Kylea Tink (North Sydney, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Australians, including in my electorate of North Sydney, are struggling. In the lead up to the 2022-23 federal budget, many spoke to me about their struggles to find a place to live or having to choose between groceries or paying bills. At first glance this budget indicates the government recognises these struggles. It was reassuring to see some positive movements in areas where my community advocated for reform, with single parents and families with children under 16 now able to access additional support, and others benefiting from cheaper energy as we push to electrification.

But look more deeply and there is little in this budget to be inspired by. We need long-term structural economic reform which focuses on driving activity, productivity and managing cost, and we need a vision, neither of which were clear in this budget. When I asked the people of North Sydney what they would have delivered if they were Treasurer, they were clear. They wanted increased support for vulnerable Australians. They wanted adequately resourced climate action. They wanted to drive tax and revenue reform. And they wanted to address intergenerational inequity.

At the centre of this government's budget, however, was investment in our healthcare system, one that is overburdened, underfunded and under-resourced. I welcome the boost to Medicare, offering the opportunity for more children under 16, pensioners and concession card holders to see a doctor. But I call on Minister for Health and Aged Care to ensure these measures increase the number of GP clinics bulk-billing, as in North Sydney currently just 14 of 44 do. The greater investment in health protection and prevention measures, including the investment in the Australian Centre for Disease Control, is also good news. National prevention and infectious disease management rely on national coordination, and I look forward to seeing this centre develop.

Much was made of the six million Australians with chronic conditions being able to access their medication at a lower cost under the 60-day dispensing changes, and a number of chronically ill North Sydney residents have told me they believe this will help them. But this policy cuts two ways, and both sides must be acknowledged. Pharmacists in North Sydney have left me in no doubt that they believe the impacts are far more complex than the government is acknowledging, and many of their concerns are shared by those in general practice. While the government has indicated they will reinvest the money into community pharmacy, pharmacists in North Sydney are concerned this will not compensate them for the direct losses faced as a small business. I asked the government to listen closely to community pharmacists and work to get more than the headline right when delivering a policy change like this.

Separately, the lack of investment in mental health support or services was disappointing. At a time when three out of five young Australians have experienced a mental health distress in the last 12 months, the lack of funding to address this shadow pandemic is frustrating. An increased focus on elevating lived experience, funding digital tools and investment in workforce training is welcome but amounts to fiddling around the edges. Support for the most vulnerable was addressed via moderate, focused cost-of-living relief measures, but, at a time when households are doing it tough, we were hoping for more than just snappy headlines. In a post-budget survey across North Sydney, almost 60 per cent of people said these measures would make no difference to them.

And then this is the missing middle: those who, through their work efforts, continue to prop up our economy but see little reprieve in sight. Cost-of-living struggles are compounded by housing unavailability and unaffordability. And while a 15 per cent increase in rest assistance for the most vulnerable is welcome, it will barely touch the sides. Median rent in Sydney has increased by 24 per cent in the last 12 months. Homes in my electorate are renting for more than $1,000 a week, whilst units rent for more than $650. The build-to-rent incentives may eventually reduce pressure. However, they will not help people who are currently homeless and need immediate relief, and they will not ultimately get people into their own homes, as there is no support for rent to own.

For low-income earners and those reliant on government income support the struggle to cope with inadequate income is ironic, given this government's focus on fair pay for all. There are currently 3.3 million Australians living in poverty, and that number is growing. This is particularly true for single parents, the majority of whom are women. The extension of parenting payment single until a child is 14 is better than the current cut-off at eight, but there will be those who struggle through the transition. I call on the government to account for how it will support these families in the short term so as to minimise financial distress. There were also welcome announcements for families and women's safety, but the funding allocated is well short of the billion dollars needed to fully address women's safety in Australia. With crisis shelters overflowing, women and children have never been more vulnerable. Ultimately, parenting payments, JobSeeker and youth allowance payments simply are far from adequate. The JobSeeker increase of $20 a week and expansion of eligibility to those over 55, down from 60, provided fodder for headlines but is far below what is required to lift Australians out of poverty.

Ultimately, the focus on reducing the cost of living through electrification is a win in this budget, and the community of North Sydney can take pride in the role we have played in advocating for it. With cheaper renewable energy solutions becoming more reliable and efficient, we are seeing the beginning of much of what North Sydney has called for. Ultimately, however, the $1.3 billion in the government budget falls well short of the $12 billion needed to finance electrification for all suitable households, and it pales into insignificance when you look at the subsidies for fossil fuels, which sit at $41 billion over the next four years.

Climate and finance experts say the measures in this budget do not meet the scale of the climate emergency we are facing. We must move faster to secure our energy independence and leverage our opportunity for global leadership in zero emissions trade and investment. The establishment of the Net Zero Authority is good news, as is the scale-up of green hydrogen production, and I was pleased to see the modest investment in fuel efficiency standards, but there's no funding for the more immediate fix the minister could have pursued, which would have been to clean up our dirty petrol.

When looking at revenue, I believe the Treasurer's decision to pay down debt was responsible, but we need to address the fact that much was made of a surplus which was built on the back of individual income tax. It accounted for 48 per cent of total revenue. This overreliance on personal income tax is unsustainable, especially as the number of workers per retiree is rapidly decreasing. I call on the government to lead us through a process of comprehensive tax reform, to reduce reliance on personal active income and to review opportunities that are fairer to future generations by looking at how significant passive income is taxed. While I welcome the 15 per cent minimum tax for multinationals, it's time for us to get serious about rapidly implementing country-level accounting. The attempt to sell us on the modest changes to the petroleum resource rent tax has left us all extremely disappointed. The government has made no effort to wind back fossil fuel subsidies like the fuel tax credit, which will cost us over $41 billion over the next four years. Subsidies for dying industries only forestall their eventual demise.

When it comes to support for small business, the government is offering a sugar hit but no long-term reprieve. Another year of instant asset write-off won't drive long-term productivity. Almost all the respondents in my post-budget survey said the government should consider structural long-term reform for our economy. They suggested closing loopholes for multinational tax avoidance, higher taxes on oil and gas, scrapping fossil fuel subsidies and introducing windfall profits taxes on booming industries. Through it all, they acknowledged that most often it's actually young Australians who feel financial distress most acutely.

Ultimately, there was very little in this budget for those who have finished studying and started paying their taxes. There was no relief from rising university debts, little support for those struggling with their mental health and underwhelming action to meet the challenge of climate change. Tackling intergenerational inequity requires a whole-of-system approach, addressing activity, productivity and wages, and will require the government to do some heavy lifting. Instead we've been given a budget that has done little to offend but even less to drive a future-focused economy through reform.

In closing, I can't help but think one North Sydney resident summed it up perfectly: 'While this budget has set out in the right direction, I believe structural reform is needed for long-term prosperity. This budget is underwhelming and should be much more ambitious.'

See this speech in context