Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Hansard source

It is a great opportunity to be able to rise and speak in response to this legislation, the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2014-2015 and cognate bills, because it allows me to place on record the concerns that are felt within my community and my electorate about the impact of the unfair budget which the Abbott government has put in place and is still seeking to pass through the parliament, although every day another element of it seems to be jettisoned.

The last 18 months have been a difficult time for the electorate of Corio and for the people of Geelong. We have seen the two key private sector pillars of our economy, Ford and Alcoa, announce that they will be ending their operations in Geelong. Indeed, in the case of Alcoa that has already happened, as aluminium stopped being smelted in Geelong in August of last year and the rolling products plant was finalised in December last year. Ford will complete its making of cars in Geelong at the end of next year, albeit the design component of Ford will remain in Geelong thereafter. That is obviously a very important commitment by Ford. For a place that was a major manufacturing city in this country, the fact that those activities have or will come to an end obviously has a significant impact upon our economy and our employment. I think everyone in Geelong right now is feeling that.

The reason I raise that is that, against that background, the budget announced last year by the government could not have come at a worse time and could not have delivered more punitive or punishing measures. In essence it said that, for those who will need to rely on it, the social safety net is being critically reduced and that for those who want to make sure that their children have the future opportunities they want to give them those opportunities are contracting. We need only look at the measures that have been put in place in respect of universities to see its impact. We now face the genuine prospect of people being required to pay back $100,000 university degrees.

The deregulation of the university sector as planned by the government presents Deakin University in the electorate of Corio with an appalling choice, which is essentially between maintaining their accessible and, in that sense, low-cost nature as a place of education for people in Geelong on the one hand—and, in the process, jettisoning their research capacity, which is so important in driving employment in Geelong—and doing the reverse: hanging onto their research capacity but seeing an increase in the fees associated with studying at the university as a result. That is the kind of decision which should never be placed in front of a university such as Deakin University, which is a really important driver of the future and economy of Geelong. In the context of all that has occurred in Geelong, to put that decision in front of Deakin right now just leaves people in Geelong with a sense that this is a government which is happy or content to leave Geelong behind. The degree of anger within our community about that idea is utterly palpable.

In the budget, we have seen propositions which involve a wholesale breaking of promises, including increasing the petrol tax and somehow justifying that on the basis, as the Treasurer suggested, that poor people do not drive as much, which is utterly ridiculous and, in fact, completely wrong. Poor people, if we are going to use that term, need to have as easy access to transport as possible to connect them with employment opportunities. Reducing the ease of that transport actually makes their condition much worse. Yet that is what we have been faced with by the budget that has been put forward. Another measure is forcing young job seekers who are under 30 to spend six months without any income whatsoever before they can claim any income support. That is an appalling proposition to put to the people of Corio, Norlane, Newcomb and Whittington, for whom that kind of support is utterly essential in empowering them to pursue their economic opportunities and seek employment. Ultimately, what that does is place a burden on their families and put them in a position of needing to make really extreme decisions, the kinds of decisions that we would not want those people to make.

I can go on and on. Other measures include removing the three months backdating of the disability pension for veterans; raising the retirement age to 70; cutting families from family tax benefit part B when their youngest child turns six; slashing the family tax benefit end-of-year supplements and ceasing indexation; pushing young people under 25 from Newstart onto the lower youth allowance, which amounts to a cut of at least $48 a week, or almost $2½ thousand a year; axing the education entry payment; axing the seniors supplement, which is worth more than $800 a year to around 300,000 of our senior Australians; axing the pensioner education supplement; cutting the deeming rate thresholds for seniors and veterans, which will leave them with lower pensions; cutting the age pension, the disability support pension, the veterans pension and the carer payment by $80 a week within 10 years through the changing of the indexation arrangements; cutting the parenting payment arrangement for single parents; extending the ordinary waiting period for working age payments; freezing the payment rates for family tax benefits—and I could go on. This represents a very significant assault on the social safety net of Australia but particularly of the Geelong community at a time when the Geelong community needs that safety net more than ever.

We are seeing some interesting movements on the other side of the aisle when it comes to what is going on with their commitment to this budget and, indeed, who might ultimately lead the government in the future, but make no mistake: this is a government which, when you look across the entirety of the frontbench, supports the aspirations and the intent of the budget as it was handed down in May last year. One only needs to look at what the Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann, has said:

No minister has ever said to me that the budget was unfair, that's right.

That says everything. There is absolutely no doubt that, whoever ends up leading the show on the other side and no matter what they jettison, at the end of the day the entirety of that frontbench signed up to the measures which were in the budget, which I have just outlined. Indeed, the finance minister has said in recent weeks that he feels:

The second Budget will build on the progress that we made in our first Budget.

Note the word 'progress'. That is the way in which this government characterises what it has done in respect of the budget that was handed down.

We are seeing changes to the budget, and there seems to be an attempt to throw as many things overboard as possible. We have seen that with the paid parental leave scheme and we have seen it this week with the GP co-payment—but, even after that was tossed overboard, the Minister for Health made clear:

The policy intent was and remains a good one …

This is a statement that was made after the decision to shelve the GP co-payment—'The policy intent was and remains a good one.' So it is important that every Australian understands that, whatever they do on the other side, what they want to do and what the government believes in is to pursue the budget as it was handed down in May last year.

In articulating those points, I want to say something about the discussion which has occurred in respect of Australia Post and how that impacts the local community that I represent here. Australia Post is a treasured institution with a universal service obligation covering every single home and business right across the country. The elderly, the vulnerable and millions of people around Australia rely on our postal services, including small businesses and including charities. Currently, Australia Post has 4,400 post offices; 2½ thousand of those are in regional areas. Stamps are 70c. Australia Post is required to deliver mail in any regional city or town like Geelong for local delivery by the very next day. It is a crucial service, ensuring that Australian businesses and the economy in general run smoothly. For example, Australia Post estimates that it can deliver an average of 12.6 million items of mail every working day. The scale, efficiency and importance of this institution across our country are undeniable. The price of a stamp guarantees delivery regardless of any difficulties encountered on its journey to its destination.

We on this side of the parliament understand the need for reform in the context of the changing nature of our communications environment. In saying that, any measures that are taken need to be done in a way which takes the community with us, need to be done in a way which takes the Australia Post workforce along with those reforms, and need to be in consultation with the relevant unions. It is not a radical proposition—you need to bring people along when there is change.

In recent days, we have seen the communications minister announce that this service that we rely on will be the subject of a significant change. Mr Turnbull, the communications minister, has stood up and tried to sell to the Australian public the idea of paying more money for a letter to arrive two days slower than it does today. This will shift the cost, to a degree, of this efficient and universal service onto the public. At a time when family budgets in Geelong are facing threats from the government, as I have outlined, to their health care and education and when we are seeing jobs being lost and the cost of living rising and growth slowing, that is the moment that we see this Minister for Communications and the Prime Minister decide that the time is right to look at Australia Post and add additional burdens onto the consumer.

My constituency of Corio is an electorate stretching to the north of Geelong and inland to the City of Geelong and the Bellarine Peninsula. It includes a lot of regional communities like St Leonards, Portarlington, Lara and Anakie, and mail delivery is a vital service for these communities. It is a service that keeps citizens engaged with one another and drives local economies. A second-rate Australia Post simply is not good enough for them and it is not good enough from this government.

The member for Corangamite, a good friend of mine, represents the other part of Geelong and, in that sense, we share the representation of Geelong in this place. In November 2013 she said:

I appreciate that Australia Post's letters business is under significant financial pressure. However, for people living in regional cities and country towns, mail delivery is a vital service. Country people matter and services to regional Australia matter.

Hear, hear to that! The member for Corangamite was absolutely right in what she said in 2013. The critical question now is whether or not the member for Corangamite is standing up to the Minister for Communications to ensure that, in 2015, the proposals that are being put forward do not contradict what made eminent sense to her back in 2013.

People living across my electorate rely on this service every day—and many other members will have people living in their regional cities and towns that rely on this service every day. These people matter and they should not be punished by this government's reform agenda for Australia Post's universal services. My office has contacted a number of licensed post offices and small businesses across my electorate. My office has contacted a number of the approximately 28 LPOs across the Corio electorate, and they are telling me that they are already facing serious issues. The cost of keeping their local postal services running, the high level of service that is being demanded from them and from their staff, the rise of online shopping and the financial pressures of an ailing retail sector have added to their complexity.

The questions that now need to be encompassed in any reform include whether there will be cuts to employment in the mail services and whether the number of licensed post offices and jobs will remain in Australia or might we see job losses. In short, what we need to hear from this government, and what we need to hear from the member for Corangamite given that she has identified that this is a matter of concern to her, is a ruling out of the shutting of any post office in Geelong—a ruling out of the shutting down of any post office, any LPO, within the electorate of Corio—and a ruling out of the cutting of any staff from Australia Post. If the member for Corangamite and the government are going to be true to their word, the government need to be making that statement now, and it is against that benchmark that the government ought to be held to account.

See this speech in context