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

I have been listening to some of the contributions on the budget and I think that we are seeing the next election campaign written before our eyes. There does not seem to be a lot of agreement in terms of some of the initiatives that the government has put in place. One thing that I am pleased to see that there is agreement on—and many members would be aware of this—is a program called Youth Insearch, which has been supported by the government, the Leader of the Opposition and many of the opposition members. I would like to take this opportunity to encourage the government in this. There was a meeting held only last week with senior people in the Prime Minister’s office to look at assisting Youth Insearch. With the crisis in relation to the charity dollar, most people are well aware that a lot of the charities that were operating on corporate funds and donations are finding it a bit tough. There is a real need for government to provide during this gap that has been created.

I have been a great fan of Youth Insearch. It is probably the most successful intervention program for young people who are finding it very difficult—young people who have been abused physically and sexually and who have come from all sorts of very sad circumstances. As a magistrate who is a great supporter of Youth Insearch—he is a deputy coroner in New South Wales at the moment—said to me one day, ‘Tony, these are the people that I lock up next time.’ Youth Insearch has an 80 per cent success rate in relation to those young people and in the main has operated without any government assistance. But there is some need now for all of us to make sure that a program like that, which is essentially run on a volunteer basis, is maintained.

There are a number of issues that I would like to raise, but I will go to a positive side of the nation building debate, at least to start with. I congratulate the government for its funding of what is known as the Murrurundi Tunnel—a rail reconstruction through the Liverpool Range. Anybody who knows the Newcastle-Moree railway line would be well aware of the mountain range between Murrurundi and Willow Tree and the problems that have been incurred for nearly a century in getting trains over those mountains. With the development of the coal industry and wheat industry on the northern side of those mountains, there has been an extra freight component because of the additional cost of getting those trains over that mountain range. For many years, there has been a call for a major reconstruction of that section of the railway. In the budget, $290 million will go towards its reconstruction and another $290 million will go to associated work, particularly between Gunnedah and Newcastle. In conjunction with some of the work that is being done at the Newcastle port, those things will be very significant for nation building.

Just to put that in perspective, a few years ago Ernst & Young did a feasibility study for the previous government of an inland rail link between Melbourne and Brisbane. The two-volume report identified all the freight in Victoria, New South Wales and southern Queensland that was going anywhere so as to ascertain the potential market for developing an inland rail concept and its economic feasibility. A good friend of mine, Everald Compton, has been involved in that for many years. He is a great Australian. The number arrived at for all the freight in Victoria, New South Wales and southern Queensland that could come into that link was 220 million tonnes, and 110 million tonnes of it—half of it; 50 per cent—was actually moving between Moree and Newcastle. There are two transport bottlenecks in Newcastle; however, a third coal loader is being built there now. The Hunter Valley has some problems in relation to rail, and $290 million in the budget is going towards that and another $290 million is going towards fixing the problem at the Liverpool Range.

Essentially, the eastern part of Australia, other than north of Gladstone, is in that corridor. To put it into perspective, as much as I would love to see an inland rail link, the current freight component on that link is 4½ million tonnes. By 2029 it will have doubled; it will go out to nine million tonnes. If you are looking at priorities, the government has picked the right one by addressing the Newcastle to Moree railway line. A massive freight component is in that sector at the moment. That is not to argue against an inland rail concept; but, if we are talking about investment in critical infrastructure, which we should be, it is important to invest in those areas where there is a return to the nation. There is no doubt that that corridor is very important to the nation, and with the development of coal mines and agriculture north of Murrurundi Range it will become more and more significant.

The other significant budgetary item in terms of the north-west and New England is the promise of the extension to the F3 freeway, which will join the goat track between the New England Highway and the main expressway between Newcastle and Sydney. I am told that that will cut out up to half an hour in travel for people going from Tamworth to Sydney. That will have a significant road freight impact as well.

That is a $1½ billion project. It is not in my electorate but it is important to my electorate. It has been promised a number of times before. Hopefully this time it will be built, because it is very significant not only in terms of freight and passenger movement but also in terms of safety. The shortcut through Branxton down to the expressway was quite a dangerous road and this will help a lot.

The government has invested a lot in school infrastructure. We are hearing about that daily in the parliament. I will not bore everybody with that now, but it is very significant in the country. I think there is real equity in the distribution of those funds. Country schools are getting the same as city schools; in fact, if anything, there is probably a slight leaning towards country schools in some of the funding arrangements.

There are a couple of things I would take issue with. The alcopops tax has been before the parliament. It is in the budget papers, it will be debated and it will pass or fail. I will be voting against it. I thought it was a stunt at the time and I still think it is a stunt. I see no particular reason to have changed my mind. I am not a supporter of alcopops; I never have been. I highlight what the previous government did about the sniffing of petrol in Central Australia. It was an identified problem, a health problem. We are being told that alcopops present a health problem and that we should do something about it and there is pressure being put on the opposition to do something about it. In addressing the sniffing problem we did not put the tax up. We did not put the tax up on fuel to try to drive the users out. We did not try to use a market mechanism to drive them out and in doing so accumulate more budgetary funds. We banned it. If we are serious about alcopops we should ban them, not use this mechanism. If you remember back to when this stunt was first pulled, there were a number of issues that were quite embarrassing for the government and they needed to create a trail-off to the left. Alcopops have become that particular issue. With no apologies, I will be voting against that measure.

I think the investment allowance—the Prime Minister mentioned it today—has been a great initiative in this budget. In the agricultural sector, particularly in those areas where the drought has eased or broken, there is incredible interest in using the investment allowance to re-equip some of the machinery. Presuming the 50 per cent investment allowance gets through, it will be a significant boost or stimulus—whatever you want to call it—to agriculture and other small business sectors. I am a bit surprised: if this had been done by a conservative government there would have been bells and whistles and flags hanging from the trees suggesting what a great thing it was. I think it is a positive in stimulating business activity and investment and in assisting investment in critical pieces of infrastructure in the business sector.

There is one criticism I do have in relation to the investment allowance. We heard recently that Sir Rod Eddington, who is heading up Infrastructure Australia, has suggested, as I understand it—I do not mean to verbal him—that there was going to be a significant shortfall in major infrastructure that could be funded through the government sector and that we needed partnerships with the private sector to drive some of these major projects. I could not agree more. One of the failings of the investment allowance arrangement is that unless the project can be installed by 30 June 2010 the investment allowance will not apply. What that is immediately cutting out are some very large projects that would obviously take longer than from now until 30 June 2010 to complete.

I have had private discussions with people in the Prime Minister’s office and the Treasury about this particular initiative and the government and others have been talking about employment being saved and investment stimulus and jobs, jobs, jobs. We have an example in the electorate of New England where a private sector operator is prepared to invest $120 million. No government money—$120 million—and it would employ when completed 500 people. If the investment allowance—and that was at the 30 per cent rate when these inquiries went on—was applied to that particular investment, that would have a massive short-term, medium-term and long-term economic value adding to agriculture in a very well-established business in several states in Australia.

I think that it is a great shame that the government has reduced the investment allowance essentially to equipment or relatively small-cost items that would have to be completed, if there was a construction phase, at least by June or July, whatever it is, 2010. Obviously Infrastructure Australia, Sir Rod Eddington and others were suggesting that government cannot do it all and, in fact, the Prime Minister and Treasurer were saying that part of their logic—and I agree with it actually—for stepping in was because there was a drop-off in demand occurring and a drop-off in investment from the private sector so government had to move in and fill the gap. Here is a classic example where there is private sector participation. It does not need government other than the extension of what the government has put in place by way of the investment allowance, and all of these benefits that I talked about could flow.

The youth allowance is in the budget—and it is something that I have spoken about in the other place—and I think that the government has got to reconsider some of the issues in there. There is some good stuff, but the gap year issue that most people would be aware of is one that should be addressed.

If they are looking for ways to pay that, I would ban the baby bonus and I would remove the first home owners scheme. I think that both of them send quite inappropriate messages in a number of directions, particularly the baby bonus. I think that it is probably one of the worst pieces of policy that I have ever seen. I think that we have spent something like $7 billion on the baby bonus so far, and as for the first home owners scheme, God knows what has been spent there. Particularly of late, it is only escalating the price of homes that young people are going to go into debt to purchase, so in that sense it is keeping the price of housing up. One of the issues that we have faced in this country is that we have had an artificial boom in real estate that was unsustainable long term. I think that there has to be a movement backwards in relation to some of those issues.

I was very pleased to see the pensioner issue addressed. The government needs a tick in relation to the $30 increase. As for broadband, it will be a wonderful thing if it occurs—and I hope it does—because it would put Australia right at the forefront. Broadband is the roads and railway lines of this century, and I do not think that we are going to even conceive the extent of its benefits, not only the personal benefits of high-speed broadband but the health and educational ones as well. Some of that real-time broadband could lead to enormous initiatives in terms of the medical profession and the health business in country Australia. I know that there has been some criticism of the government that 90 per cent of the population will get 100 megabytes, or whatever they call them, and some country towns will only get 12. But I take you back to the previous government’s arrangement where the maximum was going to be 12 megabytes and that was going to come from satellite. I am comfortable with that, because that technology will improve fairly rapidly anyway.

I know there has been some criticism of the government about the National Broadband Network, that 90 per cent of people will get 100 megabytes, or whatever they call them, and some country towns will only get 12. But I take you back to the previous government’s arrangement, where the maximum was only going to 12. I am comfortable with that, because the 12 will come from satellite and that technology will improve fairly rapidly anyway. So I think we should encourage the government to roll out that particular piece of infrastructure and encourage the private sector to be involved as well. Who knows—now that the Mexican has gone, it might be within the realm of imagination that Telstra will come back as a major player in a national broadband network!

There is money in there for the Murray-Darling system. I think, now that the board of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority have been appointed, we really do have to have a close look at some of the activities that are occurring within the basin. I have significant issues with BHP and a Chinese company called Shenwa, who are currently exploring for coal on probably some of the most productive and magnificent alluvial floodplains in the world, those being the Liverpool Plains, which are at the base of the Liverpool Range that I talked about earlier. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority have a mandate, under their mandatory content rules, to look at some of these issues, and I would encourage them to do that. The Commonwealth is involved in the mining business whether it likes it or not now, because of the Commonwealth agreement with the four states on the Murray-Darling Basin, and so it should be. But if it is serious about this, it has got to be a player and not just say, as Peter Garrett does from time to time, ‘It’s a state issue.’ It has moved beyond that now, and I think we have to have some serious science done in terms of the connectivity issues between groundwater and surface water, and particularly the impact that coal and other activities may well have not only on the land that is disturbed but also further downstream. There are a few other things I would have spoken about, but I will leave it at that and thank the Committee for their attention.

See this speech in context