Joanna Gash (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, member for Chifley. You and I would have very similar socioeconomic electorates. The government come to the House seeking permission to create a gross debt of $315 billion for Australia as have finally been admitted by the Prime Minister. As if blowing a $21 billion surplus and raiding the Future Fund’s $60 billion was not enough, they want to raid superannuation funds as well. At the moment we seem to be living in a twilight zone of mixed messages from the government that regularly underestimate their predictions, which makes you wonder whether they have a handle on what is going on. More and more commentators have fatalistically accepted our record deficit and are now focussing on how we are to undo the damage that has been done.

If the government has the reputation for getting its forecasts wrong, where does its prediction of 10 per cent unemployment sit? And if you have got a job today, will you have one tomorrow? There is no disputing the fact that the government has a responsibility to intervene in the economic threat facing the country. There is no disputing that stimulatory spending by the government was needed. The question remains whether what was spent was by definition stimulatory or simply opportunistic wish fulfilment.

I have no problem with spending on schools, with spending on transport links that encourage growth and job creation, and with spending on mechanisms to improve productivity and efficiencies. There is no doubt that confidence is a critical component to meeting the challenges ahead. We entered this period with a $21 billion surplus; a legacy that this government lacks the grace to concede helped it to absorb the impact of the downturn. Some have made parallels of the Rudd government with the Whitlam government, and I can see what they are saying. The forecast of a recovery to surplus in about 2022 is wishful thinking, as is the evidence that supports that expectation. The forecast has been dismissed by industry, by the market and by almost everyone else except Treasury. It is a line being pedalled by the government but no-one believes it any more. This is what the Australian newspaper said last week under the headline ‘RBA director Warwick McKibbin has stimulus doubts’:

RESERVE Bank director Warwick McKibbin has warned that global government spending to stimulate the economy is being dominated by political agendas that will saddle future generations with debt and slow economic growth.

There is far too much politics in this budget, and that is becoming so apparent through the machinations of this government. The sad fact is that our foreign debt will consume a sizeable proportion of our annual income for years to come. Debt repayments will not go to vital social programs—the same thing that happened under the previous Labor government—that is, programs that we will need to fund to enable us to confront the challenges of an ageing and shrinking workforce in the years ahead. Yet in today’s news alone the New South Wales Labor government is signalling the end of free public health in about five years time. We have taken a huge punt on the fact that China’s future economic growth will be our saviour.

Gilmore has a chronic unemployment problem, largely because it does not have a credible ongoing infrastructure program to support its employment demand. In the 12 years under a coalition government an extra $2.1 billion was invested in the region—that is, $2.1 billion above and beyond what would have been expected in the normal course of events. There was unprecendented investment in things like the development of Main Road 92, the medical school, campuses of the University of Wollongong in Nowra, Moss Vale and Batemans Bay and HMAS Albatross. All the recent announcements were commitments made under the previous coalition government. Also there was an underwater sea lab, $35½ million for the environment, $64 million for the Princes Highway and $243 million for aged care facilities, just to name a few.

Gilmore is an area that was first shackled by the Carr Labor government and then its successors. Environmental constraints are at the fore because it seems we cannot turn a sod of soil without breaching some sort of environmental statute. We are surrounded by national parks and reserve, which box in our ability to expand geographically. Our builders cannot get enough work because there is not enough land being released to build new houses. The sensitivity of these environmental areas means that no significant activity can impinge either directly or indirectly into what has been classified as an environmentally sensitive area. Many people are attracted to relocate to Gilmore but soon discover that jobs are scarce. So the net effect is an institutionalised level of unemployment well above the national average. What is needed is a policy that strikes a balance between social, economic and environmental demands, a policy that allows our community an equal opportunity with metropolitan areas. So far it has been a policy skewed towards the environment, driven largely by the ideology of prevailing state Labor governments.

If ever there was a case for serious investment in infrastructure for road and rail, Gilmore has to be it. I am hard pressed to find any initiative from this government or its state counterpart that recognises Gilmore’s chronic unemployment problem and the chronic lack of opportunity. I remember about three years ago the local paper, the South Coast Register, ran a forum on poverty on social welfare. I use the term ‘forum’ loosely, because it turned out to be very anti-Howard government and achieved nothing and went nowhere. Despite a change of government, I am disappointed to find the newspaper’s sentiments remain unchanged. However, even the newspaper recognised there was a problem so many years ago, long before the global economic meltdown excuse became fashionable justification for inactivity.

Probably the most significant gesture by this government—if it were serious in its rhetoric about the need for infrastructure spending—would be to provide some serious money to upgrade the Princes Highway. State Labor seems reluctant to do it in any serious, tangible way. Yet while we were in government there was the incessant wail, ‘The feds should be doing more.’ In fact, I learned today that the state Labor government has actually reduced the amount of money that they will spend on the Princes Highway. But we managed to find an extra $65 million when we were in government to upgrade portions of what is sometimes referred to sarcastically as highway 1. Now it seems there will be no more money from the federal government for the next decade or two, as we pay off the debt that they have created. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and what did we get from Labor? Silence. The railway service to Bomaderry from Kiama needs attention too, but there is nothing there either except layoffs and more job losses. In fact, there is nothing exceptional that will stimulate extra jobs to any significant degree so that Gilmore’s eggs do not remain in the ever-decreasing basket.

When you look at the 2006 census figures for Gilmore, the population distribution shows a curious anomaly. The age group 15 to 24 years is underrepresented compared to the national average. In Gilmore it is 10.6 per cent, where the national average is 13.6 per cent. That is a disparity of something like 30 per cent. The reason our youth are so underpresented in the census is that they are forced to move out of the area to find work.

We also have amongst the highest prevalence of people on some form of social security support. The number of young people in Gilmore relying on social security is deplorable. Until we can find ways of opening more doors for them, we are consigning them to a welfare mindset. The Work for the Dole scheme, which was created and piloted in Gilmore, was tremendously successful. It was created as a specifically directed initiative to address the youth unemployment problem that existed in Gilmore even then in the late nineties. We actually took the initiative to address the problem. Work for the Dole opened the doors that the jobless needed opened, with an employment uptake rate of about 65 per cent. Despite this very apparent and measurable success over many years and in many localities, the scheme has fallen victim to the political ideology of this government. It has been sidelined.

While on the subject of young people, I would like to comment on the youth allowance issue. Changes to the youth allowance will disadvantage thousands of our young people. The Rudd government has dismissed the coalition’s fears, saying that more young people will be eligible for assistance. The reality is that $1.88 billion is being wiped off the bottom line of the youth allowance. It is my fear that young people from regional areas like the Shoalhaven and Eurobodalla will be the worst affected. Studying while living at home is not always an option and the absence of regular work and efficient transport compounds their problems. While a reduction in the age of independence for youth allowance payments is welcome, it is more of an election promise than a budget decision. Like many other inclusions in this year’s budget, we have here a great promise that will not see the light of day until after the next election. That is why we want a Senate inquiry into these proposed changes to examine the fine print. It is our belief that, if you want to encourage more people from disadvantaged backgrounds to study, you do not make life harder for them or turn them away from this worthy option. I have a letter from a constituent which demonstrates what our young people are confronting. This is what he wrote to me:

Dear Mrs Gash.

In brief, I have had a dream … to study agriculture at university.

I gained entry to Sydney Uni to do Agriculture Science and deferred my course to start in 2010 so that I became eligible for the Independent Rate of Youth Allowance by earning approximately $19,000 in the required time.

To achieve this, I am presently employed with the Australian Agriculture Company in western Queensland as a jackaroo working a minimum of 50 hours a week.

I am enjoying this experience greatly, especially knowing that this will assist me financially to achieve my further studies.

Casual work in the Ulladulla area is minimal but despite this I was employed casually at Bunnings for approximately 16 hours a week which is insufficient to reach the income level necessary for the Youth Allowance.

…            …            …

Also my parents income of $52,000 is insufficient to financially support both me and my sister at university.

When I go to university I will need the Independent Youth Allowance rate to help cover my accommodation costs.

So I propose that if there have to be changes they commence in 2010 so that students like myself who are midstream in the process, achieve what they set out to do.

Hey, Mr Rudd!

Don’t change the rules of the game midstream. You didn’t even consult us and we are voters too.

As unemployment is predicted to rise dramatically, why is this government imposing additional pain on the adults of tomorrow? From 1 July there will be new workplace laws in place and many employers are fearful this will increase their costs. At the end of the year the award standardisation regime comes into place and already I have employers telling me they will put people off or go offshore.

Who are the most vulnerable jobseekers? Our young people, of course, and they are beginning to bear the brunt of misguided, ineffectual policies. Do not keep punishing them. Our young people cannot afford a Labor government that says one thing and then does something totally the opposite. We are not asking for more handouts. What we are asking for is a fair deal. If we have such a high unemployment rate with limited prospects, why aren’t we getting special consideration? Why aren’t our unemployed getting the special consideration they need from this government? A clearer case cannot be put. Where are the extra job creation schemes for Gilmore? A sincere attempt under the previous government was for the establishment of a specialised technical vocational facility in Gilmore—an Australian Technical College or ATC. We wanted our youth to be given the same opportunities to better themselves that were enjoyed by their city cousins in Wollongong. But what happened? Wollongong got the ATC and now they have two and we have none—and our youth are no better off: more restrictions, more red tape, more favourable treatment for union leaders but, I might add, not for their members, many of whom are losing their jobs through no fault of their own and are still young enough to face up to the prospect of having to find work in a shrinking market until they are aged 67.

I suppose I am viewing this parochially but when small-business people come to me and ask what the government is doing what am I expected to say? Recently the Prime Minister ran another jobs summit, this time in Wollongong, but it seems no-one from outside the Labor electorates got an invite. To make matters worse, one of the state Labor members whose seat falls squarely within what is generally accepted as the Illawarra, the member for Kiama, was absent. He could not make his second jobs summit, having missed the first as well. Instead he was out with the defence minister in the Shoalhaven at HMAS Albatross, with helicopters and sailors, getting on TV. We have since written to him to invite him to a jobs forum that we are holding in Gilmore which will be chaired by the Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull. I am happy to report to the House that he has accepted our invitation.

The other irony is that, whilst the Illawarra jobs summit was pretending to be worried about jobs, the coal industry was saying the government would cull 22,000 jobs from the industry through their misguided emissions trading scheme. Is ‘farce’ too strong a word to describe this government’s convoluted efforts? It is abundantly clear to me and many in the community that the government are not serious about addressing the growing unemployment crisis, to which they have contributed significantly through their own misguided policies and which they have conceded will contribute to unemployment, rather than containing its growth. These are policies like the Fair Work legislation, which shows naked favouritism of the union movement; policies like award standardisation, which will drive up the cost of employing young people, as they are the most likely to be casually employed; and policies which featherbed electorates that do not have problems to the same degree as Gilmore. I am dismayed by this budget and, even though I speak out against it, it will be carried on the numbers. I have no argument with the necessity to maintain effective infrastructure, but what the government propose will not be effective. They want us to take the good with the bad, and that is just blackmail.

I would remind all in my electorate that Australian taxpayers will be paying for this for years to come. I have had enough experience with the city-centric behaviour of the New South Wales government over the last 15 years to know that Labor will not look after rural and regional Australia in the way it deserves to be looked after. There is a lot of lip service but no real dollars, and there will be even fewer dollars now.

This is what I want for Gilmore: I want the government to immediately sink enough money into the Princes Highway to fast-track an upgrade so that businesses will be attracted to set up their enterprises. I want the government to recall what the member for Kiama said when he was the junior road transport minister in the Iemma Labor government. He said that he wanted the feds to pitch in. I had hoped he would have stood by his sentiments, but he has not. The importance of the Princes Highway to Gilmore cannot be underestimated. It is our only effective coastal road link from Wollongong to the Victorian border. The economies of the many towns and villages along our coastal strip rely on the highway as the social and commercial lifeline. The predominant industry for our coastal region, tourism, depends on being able to get customers to our electorate to support local commerce. I want the government to sink enough money into the area to stop our young people from leaving in droves to find opportunities that are not available here. I want the government to reverse the policies that will handicap small businesses and drive up unemployment in these parlous times. It is not a big ask, but it is a fair ask.

I would like to conclude by repeating the words of my colleague the shadow Treasurer in his address to the Business Council. Speaking about Mr Rudd, he said:

Even if he could return the Budget to surpluses of $20 billion per year it will take more than a decade of continuous surpluses beyond that level to eliminate the debt.

Mr Rudd will be long gone from office before then and we in the Coalition will again be called upon to fix the nation’s public finances after this black period of Labor’s irrepressible, irresponsible economic mismanagement.

See this speech in context