say to the minister and to the Minister for Climate Change and Water: we have passed the six-month mark. How about that urgent attention? How about the water recycling scheme in Port Pirie—the water recycling scheme that will provide 1.3 gigalitres of water for just $9 million? Does the government have any idea how desperate the water crisis facing Australia is?

The government has cancelled the Regional Partnerships program, and at this stage, if we take into context the largesse showered upon targeted electorates, we would have to say it has replaced it with a targeted ‘elect Labor program’. However, I must congratulate the government that after intense public pressure it has now discovered that these projects were not rorts, were not badly vetted and were, in fact, good-quality programs which deserved its support.

In my electorate alone I have three extremely worthy projects that received government approval before the election and, in the case of at least one, were just caught up in some late minor alterations to wording on contracts which resulted in the government claiming that these were incomplete; thus, they plan not to honour the commitments. One example of these very worthy schemes was the Gladstone Laura recovery project. This project had a number of initiatives aimed at helping these towns re-establish after a tragic, devastating explosion three years ago resulted in three young men losing their lives and, ultimately, the loss of the community’s major employer. This was a pact to help these small towns get back on their feet. As is the case with all these projects, they are partnerships.

I am glad that the government now concedes the Regional Partnerships program was doing exactly what it was designed to do—that is, encourage communities to help themselves to identify the need, draw together a partnership to support it and then get a helping hand with some return on their tax dollars and some return to the regions of the resources boom to allow it all to happen. If the government now recognises what a great program this was, it should reinstate it.

In light of the wonderful largesse showered upon the electorates that the government sought to buy off, what else is there in the budget for the electorate of Grey? They have axed the Investing in Our Schools Program, and if the government think they have some natural pact with the education community I suggest they come and have a talk with some of the schools in my electorate, because they are incredulous that this program is being scrapped. Capital projects identified by parents and teachers as being of the most benefit to their campuses are being replaced by a one-size-fits-all computer pledge which is less than 50 per cent funded. Projects included support for schools to reroof leaking classrooms, to extend and improve playgrounds, to install interactive whiteboards and to set up specialised state-of-the-art classrooms for music, catering and, in many cases, computer rooms and systems, if that is what the school identified as the area of need. As I said, teachers and parents are scratching their heads with disbelief that the government would axe this program.

The budget has taken another swipe at regional and rural Australia with a lift in the luxury car tax. There are many regions in Australia where four-wheel drives are not a luxury. Dirt roads, often rough and with loose surfaces, are a fact of life. Extra safety, clearance and control in wet weather are all necessary requirements of these vehicles. With the price of a fairly standard Toyota Landcruiser in excess of $80,000, for those who live in regional Australia and need vehicles in this range as standard equipment, it is a kick in the guts. Similarly, for those who need oversize vehicles to accommodate family members with disabilities, this is an unfair impost—an impost on those who do the most to contribute to our community by caring for a loved one in their home.

The axing of the FarmBis program is, once again, just a cheap shot at rural Australia. This program has been the vehicle and stimulus to upskill our rural communities, and this is a time when we are being challenged like never before by climatic conditions in Australia. The most troubling of all these decisions is the intent. There can be no doubt that the government has lined up regional and rural Australia in its sights as an easy target to finance the largesse I spoke of earlier. This assault on regional and rural Australia is a continuation of the well-adopted form shown before the election. Rises in fuel excise and registration for heavy transport, which will feed into higher fuel and grocery prices, will impact most on those who use transport most—that is, regional Australia—and this at a time when the Prime Minister created an expectation out in the electorate that the Labor Party would lower fuel and grocery costs.

I do welcome the tax cuts but we should remember where they came from. The Labor Party had no tax policy at the beginning of the election. Peter Costello delivered the tax cuts. They were the dividend of years of superior management of the economy, of reducing the $96 billion of Labor debt, of savings for the future, of reforming the tax system and the labour market to promote productivity and competitiveness in the world. The Treasurer now claims they were his idea, when in fact he had no idea. But I am pleased that they have been delivered.

We need to look at what has been missed in this budget. The aged care and pensioner section of our community has been overlooked. Since the election I have been making a habit of dropping into aged-care facilities and, as I travel around my electorate, almost all are, at best, breaking even. Most are losing money and are looking to a future where they need to upgrade and extend facilities to meet the rising demand. There was very little in the budget for these centres. Pensioners have been treated with total disregard. A rise in the utilities allowance—once again, a Peter Costello gift—is the sum total of the Labor Party’s commitment to the pensioners of Australia, although they claim the pensioner bonus, which of course has been par for the course for the last number of years.

This government, after being presented with one of the best performing economies in the world, with some of the biggest surpluses in the developed world, no government debt and 35-year low unemployment, has gone out and vindictively targeted regional Australia by focusing on cutting programs that support this very important productive sector of our economy, just because it can. This is not a government for all Australians. It is an opportunist government committed only to its own survival, and this budget exposes clearly just what that agenda is.

See this speech in context