Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018. I would like to start by acknowledging the work that Treasurer Morrison has done. My colleague on the other side the member for Fremantle made a number of comments: I think his closing words were 'facile and insubstantial focus on money'. That is what budgets are: a focus on money. As much as we would like to live in a nirvana where we can do whatever we want with the magic pudding that is the budget of the Australian government, there are unfortunately consequences for that.

Politics is the art of the possible. Over the last couple of days, I have had some emails with some criticism of the budget in different parts. The budget is not a philosophical sheet of wants and needs of individual groups; it is for the management of the economy of the entire nation. It is a balance between supporting all facets of our population. I acknowledge the work that Treasurer Morrison has done on that.

I might start on a positive note, with the focus on infrastructure in this budget. Infrastructure is the skeleton on which our economy grows. The announcement of $8.4 billion, on top of the $900 million that has already been committed, for the Inland Rail project is probably the most exciting budget announcement I have seen in my time—certainly in my nearly 10 years in this place. I spoke in February 2008—the very first time I spoke in parliament—about the need for inland rail. Indeed, during the preselection process, I said one of the reasons I wanted to get off my tractor, leave my previous career in agriculture and go to Canberra was to promote projects that would grow the economy of the area that I represent, and of the country as a whole. I spoke about inland rail at that stage, and now it has gone from a concept to a reality. There are some issues with that reality. Being the member of an electorate that has over 300 kilometres of greenfield site for the inland rail, gives me some concerns about where the route will go and the disruption to farm activities and the amenity of people living in that area. We will work through that with the ARTC.

But I will say here today: I am committed to this project. This project is a nation-building project within the same scope of the Snowy Mountains scheme, not only connecting the intermodal traffic between Melbourne and Brisbane and taking the pressure off the increasing freight task that is mainly on the Newell Highway but also providing the opportunity for communities in western New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria to grow on that spine.

I have been studying rail for some time. I have been to Canada and looked at their system, and I have seen how the decentralisation of Canada right across the prairies has been driven by rail. Already we are starting to see some construction of culverts and bridges, ready to take the increased weights and traffic for the Inland Rail.

Also I was pleased to see in the budget the confirmation of the promise that was made last year of $25 million for the integrated cancer centre in Dubbo—the concept that the people of western New South Wales can have access to top-class cancer facilities not only for treatment but for diagnosis. In the area that that represents, people now are dying because of a late diagnosis. They are dying because they choose to stay at home in their communities rather than travel to Sydney or Orange for intensive chemotherapy or radiation. Having that service in Dubbo to service the people of the west not only for treatment but also for early diagnosis with a PET scanner is a great thing. I am working very closely with the New South Wales government to make sure that that centre is constructed as part of the redevelopment in stages 3 and 4 of the Dubbo Base Hospital. Hopefully, within 18 months or so, we will see that come to fruition.

We have heard a lot from the members of the opposition about our financial and tax changes in this budget. We have heard about gifts to millionaires and $65 billion being ripped out of the budget. I have a fundamentally different point of view to the members of the Labor Party. I believe that the economy of this country, particularly in my electorate, is built on the back of small business. These are people who have the courage to step out of their comfort zone, to risk what they have and to back themselves in starting a business. They might be someone who finishes their apprenticeship as a builder or a plumber or an electrician and borrows the money to buy a ute and start their own business and ultimately put on an apprentice of their own and grow that business. We need to back those people. If every small business in my electorate, 13,000 of them, put on one more employee, we would have a shortage of workforce. We would not be able to meet that demand. The idea that we can run the country with a top-heavy, government approach is false. We need to back our small business.

Already we are starting to see the benefits of the instant asset write-off for equipment under $20,000. The businesses in my electorate are doing a roaring trade selling chainsaws, quad bikes, computers, toolboxes and trailers—a whole range of equipment that businesses can use and write off their tax. But there are also the measures that were in the ag white paper, such as the accelerated depreciation for grain storages. If you drive around western New South Wales, you will see magnificent grain storages standing there, built because of the tax incentives that enable those farmers to put them in, giving them a greater control of their product and also increasing employment in the area, as the construction of these facilities is booming, for people selling the silos, electricians, concreters and a whole range of others. With the accelerated depreciation for water systems, we are seeing massive rollouts of water systems across farms. In the last drought, people were able to manage their pasture more effectively because they had a water system that covered the entire property. It is the same with fencing. All these things require work to put them in. They require small businesses, contractors and suppliers, and all of that is feeding through the economies of my electorate.

There has been a bit of discussion about the funding of schools and the massive cuts. The Teachers Federation have run stories in some of my towns describing cuts to funding to their schools. I find that rather puzzling. I have a list here of 153 schools in the Parkes electorate. I do not think there would be many electorates that would have more than 153 schools. According to the metropolitan newspapers, I have more Catholic schools than any other electorate in Australia. The funding is set out in this list, and not one of those 153 schools has had a cut; they actually have had an increase.

For members opposite who were not here at the time, a short history lesson as to how this message came about may be of benefit. Julia Gillard, when she was the education minister, started the process of needs based funding, and there is no argument about that. I reckon my electorate has more disadvantaged communities that any other electorate in Australia, so there is no argument from me on that. In government, we have continued a funding model through into the forward estimates for four years with increases every year. The final two years of the so-called Gonski proposal was a balloon, an escalation in funding that was not funded. It is a bit like saying to your kids, 'Okay, this year I'm going to buy you a motorbike. Next year I'm going to buy you a car. The next year I'll buy you a house. I haven't got the money but I'm promising you that in years 5 and 6 I'm going to buy you a shopping centre. I don't know where the money's going to come from. That's not my worry.' They said that, knowing that, at that stage, more than likely, they were not going to be in government. It planted a nice little time bomb there. The member for Sydney was probably already working out her lines three years in advance, when that time bomb would go into the balloon stage of the final two years.

It was irresponsible government; it raised the expectations of communities that they were going to get something that they never were going to get. Now they are scaring communities into believing that they are going to get a reduction. There are 153 schools—private schools, Christian schools, Catholic schools and government schools—on this list, and not one of them is going to get a reduction. I was at one of those schools the other day. It had six students, smart boards, a couple of support staff and a dedicated principal, and it is in a very remote part of New South Wales. The idea that kids in schools in far-flung regions of our nation are being disadvantaged by this government is false; it is dishonest. Quite frankly, it is vicious and vindictive, and I will take on the Labor Party and the Teachers Federation on this issue every single day.

I will finish up with something that is very important in my electorate: the NDIS. I do agree with the member for Petrie that the idea that, in a couple of years time, there will be an increase in the Medicare levy to fund the NDIS is fair. If a member of your family is disabled and you live in a city, it is a tough call. But if a member of your family has a disability—whether it is acquired or whether they are born with it—and you live in a small, remote town, it is an enormous challenge. I deal with families on a regular basis that have to make gut-wrenching decisions to leave the lives that they know and relocate to larger centres to care for disabled family members. The NDIS is being rolled out at the moment and, as with any rollout, there are some difficulties. My office is dealing with people who are having challenges with that, and we still have some challenges in my electorate. It is one thing to allocate funding to people; it is another thing to make sure that the services they require with that funding are available. My office and I are working through that at the moment.

I think this is a very fair budget. Treasurer Morrison has indicated a way back to a surplus budget, and that is very important. A lot of people in my area understand the need to be financially responsible.

Those opposite have this magic pudding approach and think that being financially responsible is just some sort of choice we make, but it is important. We cannot expect our grandchildren to be paying for the excesses of our country at the moment. As we head up to baby boomers needing care, we have to make sure we see this country in solid shape. When our grandchildren are the ones in the workforce funding baby boomers such as me in our later years, they are not only going to be stretched to find the finances; this country is going to be stretched to find the workforce. So we have a responsibility through this budget to put this country on solid ground so that our children and grandchildren can then build on and enjoy the wonderful lifestyle that the current generation has. I commend this budget to the House.

See this speech in context