Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3), Appropriation Bill (No. 4) and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill. I am not quite sure that all of the previous debate focused on that legislation. I do, however, note one contribution of the member for Hughes that I wholeheartedly agree with. He may be disappointed to hear this. While his broader contribution is on themes that I find uncomfortable personally and in terms of their relationship to the reality that I see, particularly in relation to climate change, I share his confidence in the creativity of our people, men and women, being our greatest asset. However, it is disappointing to me that that concern for productivity is not something which is demonstrated in the priorities of the government as demonstrated in the legislation before the House. I should also say that I rise in support of the amendment moved by the member for Fraser, the shadow Assistant Treasurer, which I believe sets these bills in their proper context.

These three bills reflect additional appropriations for 2013-14, containing details of extra expenditure as a result of government decisions that were in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. In total, the government is seeking parliamentary approval for approximately $14.8 billion. Notably, the bills propose additional appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the annual services of the government, and for the parliamentary departments. But hidden within these bills are some particularly concerning cuts to services and organisations which will impact in Scullin, as they will elsewhere in Australia. These cuts, and more particularly their consequences, will be the principal focus of my contribution to this debate.

I note that there will be an $11.5 million cut to the vital Building Multicultural Communities Program. This is, in short, a demonstration of how we have a government that knows the cost of everything but the value of nothing. These cuts will damage and indeed diminish communities across Australia. What this means directly for the communities of Scullin is a cut to the Thomastown Little Athletics Club but also a very significant cut to the City of Whittlesea in respect of a $150,000 provision to upgrade the kitchen at Epping Memorial Hall. Epping Memorial Hall is the council's most popular venue and hosts a wide array of different groups, including senior citizens, schools and other community groups. I regularly attend meetings and events there and know it to be a focus for multicultural activities in Melbourne's north. It is a real community hub. I know that groups like the Chaldean Ankawa Social Club, the Community of Cypriots in the Northern Suburbs Senior Citizens Club, the Epping Pensioners Association, the Italian Pensioners Association at Mill Park, the Italian Speaking Senior Citizens Club, the Macedonian Orthodox Community Elderly Citizens Group, the Vedanta Society of Australia and the Whittlesea U3A are reliant on this wonderful facility to bring together their communities and to share community activities. The upgrade to the kitchens would have allowed the hall to host multiple events, something having only one kitchen precludes. The situation as it currently stands means that, as we head into winter, the council is forced to continue renting a portable kitchen outside the hall for $12,000 a month, as well as to find a further $150,000 from somewhere else within the council's already stretched budget.

The letter that informed the community organisations of this news stated that 'the Government has decided to reduce the scope of the Building Multicultural Communities Program'. By this, the government meant it was cutting the program completely—reducing the scope to zero, in other words. This was spending that was approved and accounted for in the last budget. Before the election, the coalition made no mention of these cuts. So much for a 'no surprises, no excuses' government; these cuts were a surprise for these organisations and there can be no excuse for them. And $150,000 is only two paid parental leave payments to millionaires. Make no mistake: these cuts will hurt many organisations and diminish community. Affected groups have already raised their concerns with me and no doubt will continue to do so. But perhaps that is the point. As we have seen before over the last six months, this government does not believe in society and goes out of its way to undermine those that do.

This important program was designed to assist diverse groups establish a sense of community in Australia, to give them more of a stake in our society. So it was unsurprising, although disappointing, to find that Senator Bernardi has been critical of this program, particularly as Senator Bernardi has previously described multiculturalism as a 'significant problem' that 'undermines the cultural values and cohesiveness that brings a nation together'. Needless to say, I disagree with this assertion. But if Senator Bernardi is concerned to bring our nation together, the irony of this contribution is that cuts like these hurt communities and make it harder for these groups to reach out and create a sense of inclusiveness at the grassroots level and build a stronger community and indeed a stronger nation.

I note also that the cuts provide for a $4.6 million cut to the legal policy reform and advocacy funding. This sum, $4.6 million, specifically relates to the 2013-14 year, but the overall cut is $43.1 million to legal policy reform and advocacy funding. The cuts include a $6.5 million cut to legal aid commissions, $19.6 million from the Community Legal Services Program, $13.3 million from the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services and three and two-thirds million dollars from Family Violence Prevention Legal Services, the last being an issue of grave concern to many aspects of the community I represent.

Earlier this week in estimates, Senator Brandis tried to deny that these cuts would have any impact on front-line services, but this is hard to believe. A more plausible motivator is that the Attorney-General has complained about these services conducting policy or advocacy work. This accords with the government's obsession with secrecy and its regrettably thin skin when it comes to the expression of views that may be contrary to its own.

When problems confronting legal services are systemic, what is wrong with them doing policy and advocacy work to bring this government—indeed, any government—to account and its work to the public's attention? The government may say that it is not the job of these services, but surely these services are the organisations best placed to offer insight in these areas, particularly when we think about service delivery in complicated and pressing social issues like family violence support.

Before the election, in the Scullin electorate, we were fortunate enough to have the former Attorney-General, the member for Isaacs, announcing funding increases for the Whittlesea Community Legal Service. I take this opportunity to ask that the government confirm that this centre will not be subjected to the cuts announced in MYEFO.

On this point about the legal cuts, I note that the Law Council of Australia has already raised its concerns, stating:

… the Law Council is concerned some of the programs may have been inappropriately identified as 'law reform and advocacy' programs and that the proposed cuts will have a significant impact on the capacity of already chronically under-funded legal assistance bodies to provide legal services to disadvantaged Australians …

It said:

… it is clear that those organisations require urgent additional funding in order to meet increasing demand for legal assistance services.

And it said:

These cuts will ultimately create a net burden for the economy and work counter to the Government's objectives.

This is a warning that should have been heeded and should be heeded now.

In respect of higher education, these bills would cut just over $2 million from the Commonwealth Grant Scheme and the Higher Education Loan Program. Whilst I am relieved that these programs still survive in some form from the coalition, these reductions in funding will likely reduce opportunities for those seeking a tertiary education. This is of particular concern to my electorate, which hosts the Bundoora campus of RMIT University and which is adjacent to the neighbouring La Trobe University campus, which is also located in Bundoora but in the electorate of Batman.

The Commonwealth Grant Scheme provides funding to eligible higher education providers for students enrolling in bachelor degrees and other higher education courses of study designated by the minister. For designated courses of study, the Australian government provides funding to public universities for an agreed number of Commonwealth supported places in a given year. La Trobe University had 1,256 Commonwealth supported places for the 2013 grant year, and RMIT University had 2,398 such places. This government now needs to come clean about how its cuts will affect RMIT and La Trobe universities, as well as other universities, their students—including prospective students—and university staff.

Yesterday, we heard how little the Minister for Health had to say regarding preventative health, so perhaps it is unsurprising that this government is also cutting $13.2 million from the health budget, including $1 million from the Chronic Disease Prevention and Service Improvement Fund, $6 million from the public health program, $5.2 million from the National Rural and Remote Health Infrastructure Program and $1 million from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health program. I am deeply concerned about the impact of these cuts to these types of programs in Scullin and across the country.

I note, on the last specific matter I wish to touch upon, that these bills include some cuts to education programs. I take this opportunity to remind the House that before the election there was, famously, a unity ticket between the coalition and Labor on education funding, in relation to schools funding in particular. But this is of course, unfortunately, a government that says one thing and does another. Yesterday in Senate estimates, it was confirmed that the coalition will do nothing to ensure that states maintain and grow their funding, including states like Victoria that have signed up to the Labor reforms. What a difference this will make to schools in Scullin and to the educational prospects and indeed the life prospects of so many students!

In relation to the $4.8 million cuts from education in 2013-14, these bills cut $1 million from the Child Care Services Support Program, which provides financial assistance to childcare service providers to improve access to child care for children, families and communities. It complements the help given to eligible families through the childcare benefit and the rebate. There are also cuts, I note, of $1.4 million to general childcare outcomes and $338,000 to the schools support program, once again showing unfortunate priorities.

I now turn from examining some particular impacts of this legislation to some wider considerations that have been effectively touched upon already by previous speakers on this side of the House, and also briefly to the amendment moved by the member for Fraser. Let us consider the context within which we are debating these bills. The papers this week are full of speculation about the forthcoming budget. The budget will be informed by the report of the Commission of Audit, a 900-page document that we in this place, legislators, need to see. We need to debate it. But, while it appears that the Australian Financial Review gets a sneak peak at the report or parts of it, in this place we continue to remain in the dark.

The people of Australia were promised no surprises and no excuses, as well as no cuts to education and health, amongst many other things, of course. These bills once again nail the lie about no cuts. Important programs are axed in both education and health. But, sadly, this is not even the half of it. The Treasurer now says, 'All options are on the table,' but that is his table, of course. The rest of us—except, it seems, some at the Australian Financial Revieware still waiting on the surprises as we continue to be softened up with excuses, including the substantial provisions in these bills.

These bills show us that the government could make time to make a reportedly unsolicited donation to the Reserve Bank in the form of an $8.8 billion appropriation to the bank—an appropriation that I note the Treasurer is yet to provide justification for—but not to make necessary investments in the people of Australia and their productive capacities. And, if debt is the problem, more debt is not the answer. That is something we were told about before the election, but it seems that, like many other lessons of opposition, it has not made the transition into government.

It is time now for this government to live up to the promises it made to the people of Australia before the election, to stop being an opposition in exile and to take responsibility for how it governs. The Australian people deserve better.

In drawing attention to some of the consequences of these bills for the communities that I represent in this place, I am mindful of the broader considerations that are at stake. These cuts, these broken promises, are the tip of a huge iceberg. It is telling and, indeed, frightening that this government continues to hide behind excuses and to rely on surprises in place of an open and informed debate about its plans. Perhaps this betrays a lack of confidence.

I am deeply concerned that this government is paving the way to austerity by deliberately blowing out the budget and by the hidden commission of cuts. There is a different approach that is open to them, even now. Let us have a transparent debate about our future so that we can properly consider how to build the more productive economy that members on both sides are talking about. With that more productive economy I would hope also for a more equal and more sustainable society. Let us now see the end of this opposition in exile. Let us see some responsibility taken by the adults opposite. Let us see responsibility taken for governing now.

See this speech in context