Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2015-2016 and cognate bills before the House relating to the 2015-16 budget. This is a budget that is pointing in the wrong direction, just like the government that penned it. It looks backwards when it should be looking forwards. It is a budget without vision. It is a budget about yesterday, not a budget for tomorrow. It is a budget that fails to 'have a go' at solving the problems of today and fails to have a go at the most pressing challenges of the future.

As outlined by the Leader of the Opposition in his budget reply speech, this budget does, however, 'have a go' at a number of things—many of which the Abbott Liberal government has had a go at in the past. This budget has a go at schools and universities. It has a go at pensioners and the states. It has a go at working women and working families. It has a go at students, veterans, carers and job seekers. It has a go at the sick and the vulnerable.

This is a budget that still has a go at the same people as it did last year. It unfairly targets families and low-income earners in particular. It is nothing more than a rehashed version of last year's budget—no less cruel and no less deceitful. The same inequity and unfairness of last year's budget remain in this year's budget, with the $80 billion cut from hospitals and schools, with more than $150 million ripped out of the budget of the Hunter New England area health, which services my community; $100,000 university degrees; cuts to family payments, leaving some 7,000 families in my electorate of Newcastle worse off; the $5 increase to the cost of medicines; the cuts to homelessness and domestic violence programs and many more.

In addition to these cruel measures that remain in this year's budget, there are some surprisingly new and nasty aspects that are worth noting. This year we see the deficit doubled in just 12 months. For all of the talk of a 'debt and deficit emergency', this year's budget reports a doubling of the deficit from just 12 months ago, where it was around $17 billion, to $35.1 billion now. Debt is increasing—it is up $40 billion from last year. There are 17 new taxes and charges, with tax as a share of our economy the highest it has been since the Howard and Costello years, and higher than in any year of Labor's recent term in government. Spending is going up and there is more spending than saving, with payments as a percentage of GDP reaching 25.9 per cent. Unemployment reaches a 14-year high and stays there longer than the government was predicting just last year.

And there are many new cuts in this budget, including $967.7 million cut from the paid parental leave scheme; $962.7 million cut from rationalising and streamlining health programs; $651.5 million cut from strengthening Australia's foreign investment framework; $262.5 million cut from the Sustainable Research Excellence program; $125.5 million cut from changing indexation for the Child Dental Benefits scheme; $144.6 million cut from the MBS for child health assessments; $69.6 million cut from dental and allied health for veterans; $72.5 million cut from streamlining health workforce scholarships; $27.3 million cut from the Entrepreneurs' Infrastructure Program; $26.8 million cut from the Cooperative Research Centres Program; $20.1 million cut from the Dementia and Aged Care Services Fund; $16 million cut from the Cadbury grant funding; $13.3 million cut from efficiencies of arts and cultural programs; $3.6 million cut from the Regional Development Australia committees and $1 million cut from the Seatbelts on Regional School Buses program.

Many organisations and agencies have already conducted their own analysis of this budget, some of which I would like to bring to the attention of the House today. One such organisation is the Hunter Research Foundation. The foundation is an independent world-class organisation dedicated to the growth and success of the Newcastle and Hunter region. Since 1956 the foundation has built on partnerships of trust with many hundreds of organisations and individuals. This confidence in the foundation's ideals has enabled it to maintain its core value—independence. So when the Hunter Research Foundation CEO, Brent Jenkins, says:

To say that we were disappointed in this Budget is an understatement, especially in relation to its impact on regional economies.

this government should listen. This is not Labor's analysis of the budget, easily dismissed by those opposite as partisan. This is the view of a credible research institution that is deeply connected to its community.

In the foundation's analysis Mr Jenkins makes it clear that the broader Hunter region, including Newcastle, is experiencing the worst economic conditions they have faced for a generation, including high unemployment and near-record lows of business confidence. Mr Jenkins rightly suggests:

What will define the economic success of regions like the Hunter is the creation of new jobs and in particular high-value jobs.

But this budget offers no such jobs. I agree with the foundation and support their call for genuine job creation in regional economies.

This government should heed the foundation's advice to build increased capacity for innovation through partnerships with SMEs and research institutions like Newcastle CSIRO Energy Centre and the University of Newcastle to encourage growth in new fields and new economies. Unlike this government, the Hunter Research Foundation is looking forward and is very much focused on the jobs for the future.

Independent analysis from NATSEM has also found issues with the budget, including a hidden hit on Australian families. NATSEM, may I remind the House, is another reputable independent agency—an agency that has previously been described by the Prime Minister as 'the most reputable modelling organisation in Australia.' NATSEM's analysis of the budget found that nine out of 10 of the lowest-income families will lose under the Abbott Liberal government's budget, while nine out of 10 of the wealthiest families stand to gain. For all of the claims from the government that this is a fair budget, this single aspect of modelling in itself clearly exhibits that it actually attacks those who need help the most.

NATSEM's modelling also shows that families will be slugged thousands of dollars when the new childcare arrangement measures that are proposed not to start until 2017 are factored in. This includes a family with a single income of $65,000 and two children being $6,164 a year worse off by 2018-19; a single mother with an income of $55,000 with two children being $6,107 worse off by 2018-19; and a family with a dual income of $60,000 with two children being $3,843 worse off by 2018-19.

This is further proof that the Prime Minister's promise not to hurt families was little more than a desperate attempt to save his own job. The impact of the budget on women again failed to rate a mention in the Treasurer's budget speech and papers, but it is an important analysis that has to be done. Gender responsive budgeting is a government's planning, programming and budgeting that contributes to the enhancement of gender equality and the fulfilment of women's rights. It highlights gender gaps in government policies, plans and budgets and analyses that gender differentiated impact of revenue raising policies and the application of domestic resources.

Gender responsive budget analysis was in fact pioneered in Australia in 1994, with the federal government assessment of the budget impact on women. It refers to the analysis of actual government expenditure and revenue on women and girls as compared to men and boys. It is with deep regret that I must remind the House of this government's now ongoing failure to produce a women's budget statement as part of the budget papers. I would have thought that understanding how the 2015 budget will or will not contribute to the long-term social and economic health and wellbeing of women in Australia was something that governments would want to know. So much for evidence based thinking from this so-called Prime Minister for women and his government.

Given this lack of commitment from the government, I am thankful that Labor remains as committed in opposition as we were in government to a gender responsive budget analysis. As chair of Labor's Status of Women Caucus Committee, I was honoured to launch Labor's Women's Budget Statement with my Labor colleagues in Canberra, alongside community representatives from across the nation. It was, however, distressing to relay the many negative and disproportionate impacts that this government's policies and budget measures will have on women.

Of all the new measures in this budget, perhaps the most startling for women was the government's backflip on paid parental leave. First we had paid parental leave 'over my dead body', then the Prime Minister's rolled gold scheme, providing mothers with 26 weeks of paid parental leave at full replacement wage, which he described as his signature policy and indeed took to two elections. Now, however, the government has taken a whole new approach and has gone on the attack, accusing mothers and families lawfully taking part in the government's paid parental leave scheme of being double-dipping, fraudulent rorters.

If the Abbott government gets their way, up to 80,000 mothers a year will be left worse off because of these cuts to paid parental leave. Some new mums stand to lose up to $11,500. This includes nurses, midwives, Defence personnel and police. What this means in real life for mothers and their babies is that those new mums affected will have less time to spend with their newborn babies. How can this Prime Minister ever be believed by any family in this country ever again? He has not a shred of credibility when it comes to supporting Australian women and Australian families.

The National Foundation for Australian Women also raises serious concerns about the impact that this budget will have on women. They have called for the proposed changes to paid parental leave to be abandoned and have noted that the savings measures from the first budget that remain in this budget disproportionately affect people on low and moderate incomes—a group who are largely women.

Likewise, the CEO of the Australian Council of Social Service, Dr Cassandra Goldie, has argued:

The retention of most of the 2014 budget cuts and lack of action to strengthen public revenue tips the scale on the negative side of the fairness ledger as it effectively means that the most disadvantaged and struggling individuals and families in our community are being asked to shoulder the responsibility for restoring the Budget.

When it comes to measuring the impact of the budget on my electorate, a review of the recent headlines in the Newcastle Herald is instructive, from 'Hockey bypasses the Hunter's big projects' to 'Parents to feel pressure' and 'Surplus gets further away'. The Herald's budget feature summed up the concerns of the region when it noted:

At first look, one of the greatest impacts on the Hunter of this budget would appear to be the substantial tightening of welfare, pension and superannuation support instruments, which are destined to hit the less well off and the elderly.

And when it comes to direct infrastructure spending in our region, the Herald notes:

Mr Hockey's first budget a year ago was light on capital works detail for the Hunter … and this document follows suit.

Well, that sums up the mood of my region: no investment in our university, no mention of major community service organisations that are crying out for money. The Newcastle Herald's assessment of the budget matches that of ACOSS, NATSEM and the others. It is all pointing in the wrong direction. As outlined by the Leader of the Opposition in his budget reply, the 2015 budget reflects neither the qualities nor the priorities of the Australian people. The priority of the nation has to be to plan for the future—a plan for the decades to come.

While this government continues to fail Australia, Labor has a plan for today, and we have a vision for a smart, modern and fair Australia. Our vision is grounded with a focus on the jobs and the economy of the future—a future that is more productive and more sustainable. We have a plan to build a new engine for prosperity in cities and in the regions and to turbocharge it with science skills, innovation, infrastructure and education. Under Labor, every young Australian will have the chance to read, write and work with the global language of the digital age. Under Labor, all major infrastructure will be assessed independently and on merit. And under Labor, innovation will be harnessed, supported and sent in the right direction. Under Labor, Australia will have a better future.

See this speech in context