Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Every government has the right to try to implement the platform they took to an election. It also has every right to deal with the countless other issues that come along in a way that is consistent with its broader ideology. But no government has any right to wage an ideological crusade against the poorest and most disadvantaged members of the community—and, in particular, against students, the unemployed, the poor, the sick and disabled, the aged, single parents and anyone else, for that matter, who just needs a fair go in one of the richest and most fortunate countries in the world. There is simply no excuse whatsoever to bring down the budget it did a few weeks ago and which we are now being asked to pass judgement on.

That is exactly what this budget is. It is an ideological crusade that attacks directly the poorest and most disadvantaged members of the community, not the big corporates, the miners and the armed forces, which did very well in this budget, but the rest: those on low incomes and those with disadvantages which could be, and really should be, remedied in a country as rich and as luck as ours.

It is perfectly understandable for the supporters of one side of politics to complain when the other party or parties are in power. That is obviously fair enough. It is also understandable that there be calls for an early election when the government is embroiled in controversy, as was obviously the case during the 43rd Parliament. It was certainly my experience that for three years my office was periodically bombarded by calls for me to help in that parliament. Of course even the most unpopular government should as a general rule be allowed to run its course because the time for judgement should be at the next regular election, except that right now a line has been crossed because this budget is such a miserable piece of work that the convention of waving through the appropriation bills is, or at least in my mind should be, fundamentally in question. It certainly is for me.

In fact, I have wrestled for many days now with the rights and wrongs of voting against the supply, if only to force the government back to the budget drawing board. In the end I have decided to do so—to vote against the appropriation bills—because I do believe that this budget should be redone before it can reasonably be approved by the parliament. I feel confident that my vote, for what it is worth, will represent a clear majority of Denison constituents and indeed the broader community.

Whether I will be joined by anyone else in trying to block supply remains to be seen although, going by all the huff and puff of recent weeks, I should be able to expect to be joined by Labor, the Greens and the Palmer United Party. If I am not, if the opposition and crossbenchers wave through the appropriation bills and leave their fight to the separate budget enabling legislation, then effectively they will have shown their support for the weight of the budget, and let the record show that.

Of course, if non-government members and obviously senators where the numbers exist to achieve a bloc were to join me then the government would be forced to go away and redo the budget and to return with a better and fairer set of proposals. If Labor, the Greens and others do in fact join me here and in the Senate but the government refuses to rewrite the budget then so be it. If supply is blocked then we can go back to the polls where the people can decide this budget and indeed the government's fate.

Let us not be fooled by any claims that it is only the budget's enabling legislation that really matters because if you want to find the $43.5 million cut to the ABC and SBS and the cut to CSIRO, as well as the weakening of indexation for government pensions and payments, just for example, then you need look no further than the appropriation bills. These bills are a part of the problem and anyone, any party, genuine about opposing the budget is in fact compelled to try to block the appropriation bills until they are remedied.

I am every bit as exercised about all of this as are many Australians worried and even downright scared about the consequences of the budget for them. We all feel betrayed not just by all the pre-election promises but also by the very notion that we have a budget emergency in the first place and that it should be justification for targeting the disadvantaged members of the community. In my electorate of Denison in 2013, for instance, there were 5,334 people on the disability support pension, 11,223 people on the age pension, 1,816 people on the parenting payment, 3,867 people on Newstart and 12,973 family tax benefits were paid. All of these people will be adversely affected by this budget, and I will not support this budget, if only for them.

The change to Newstart is an especially nasty proposal and one that will, undoubtedly, see many people left without any financial support whatsoever for six months at a time. What about single parents?

They have the perennial difficulty of finding gainful employment between dropping their kids off at 9 am and picking them up at 3 pm—and when it comes to the parenting payment they have already taken a big hit with the reduction in the qualifying age of children from 16 to eight. But now they face cuts to family tax benefits, co-payments for seeing the doctor and getting their prescriptions filled, and even more to fill the tank in the car. What is going on here? Why are single parents, and in particular single mums, being singled out for even harsher treatment than the rest of the community?

Talking about co-payments, this is an especially miserable proposal—not only because it will disproportionately impact people on low incomes and the sick but also because the reform will be a significant dismantling of Australia's universal free public healthcare system. In Denison in 2011 the GP bulk-billing rate was 72.5 per cent, and all of these people will be adversely affected by increased fees when visiting their doctor and filling their prescriptions. Even those receiving a concession on their medication will have to fund two or more additional prescriptions themselves each year.

I am also particularly alarmed by the attack in the budget on people with a disability, in particular the tightening of assessments for the Disability Support Pension. In fact, over recent weeks a number of people with a disability have approached me about the prospect of such changes, and all were alarmed and some were beside themselves with fear and panic. I fear some will be driven to take their own lives.

Moreover, Australia can afford to give people a world-class education but the moves to deregulate university fees, to increase HECS debts and to alter the HECS repayment arrangements are entirely at odds with that noble aim. Students will now pay more fees and have no certainty that the fees for their desired course will be the same in the future. That alone will deny many potential students the opportunity to gain and benefit from tertiary qualifications—all of which is especially relevant to my electorate and Tasmanians more generally. In fact, in Denison in 2011 there were 30,232 people attending education in one form or another, including 6,700 at university or other tertiary institutions. Many of these people, and those that will or would follow them, will be adversely affected by this budget.

More broadly, Australia's wealth and good fortune should not be hoarded, and the cut to foreign aid in the budget is bitterly disappointing and short-sighted. Obviously we have a moral obligation to assist the world's poor. But doing so is also clearly in our own national interest, because development assistance creates stability and opens up markets—so much so that the slashing of over $7.6 billion for official development assistance over five years is patently a false economy for Australia. Yes, we do need to deal with the structural revenue and expenditure weaknesses in the nation's finances, and the move to tax the wealthy more and tighten the means testing of government pensions and payments is sensible. And, yes, the previous federal government let us down badly by putting the majority of spending for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the Gonski education reforms beyond the then forward estimates where it did not need to be properly explained. But none of that gives the current government license to attack the poorest and most disadvantaged members of our community. Nor does it provide any justification for the government's determination to implement a paid parental leave scheme that would pay up to $50,000 per eligible person in just six months. This is extravagant, unaffordable and set to disproportionately benefit relatively well-paid recipients.

There are also a range of other measures, not addressed in the budget, that would help to put the budget on a better footing—for example, a super profits tax on any company making a super profit, like the banks, just four of which are in the process of running up some $30 billion in profits in one year alone.

Tasmania will not be spared any of the downsides of the budget, and Denison in particular will be hard hit by the $111.4 million cut to CSIRO nationally and the other Public Service job cuts. While the Antarctic Gateway Partnership will receive $24 million, this is not new money, and what there is will be sourced from the already underfunded Australian Research Council. The Tasmanian environment will not fare any better, with $4 million being stripped from Tasmanian forest reserve tourism. The government has pledged not to support any further reserves in the state.

In closing, let me make the point again that Australia is a rich and fortunate country, and one that can easily afford to look after those in genuine need of assistance. There is simply no good reason for students, the unemployed, the sick and disabled, the aged, single parents and others not to be able to access high-quality care or an income to live a decent life. That is why I oppose the budget and why I will seek to call a division on the appropriation bills. In other words, I will try and supply block supply. It is also why I challenge Labor, the Greens, the Palmer United Party and all of the other crossbenchers to join me and put an end to this miserable budget. They have the power to act and not just to talk.

Budgets are a chance for governments to show the community what they think is important, and this government has sent a clear signal to the Australian people that it is more interested in a surplus than in their future.

See this speech in context