Margaret May (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

For a large number of Australians, politics is something they do not really tune into until election time. Only when they are about to cast their vote do they start listening to what the major parties have to say. But I want to ask people today to start tuning in sooner, because it is important to understand how political decisions affect the quality of everyone’s daily life and indeed their future.

I will use the global financial crisis as an example. How many people are aware that Australia had the third largest spending package, as a percentage of GDP, of the developed countries during the crisis? Korea came in first, with a spending package of 6.1 per cent of GDP; the USA came in second, with a spend of 5.5 per cent of GDP and Australia’s spend was 5.4 per cent of GDP.

Why was such a big splurge necessary in Australia when we were far better placed than any other country in the world to weather the storm? Australia’s strict and well-regulated banking system was in a very sound position when the global meltdown occurred. Unlike other countries, Australia was not in deficit. In fact, our surplus was over $20 billion. To get to this position, it took the coalition and the Australian people many years of considerable discipline and unpopular decisions to repay Labor’s 1996 legacy of $96 billion of debt. But it did not take long for the Rudd Labor government to saddle Australia with bucketloads of debt, and the opportunity cost of this big spend is enormous.

The Rudd government is quick to point out those organisations which supported its stimulus package, none of which predicted the financial meltdown. But Labor has not mentioned the only international body to correctly predict the financial crisis. The Bank for International Settlements was the only international organisation that foreshadowed the financial meltdown. This same organisation has warned that the stimulus packages will only lead to a temporary pick-up in growth followed by protracted stagnation and will pose the risk of driving up interest rates and inflation expectations. Already, the Bank for International Settlements’ predictions are being realised, with inflationary pressures taking hold and interest rates rising. At the risk of sounding dramatic—and I do not want to scare the horses or the population—the poor quality spend of the stimulus package, coupled with the poor quality decisions made by this government, is compromising the options available to us, particularly in light of the demographic challenges ahead.

Up until recently, the PM and his ministers had said very little on the ageing of Australia’s population—the single biggest social issue facing this country. An official from the World Bank said that the impact of the financial crisis paled into insignificance compared to the demographic problems ahead. In the lead-up to Australia Day, and on Australia Day, the Prime Minister finally started talking about the then upcoming third Intergenerational report and the ageing of our population. This is in stark contrast to the coalition, which has always placed senior Australians at the forefront of its priorities and which, many years ago, recognised the extent of the challenge that the ageing of the population would present in the future. This acknowledgement by the former Howard government saw the release of the first Intergenerational report in 2002-03, followed by the release of the second Intergenerational report a few years later in 2007. The third Intergenerational report has now been released.

I would not have thought that placing Australia in the red and attempting to impose a great big tax through the proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme would help meet the challenges that lie ahead. In the not too distant future there will be far fewer people working than now; therefore, revenue will fall. By 2050 the number is projected to decline to 2.7 people of working age to support every person aged 65 and over. Rather than build a stronger Australia, the Rudd government has cut programs and preventative initiatives that support senior Australians. In the 2009 May budget, the Rudd government cut the indexation on a payment paid to aged-care providers. Forty per cent of providers were operating at a loss before the cut, but the situation has deteriorated even further. But rather than helping the struggling industry, the Rudd government cut the indexation of the conditional adjustment payment. It needs to be remembered that the Commonwealth has direct responsibility for aged care, and the Rudd government’s cuts show a complete disregard for senior Australians.

There is no clearer barometer of the health of the aged care industry than the yearly aged care allocation round, when the government releases licences for low- and high-care beds. In the past these allocations were keenly anticipated by providers. Competition was stiff and healthy, and a large number of providers were disappointed because they missed out on the licences.

Under the Rudd government it is a very different story. Licences go begging. In the last allocation round there was a shortfall of 1,915 in the residential places handed out. Tasmania, Western Australia, the ACT and the Northern Territory were all undersubscribed. To make matters worse, providers have taken the unprecedented position of handing back hundreds of licences to the department in the past two years. This is a stark reflection of the capital crisis in aged care. Now, senior Australians have to wait longer and longer before a bed becomes available, which is placing increasing pressure on the hospital system. It must be remembered that the cost of a hospital bed is approximately eight times that of an aged care bed.

Baby boomers turn 65 this year, so, at a time when there is an increasing demand for services, providers are walking away from the industry. As mentioned, the Rudd government’s response to the biggest social issue facing Australians is to pull the carpet from under aged care providers and senior Australians. It is no wonder that many senior Australians say that they feel anxious and insecure under the Rudd government. I do not blame them; I am starting to feel the same myself. This insecurity and anxiety is fed by the Rudd government’s habit of doing the opposite of what it says. A good example is to talk about prevention. The former Howard government introduced a wonderful program that kept senior Australians safe in their own homes. The program was called the Assistive Technology in Community Care program. This program funded home safety devices such as mattress sensor pads to activate lights at night, medication dispensers and communications technology for reducing isolation. These devices enabled senior Australians to maintain their independence and remain safely in their homes for longer than they would otherwise have been able to. The Rudd government cut this program in last year’s May budget—another short-sighted and costly cut, because, as we all know, injuries sustained from falls can be debilitating. Senior Australians can lose their confidence and some may even not be able to recover from the experience of a bad fall. The financial cost of falls from injuries, such as broken hips, is great. The physical and emotional cost is even greater, and yet the Rudd government has cut a program that helped senior Australians remain safe and secure in their own homes.

My electorate of McPherson has a large population of senior Australians, and the way the Rudd government is treating them has them all worried. Furthermore, the way the Rudd government manages its programs also has them worried. A good example is their Green Loans Program. Green Loans assessors are targeting senior Australians in particular, and I have had scores of calls from constituents who rang my office to check if the Green Loans scheme is actually legitimate. Many of the residents are in their 80s. They are being bullied into making an appointment to meet with an assessor and when they try to cancel they are not able to make contact with the assessor again, and this is after being told on the phone that they must have this assessment done—that it is mandatory. Then they worry about the assessor turning up at a particular time, when they do not want to see them, particularly if they live on their own. Government programs are not meant to scare people, but the way the Green Loans initiative is being run has many of my senior Australians agitated and certainly concerned.

Another worry and concern that I have is the neglect of the southern Gold Coast by all levels of government. Recently, South-East Queensland had an extension to its rail system with the completion of the track from Robina to Varsity Lakes late last year. The extension is certainly most welcome, but we now have a train that stops at Varsity Lakes, but the rest of the southern Gold Coast, including Coolangatta, where the international airport is located, misses out, and there are no plans for the immediate future. Plans to extend the track to the New South Wales border are years away. Gold Coast city is planning a rapid transit system but, again, the southern Gold Coast and international travellers have been ignored. There is no rapid transit system for the southern Gold Coast.

The Tugun bypass has now been open for over two years. It is a wonderful road, saving motorists travel time plus the frustration of waiting in lengthy traffic jams. It has taken the heavy transport out of suburban Tugun and given the local residents some peace and quiet after years and years of neglect. John Anderson and the former coalition government funded the Tugun bypass, along with the Queensland Beattie government. At the last election the coalition committed another $455 million to upgrade the Pacific Motorway from Tugun to the Gateway Motorway, and the Rudd government matched this commitment. The priority for the funding was the widening of the Tugun to Nerang section of the highway up to eight lanes. Yet to date no work has commenced on widening the M1 on the southern Gold Coast. Now we understand there are no funds left to complete this work. The state government has miscalculated and overspent. What does this mean for the M1 and what does it mean for the southern Gold Coast residents? They go on the backburner again.

The Tugun bypass cuts across both New South Wales and Queensland, and at the time of negotiation and construction was the most complex piece of infrastructure in Australia. The New South Wales government, however, did not contribute one cent to its construction. But we are now in a situation where it expects the people of Tugun to put up with a large volume of traffic yet again that will be generated from the establishment of the Cobaki Lakes Estate. Traffic from this New South Wales development—a New South Wales development, not a Queensland development—will flow into Queensland, and residents of Boyd Street are expected to sit back quietly and accept this. Why should they? We moved the traffic out of Tugun. It will now be brought back in. The Tweed Shire will receive millions of dollars in developer contributions from the Cobaki Lakes Estate, which has approximately 5,300 residences, retail and commercial developments and two schools planned. Yet it is the residents living in Boyd Street, Queensland, in the electorate of McPherson, who are expected to put up with the huge volume of noise coming from an estate located in New South Wales. There is no widening of the M1 and no entrance for those residents back into New South Wales. They are all going to be brought into Queensland.

Before closing, I just want to ask the Australian people to start listening to what the Rudd government says it will do and then watching what it does not do. It is important that they start engaging. I would like to encourage the Australian people to become more engaged in our political process, because decisions being made will impact on all of them in the future. This is an important election year, and the promises that are made in the lead-up to the election are something we all should monitor in order to understand how they are going to affect our lives.

The Rudd government is talking about a massive increase in Australia’s population. I urge people to question how that will be managed. What will it mean for our food and water supplies? What will it mean for our environment generally? The Rudd government’s industrial relations laws will come at a cost to employment and prosperity. Strikes are on the increase already, and exorbitant wage claims will set inflation spiralling. It has been reported this week that a shipping company has caved in to union threats of further strike action and agreed to wage and allowance increases of up to $50,000 over three years. This type of wage hike is unsustainable by any stretch of the imagination. Question why Labor’s Fair Work laws take us back 40 years, a real concern, particularly with China and India emerging as tiger economies and Australia’s debt being something we cannot ignore.

Anyone who has tried to pay off a credit card knows just how hard it is to reduce the balance. It takes a great deal of discipline and doing without to get that credit card paid off. I believe Australians have every right to question why this government has wasted money. These concerns need to be answered by the Rudd government, which brings me to my next point.

12:14:47 How many Australians have noticed that the Prime Minister of this country will not answer questions directly? He makes sweeping statements but when he is quizzed further there is nothing behind the statements. People may have noticed that his ministers do the same: they avoid answering questions and say the same thing. That is, they repeat their rehearsed lines or, in political speak, they just stay on the message. I hope that more people will start watching question time. I know people in my own electorate often comment on the behaviour of politicians at question time. It is of concern, and each of us should take responsibility for our behaviour in question time. It is the opportunity during a parliamentary sitting week to bring the government to account, ask the questions that our constituents want answered and, hopefully, get some straightforward answers back from the government.

People can download the parliamentary schedule. I would encourage them to turn on question time, watch what is going on in the federal parliament and begin to understand what the leaders of this country are doing for them at an electorate level. I believe that each of us comes here representing our electorates in the best possible way we can, whether we are members of the government or members of the opposition. As an opposition member, I am here to question and certainly bring the concerns of my constituents to the parliament. Government members certainly believe that they are doing the right thing by the people of this country.

Each of us has a role to play, and I think each of us should be mindful of our behaviour and the way we undertake our responsibilities in this parliament. It is a privilege to be here, for each and every one of us. On both sides of the parliament, I have made some wonderful friends in the years I have been here. I will be retiring at the next election, but I think I will always be watching question time, even when I am retired—I will not be able to turn the box off. It will be a lifetime interest of mine. I do share with all of my colleagues the privilege of being here representing our electorates, and I know that those on both sides of the parliament all feel exactly the same way.

See this speech in context