Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

This morning I rise to add my voice to those of so many around Australia including among my constituency who are concerned about the levels of debt and deficit this country is entering into under this government. The Treasurer has now said that peak net debt will reach some $203 billion in 2013-14. What a sorry situation we find ourselves in that we will have turned this country from one of zero net debt—where, indeed, we were running budget surpluses—to a situation where by 2013-14 net debt will peak at around $203 billion. I have found that people in my community understand this is a big concern and a problem for our future.

As I move around Mitchell, people are saying to me that they are very concerned about how we are going to be able to pay all of this debt back. They are concerned about the amount of interest that we are going to be paying on the debt that this government is racking up. But they are also concerned to know whether this money is being spent in a way that will provide us with a solid basis for economic recovery or a future that will see more people employed and business able to produce more. In the north-west of Sydney—and in Sydney more broadly—this budget, and the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2009-2010 and cognate bills, represents a completely lost opportunity. The 2009 budget, which is often much vaunted for its infrastructure spending, failed to invest in any infrastructure spending within the Sydney basin. We know that only $91 million was allocated to Sydney, for a study for a metropolitan rail line which, of course, may never be built. Reports indicate that the lack of investment in Sydney was perhaps because of the ongoing incompetence and mismanagement of the New South Wales state government in applying for money for infrastructure for Sydney. I say on behalf of my constituency, and on behalf of the people of north-west, south-west and outer Western Sydney, that this is a massive betrayal of residents within Sydney, who are paying land taxes, property taxes and infrastructure levies on developments, on land and on all of their property and not receiving adequate infrastructure in return. So, certainly for Sydney and the Sydney basin, this budget did not deliver. It is delivering no infrastructure for the wider Sydney basin area.

When you consider that within the two stimulus packages around $22 billion of Australian taxpayers’ money was handed out in cash to people around Australia, you realise that that $22 billion could have been spent on better infrastructure. It could have been spent such that we could now say we have something to show for all of that expenditure. This is one of the biggest concerns that people have when they speak to me about these cash handouts. Why did we not seek to spend all this money—enormous and unprecedented sums of money—on things that would enable us to progress, such as major infrastructure? That infrastructure could be a dam or a rail line or a broadband network, quite topically. They are things which will sustain us in the long term and allow for a recovery. Of course, we know that this government preferred to hand out cash in a vain attempt to ameliorate the effects of this global financial crisis.

When examining some of the expenditure in this budget, I have a number of concerns. Recently there was the Mitchell jobs forum. There were about 130 businesses there and the shadow minister for small business attended. It was hosted by me and the Sydney Hills Business Chamber. At the forum there was a great deal of concern about how the government is assisting small business and the self-employed in our country. Recent statistics show that the rate of self-employed people and entrepreneurs in Australia is at its lowest level in 30 years—that is, the number of people who have found the capacity to start and run their own businesses and entrepreneurs is at its lowest level in 30 years. I think that is a cause for grave concern.

Government policy should be directed, particularly in a time of downturn, more at providing an environment where people are not just seeking the security of a wage or a salary but are seeking to innovate, create, employ and start their own businesses. That is why the coalition has come forward with a six-point action plan for small business. This is enormously important. This policy will provide for recovery because it will stimulate those parts of the economy that employ people. It will stimulate the economy where it matters the most. Our capacity to innovate, create and self-employ is enormously important to the Australian economy and to the Mitchell economy. Indeed, small businesses and self-employed people will form the basis of a sustainable recovery.

We have proposed a two-year window for businesses to offset the tax value of any operating losses that they suffer in 2009-10 against up to $100,000 of taxes paid over the last three years. These will be refunded. This was well received. We have proposed that the Commonwealth partially cover the superannuation guarantee contribution for two years—with three per cent in the first year and 1.5 per cent in the second year—for firms with 20 or fewer staff. This would allow employers to keep people on the payroll. There are many small businesses that are examining how to cut costs to sustain themselves through difficult economic times, and, of course, labour costs are one of the biggest costs for small businesses. If we can devise measures and put in place policies that will assist small businesses on the margins to keep people in the workforce, that will benefit our economy. That is another positive initiative that the coalition has proposed.

We have also proposed to cut red tape and the time spent filling in forms. We will reduce our overall regulatory burden to match and surpass OECD best practice. Who in this place could argue against cutting red tape for small business? It is certainly a major concern for them.

We have proposed some other great initiatives, including a one-stop regulatory portal. Small businesses in particular find it extremely hard to tender for government contracts, which puts them at a competitive disadvantage. The costs of applying for a government contract can be quite substantial. Small businesses can find that they are unable to even file competitive tenders for government contracts. That is something we ought to think about very carefully. It will be another part of how we initiate a recovery.

At the Mitchell jobs forum the coalition’s plan for recovery was well received. Small businesses felt it was important for the federal government to focus on this at this time. When you consider that unemployment is expected by the Treasury’s own forecast to dramatically rise in the future and that all of this debt we are getting into will not help sustain jobs in the economy, then we do need to look at ways to encourage small businesses to continue to employ and at ways to provide the self-employed with an environment where they can start their own business, innovate, create and make something of themselves.

I also want to turn quickly to another area of the budget. Of course, budgets have many hidden and complex measures that take some time to come to light. On behalf of cancer patients in this country, I want to highlight a change that the government is making in the budget in relation to surplus chemotherapy medication. The government is proposing that surplus chemotherapy medication be reused, not disposed of. This will save the government something like $30 million a year.

However, when I speak to cancer sufferers and medical specialists like specialist pharmacist Bruce Heal, they tell me this is a mistaken assumption and that surplus chemotherapy medication cannot be reused and would need to be disposed of as these drugs are very toxic and volatile. This is something they have been talking to the government about for about 11 months. At the moment they do have wastage and discard it, but under the new system that the government is suggesting, they cannot reuse it. Mr Heal says that for a breast cancer patient, for example, it could mean an extra $500 to $600 for these chemotherapy drugs. This is a program that would start on 1 September. While this may save money, let me record in this place that I am bitterly opposed to this measure. The idea that somehow we will recoup money from people suffering very serious cancers in order to attempt to reuse drugs that the senior specialist pharmacists I speak to say cannot be done is something that we ought to abandon. It is one of those hidden things within a budget that all of us may not have been aware of. While cost savings in general are something that we may all look for, it is a very important matter to many people across this nation that I would want to record that we may have to recover.

Unfortunately time is short this morning. I know that we have been asked to limit our speeches, so I will simply say this: the Rudd government in its first 18 or 20 months in office has sought to set up the narrative that it has a Robin Hood approach to budgets. This is something I want to reject. This concept that they are taking from the rich and giving to the poor is a false dichotomy in this country. People who work hard and try to make something of themselves ought not to be penalised for doing so. People who seek out private health insurance to look after their own health care ought not to be penalised. People who try to fund their own retirements must not be targeted by government policy as if they have somehow done something wrong. This narrative that the government is attempting to build will only lead to a greater state of welfare dependency in this country if these policies are pursued, and it is something that we must all think very seriously about. What kind of policy settings in this place do we want to have to encourage a society that is more self-reliant and not welfare dependent? It is very important that we all in this place reject the notion that increasing debt and deficit is the way to ensure that we have a greater self-reliant society.

See this speech in context