Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I wanted to be a member of parliament since I was 12, and some would say that my parents should have sought therapy at that time. Was it for the title? Certainly not. Was it for the pay? No. Was it for the travel? No. It was to try to make a difference—to be part of the democratically elected to team who would always put the interests of our nation above our own interests. It was to bring my values to the community debate; to be part of a robust national discussion about the future of all Australians—our families, our businesses and our communities. It was to confront the tough and challenging issues—not to run from them. It was to ensure that the excellent services that Australians have come to expect are sustainable into the future.

This budget fulfils those aspirations. Yes, it is a challenging budget, but we live in challenging times. I would ask the good people of my electorate to reflect on the road ahead—a road not yet travelled by our children or grandchildren. It is a road that already includes 832,000 people on the DSB, 2.4 million people on either a full or part pension, 695,000 people on Newstart, 112,000 on youth allowance. It is a road that will include a massive increase in the number of our fellow citizens who will be aged over 65. Over the next 35 years, the number of people aged between 65 and 84 will more than double, and the age of those older than 85 will more than quadruple. It is a road that will include 2.8 working-age people for every person over the age of 65. Fifty years ago, shortly after World War II, that ratio was 10—10 working-age people to every person over 65—and today it is five. It is a road that will include the paying of $68 billion in the next 10 years for people relying on a pension, an increase of 70 per cent from what it is today. It is a road that will include people who will live on average a life beyond 80, compared to very few people reaching the age of 60 just 90 years ago. It is a road that will include an ever-increasing number of people visiting their GPs with a Medicare bill increasing significantly every year. Ten years ago it cost $8 billion; today it costs $20 billion; and in 10 years' time it will cost $34 billion. With an ageing and welfare dependent demographic, it begs the question: who will pay for it?

With an ageing and welfare-dependent demographic, it begs the question: who will pay for it?

Despite the best efforts of our opponents to dismiss concerns about debt and deficit, I believe that the people of Australia, in their heart of hearts know that the current trajectory of spending cannot continue. If we are to have a bright and sustainable future for our children and grandchildren it cannot continue. Does any sensible person believe for one minute that it is a wise idea to get another credit card to pay off your mortgage and your other credit cards? No, they do not.

Nothing in life is free. The hardworking taxpayers of this nation are the wealth creators of our nation, and they contribute their taxes. They are the Australians who provide the money to deliver one of the world's most accessible health systems. They are the Australians who provide the money for the world's most generous welfare system. They are the Australians who have been providing the money to pay the first 60 per cent of university student fees—the money that will never be paid back. They are the Australians who work hard to earn their income, often a very good income, and they are growing increasingly tired of those people who depend on their taxes for the payment of welfare, saying that they should carry even more of the debt and deficit burden. We should not forget that, in addition to the new debt repair levy, a person earning $180,000 contributes $55,000 in income tax and pays a further $2,700 as a Medicare levy. This nation would not survive if it were not for ordinary Australians paying their share of income tax.

I have a fundamental question. How can you cut funds from a program that was never budgeted for and never funded? You cannot. It is financially irresponsible to suggest that this budget has cut funding to health, education and foreign aid. This is a deceitful message that Labor continues to propagate. Labor expects this government to live up to its pie-in-the-sky unfunded policies that it knew full well in the dying days of its government the nation could not afford. Labor never budgeted for these programs in the out years. The state and territory governments certainly have not budgeted for these illusionary funds, because they only budget for four years in advance of their current budget. They have not employed people on the basis of those illusionary funds. They have not built infrastructure or introduced programs on the back of these illusionary funds. Everybody should get real about what is actually happening.

Let me make it clear for the people of Braddon. There is no cut to the pension. The pension will continue to increase each six months as it has. The scaremongering needs to end. Older people around this nation, particularly in my electorate, are scared because Labor is putting out messages that are absolutely deceitful. Let us talk about the introduction of the co-payment to visit the GP. There are currently 263 million free services provided through Medicare, with this number growing significantly each year. The system is unsustainable. We all need to share the responsibility to ensure that it remains sustainable. The idea that health care is free is a myth. Many people already pay a gap fee every time they go to the doctor. The previous speaker said bulk-billing is universal. That is simply wrong. The issue of unsustainability in health system was identified by Prime Minister Bob Hawke in the 1990s. That reforming Labor Prime Minister introduced a co-payment $3.50, which would be approximately $7 in today's terms. He was strongly supported then by minister Jenny Macklin and he is strongly supported even today by the current Labor shadow Assistant Treasurer. It was also a Labor government that introduced the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme co-payment. Labor should cut the rubbish, cut the crap, about this government's co-payment being the first ever introduced. It is not true. It was a Labor reform by a courageous, reforming Labor Prime Minister.

The budget papers clearly show that there is no cut to hospital funding in the budget—quite the opposite. Funding to the states for hospital services increases by nine per cent each year for the next three years and six per cent after that. The other important point that I will make is that an element of the funding of the states and territories was activity based, incentive driven. In the case of Tasmania, our state then under the leadership of the Giddings-McKim partnership failed to deliver on increased activity.

Hospital funding in Tasmania next financial year will increase by $45 million from $292 million to $337 million. Over the next three years, that amount will increase to $391 million. I have made this point before in this place but let me make it again. Just because you throw money at something does not mean for one minute that the outcomes are better. Take Tasmania for example. Over the last 10 years there have been record levels of health spending. But what have we got? We have the longest waiting lists in the nation, chronic illnesses at disgraceful levels and a half-built Royal Hobart Hospital, a project out of control and thankfully now in the hands of a new and competent state Liberal government.

It is very deceitful for Labor to suggest that funding for our schools in Braddon has been cut, when it was Labor in fact, under their education minister, Bill Shorten, who ripped $1.2 billion from the forward estimates just months out from the last election. The coalition have put that $1.2 billion back and we have met our commitment to provide certainty for schools over the next four years. We have met our commitment. From this current year through to 2017-18, total Commonwealth funding will increase by 37 per cent or $4.6 billion. Needs based funding will continue. From 2018, funding will increase by CPI and will also take into account the growth in school enrolments.

Taxpayers currently pay the first 60 per cent of all university fees in this country. Unbelievably, last week I spoke to university students in my office who did not know this vital fact. If your degree has a fee of $40,000 then the taxpayers of Australia pay the first $24,000—never, ever to be repaid. The remaining $16,000 has in the main been paid for by HECS—that is, the student only has to start paying that debt back when they earn over $50,000, and even then at a modest rate of just two per cent of their income. So the member for Franklin's hysterical contribution in the MPI yesterday and last night's appearance on Richo by the shadow minister for education were both intentionally misleading and show their deficiency and knowledge in this sector. They both say that students are scared and they will not be able to pay the uni fees. This is ridiculous. Any student currently studying will not see any change to their fees as their existing arrangements will remain in place until 2020 or when their course is completed. The exciting improvements to the higher education sector will see an additional 80,000 places by 2018. I look forward to the University of Tasmania, especially the Cradle Coast campus in my electorate, taking full advantage of these changes.

The community is divided on the issue of providing foreign aid. Many of my constituents would like to see far more funds provided and even more constituents would like to see the amount reduced; some, sadly, would even prefer that no funds be allocated at all. Let us get to the facts on the table before I address some of the finer points. In the last 15 months of the previous Labor government, they removed $5.7 billion of aid funds from the forward estimates—fact. So, please, stop the crocodile tears and have a look in the mirror. Just like every other aspect of the last Labor budget, we find that a financial skeleton falls out of every cupboard we open. To those in my community, especially those of my brothers and sisters in the Christian faith, please try to familiarise yourself with the facts before you start demonising the coalition. This does nothing but show a lack of your balance or fairness. It has been said by many that we have broken an election promise on foreign aid. This is not correct and even the formal response from the coalition prior to the election on the Australian Christian Lobby website proves this. It says:

The Coalition supports and is committed to the Millennium Development Goals and the target of 0.5 per cent of gross national income in overseas development aid. However, the Coalition is unable to commit to a date because of the uncertain budgetary position that any incoming Coalition government is likely to inherit. There have been massive blowouts in debt and deficit under Labor and the Coalition will review the budgetary position if elected to Government.

We have made that commitment. Regardless of the size of the overseas development aid budget, the effectiveness of aid delivered must always continue to be the overriding priority. Gone are the days when hundreds of millions of dollars of aid money will be spent on detention centres to house tens of thousands of asylum seekers after Labor played into the hands of the people smugglers. Gone are the days when aid funding will be spent on building a parliament house in a foreign country to gain some credibility for a seat the UN Council. Gone are the days when we would spend aid on an ineffective program just because an NGO has the most polished lobbyist. Gone are the days when hundreds of millions of dollars of hard earned taxpayers' money has been wasted in aid due to self-centred efforts to gain a seat on the UN Council. Gone are the days when millions of dollars to help save the Sumatran rhinoceros will be spent.

We should be focused on reducing poverty in our region. Overseas development should always be about reducing poverty. Gone are the days when a government would want to spend more than $100 million of its aid budget to join the African Development Bank and the International Fund for Agricultural Development.

Let's drag this debate back to where it should be: giving our resources to those fellow humans that need our help, ensuring that we have an outcome focused humanitarian aid program. Labor has got a fair bit to say. Their deceit knows no bounds. Their desperation is placing political populism above the interests of the elderly and the vulnerable in our community. They say there is no debt emergency; they say there is nothing to see here, everything is okay and we should keep spending money we simply do not have.

I encourage the people of Braddon to look at what Labor has done in the past, not what it says and then look at the what the coalition has done in the past, not what we say. Before people jump to a conclusions about this budget, based mostly on the fear campaign of the Labor Party, they should stop for a brief moment and reflect on who they can trust to deliver a strong economy and sustainable financial future for our children and our grandchildren.

See this speech in context