Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health) Share this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2016-2017. Of course, this bill encapsulates what unfortunately represents another unfair budget by this coalition government. While they have tried to hide from the Australian people with the fact that indeed this does not have the nasty elements of what we experienced in 2014, many of the elements are still there. There is still a $30 billion cut from our schools. There are still cuts from our universities. There is still a plan to have a pension age of 70, the highest in the world. It is a budget that calls parents rorters and double dippers and one that makes young job seekers wait for four weeks. It also is cutting the pension to 190,000 pensioners through the plan to limit overseas travel to Australian pensioners. Far from being a budget that supports our most vulnerable in our community—a budget that looks to lift people up—it is a budget that is inherently unfair.

One of the things that we keep getting lectured about by the government is that we need to live within our means. Of course, what they forget to mention is that they are giving a $50 billion tax cut to some of the largest companies in this country. On one hand they are cutting investment in our future, cutting investment to education and to our healthcare system; at the same time they are giving a $50 billion tax cut to what potentially are very large companies. One really can only describe this as trickle-down economics: hoping that this big tax cut to very large businesses will lead to benefiting those most vulnerable in our community. I think that the government probably should have learnt from the Reagan era. Trickle-down economics does not work. It has been shown time and time again that we need to actually invest in our people if we want to get good economic and social outcomes.

Obviously Labor will not block supply, but there are many unfair measures in the budget that was put before us on the eve on an election. We had to bring the budget forward and then rush to an election, because the government was so worried that any scrutiny of the budget would see them do not so well in the polls. On this side of the House we will continue to hold the government to account. We will oppose unfair measures that do not deliver to those who are most vulnerable. There are a number of different challenges before us. There are a number of issues that I want to highlight, but I do want to voice in particular my concern about the cuts to universities that are still in the budget. We still have not heard from the education minister about any plan going forward, except about the 20 per cent cuts to our universities, which are still in the budget. We continue to see other unfair cuts, which Labor will stand against. The most vulnerable know that they have a strong advocate in the Labor Party standing up for them. We are standing up for education, standing up for health and standing up for those that rely on income support when they are most vulnerable.

Tough decisions do have to be made when it comes the budget repair, and in the election Labor was up-front and honest about our priorities. We made it very clear that we chose to protect middle and working families. We will not chip away at Medicare until we destroy it in order to provide a tax cut to big business. That is a difficult decision to make. That decision is not saying, 'We'll be everything to everyone.' We clearly illustrated during the election period how we would go about repairing the budget in a way that was fair. I think this is a really important point to make. We will continue to do that as we go forward and we hope that we will, through our stand, be able to protect Australians from some of the worst elements of the budget.

I would implore the government to learn the lessons of the past. Slashing and burning basic healthcare services and other essential government services is not the answer if you want to encourage greater prosperity. If you want jobs and growth, then burning, cutting and slashing is not the way to go. I would urge the government, as they move forward, to rethink some of their proposals—either that or get George Christensen, the member for Dawson, onto the job! He is pretty good at getting the government to change its position on a whole range of things, so we might enlist him! In fact, on many occasions it might be time for the member for Dawson to cross the floor, to come over and join us, because his opposition to what the government is doing is almost as great as the Labor Party's opposition—not always on the same things; nevertheless, he is a fierce opponent of this government. We hope that the government will listen not only to George Christensen but also to the opposition. We think we make a lot more sense.

In addition to that, as I said, Labor will make responsible budget savings. In the election period we outlined a range of savings measures, and we also provided support for reasonable savings in the government's Budget Savings (Omnibus) Bill 2016. When the bill was before the House, I did not get the opportunity to talk about one of the bipartisan elements of the bill, which was support for the single appeal pathway in the portfolio area of Veterans' Affairs. The Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act is amended to create a single appeal pathway of review. This legislation was initially introduced to parliament as part of the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (2015 Budget Measures) Bill.

The process as it stood was quite complex. Under chapter 8 of the MRCA, an applicant wishing to make an appeal could either seek an internal reconsideration by the commission or apply to have their decision reviewed by the Veterans' Review Board. If they were unhappy with this, they could appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for final review. The process was further complicated by the time in which the applicant lodged their application. In addition, the appeal path chosen could also affect the level of legal aid funding an applicant could access. This was a complicated process, and the inability among stakeholders to reach consensus on how to move forward during the development of the MRCA had caused a lot of angst for many veterans attempting to work their way through this process.

This being so, Labor did support the concept of a single appeal pathway. However, at the time this legislation was introduced, we raised significant concerns with elements of the legislation outlined in 2015. Concerns included the removal of the internal reconsideration process, and the lack of opportunity of awarding costs to the veteran. We urged the government to undertake significant consultation with stakeholders, and as a consequence the legislation was referred to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for inquiry and report. Recurring issues raised with the committee included confusion around the internal reconsideration process, access to legal representation, access to costs for matters and access to legal aid.

Following the report of the committee, Labor worked with the government to adopt a range of amendments recommended by the Senate committee, which vastly improved the outcomes for veterans. Under the amendments, when an applicant is dissatisfied with the commission's determination, they can appeal to the Veterans' Review Board. This triggers an automatic internal review of the decision by the commission. If the applicant is unhappy with the internal review outcome, they then can proceed to the board for determination. Finally if the applicant is unsatisfied with the board's decision, they are then able to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, with legal representation and access to legal aid, as well as, importantly, have costs awarded under certain circumstances. The amendments provide an incentive for the right decision to be made at the earliest possible opportunity and provide clarity to applicants on the appeal process.

Due to these amendments, Labor was able to support the legislation. As a result of Labor working with stakeholder organisations and the government we have been able to strengthen this legislation to make a clear and consistent appeal path where decisions are made as soon as practicable, and that enables veterans to access appropriate support. In addition, we listened to the ex-service organisations about the role of lawyers at the Veterans' Review Board stage. Despite pressure from a number of legal representatives, we supported the government's position not to admit lawyers at the Veterans' Review Board stage, which ex-service organisations felt was unnecessarily adversarial and did not respect the professional role played by advocates at this stage of the appeals process.

This amended legislation is important. I must pay respect to the member for Batman, who did a significant amount of work on this legislation. He worked with the minister to get a good outcome for veterans. The passing of this legislation demonstrates that Labor aims to work constructively with the government to strengthen legislation and work on budget repair that is fair. However, what we will not do is just roll over when there are issues that we think are inherently unfair. At the election we have put close to $8 billion worth of savings forward to the Australian people. I am pleased to see that the government may have listened and be taking some of our suggestions on board, including the proposed $8,000 a year cap on VET FEE-HELP loans. The government has sat on its hands over the last number of years letting these warts continue in the VET FEE-HELP area. Of course, we hope from all reports that they will propose and actually support proper administration of this important area and at the same time not make TAFE and vocational education unattainable for so many.

We want to see the government start acting in the area of fairness. We have seen a government that seems absolutely obsessed about giving tax cuts to very large businesses. Part of that is the fact that deep in their DNA the Liberal and National parties are the friends of big business. That is their number one constituent. That is why we have seen the Prime Minister and his ministers work so hard to prevent what I believe is supported by the Australian people—that is, a proper investigation, a royal commission, into the banking and financial services sector. It is so important that we actually allow victims, the many victims who have lost their homes, businesses and retirement savings, an opportunity to have their say. But, more than that, we need to identify the systemic issues that have led to these circumstances and ensure that it does not happen in the future.

So, while the government seems to want to have meetings and try to work with the banks and the financial services sector to work out how not to have a royal commission into these very important issues, Labor will continue to pursue this issue. This is something I have spoken to many constituents in my electorate about and they fundamentally believe that unethical practices and potentially illegal practices need to be properly investigated and need to be safeguarded against for the future. I call on the government to stop being the party for big business and actually be a party for middle Australia, for low and middle Australia. They need you to be responsible and effective.

See this speech in context