Bridget Archer (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

As politicians, we often find ourselves living our life—our professional life, at least—dealing in absolutes. No matter the side of politics, we set ourself up for it time and time again when we attack a policy point while holding ourselves to a position that may become untenable down the track or by making a promise that's full of authenticity and the best intention at the time but becomes, for a number of reasons, problematic later down the track when it comes time to fulfil the promise. It is genuinely hard not to do it at times, as I think our constituencies expect to feel reassured and providing a 'maybe' or 'it depends' response doesn't really fill them with confidence. It leaves us as elected representatives vulnerable to attacks by our opponents or in the media.

But, as I've said previously, I don't want people to accept that they just believe politicians to lie, and broken promises are hard for our constituents to swallow, no matter the outcome. It is a slippery slope that does cast a shadow on what this government might promise next. If you promise 100 times to keep a policy and then you change it, it's expected that our communities will think any future policy could change after the 101st, 110th, or 150th promise to keep it. It's not okay to play with the truth, even if you like the outcome. It simply leads to a further erosion of trust and confidence in governments.

So it's here tonight that we find ourselves debating Labor's tax cuts, which the coalition will not stand in the way of. Just a few weeks ago, I asked when Labor would begin fulfilling its election mantra not to leave any Australians behind. It is 18 months since being elected, so it's pleasing that this legislation will support individuals and families in need, and I wouldn't block any measure that would help my electorate of Bass. While it's truthful that more constituents in my electorate will benefit from these proposed changes than they would have under the previous iteration, it's still a drop in the bucket for my community as cost-of-living pressures increase. Housing, healthcare affordability, education expenses, child care—these are all daily factors putting pressure on households.

Over the past 18 months, real net disposable income per person has collapsed, down 8.6 per cent. For an average income earner, this is a decline in take-home pay of just under $8,000, primarily driven by rising mortgage payments, falling real wages and increasing taxes. So, again, although I welcome relief, an average earner would receive just $804 more under Labor's policy, or $15.46 a week. This is less than 1 per cent of their annual wage and returns just 10 cents for avenue dollar they have lost to cost-of-living pressures under Labor's first 18 months in office.

A recent survey by the Mercury newspaper indicated that almost all Tasmanians were feeling the pressure as daily expenses continue to rise. Groceries were a major factor, with many cutting back on activities outside of the home to meet growing costs, and others admitted to using savings to keep up with the costs. CEO of the Tasmanian Council of Social Service Adrienne Picone said:.

Tasmanian families are increasingly forced to play a cruel game of 'what must I go without this week,' trying to stretch a meagre income to cover the essentials, when the reality is it is simply not possible in the current climate

No Tasmanian should be forced into a situation where they're forgoing healthcare in order to put food on the table, yet this is occurring on a daily basis across the state.

Ms Picone's statement highlights another area where the government is falling short, looking to provide additional and necessary assistance to low-income households who don't benefit from any tax cut but are deeply feeling the pinch of just trying to get by. As a co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Ending Poverty, I've held a number of events with my co-chair, the member for Canberra, as we explore the impact of poverty and how parliament can meaningfully address this. Just last week, we hosted a briefing with the Brotherhood of St Laurence on further practical steps governments of all persuasions could take. But it's hearing from those with lived experience that stays with you.

When I'm out in the community, cost-of-living pressures sit just behind housing as the No. 1 issue people raise with me, particularly, as Ms Picone points out, there are an increasingly large number of people who are choosing between paying their rent or their mortgage and having food on the table. Food insecurity is a major issue. The 2023 Foodbank hunger report stated that 84,000 Tasmanian households faced food insecurity last year—18,000 more than in the year prior. These are our neighbours, parents and children we pass at the school gate, the couple we say hello to on our morning walk or the young person making our coffee. From the discussions I've had on the ground with local organisations including the Benevolent Society, the Salvation Army and City Mission, there's a significant increase in middle-income earners needing their services, as they're forced to sacrifice their food budget to meet their increased mortgage or rent payments. These conversations are supported by hard statistics, with around 33 per cent of food-insecure households in Tasmania holding a mortgage.

Additionally, the 2023 Mapping Social Cohesion study—a joint project between the Australian National University and the Scanlon Foundation Research Institute, with more than 7½ thousand participants—found that almost half of those surveyed believe that economic issues are the most important set of problems our country faces today, followed by housing affordability and shortages. Forty-one per cent of participants describe themselves as either poor, struggling to pay their bills, or just getting by—up four per cent from the year prior. Dr James O'Donnell, who led the study, has spoken of the impact that financial stress is having on our communities:

With more Australians under financial pressure in 2023, it's perhaps not a surprise that our sense of belonging and connectedness to each other are also lower this year.

With more people worried about economic inequality, we're less trusting of government, more worried about the future and less connected to Australian values and society.

This is an important call to action for governments and the community to consider policies and programs that give everyone the opportunity to contribute to society to the fullest.

So, while these tax cuts will go some way to providing relief, with a surplus in the billions, I'm asking the federal government what else they can be doing to seriously tackle the challenges we're facing. Where the government is claiming success in delivering cheaper health care and child care, I'm not seeing the proof in northern Tasmania. We have an older population with higher rates of chronic disease and areas of socioeconomic disadvantage, and still we have the lowest bulk-billing rates in the country. From July to September last year, the rate dropped to 71 per cent—3.5 per cent lower than the national average. Whilst these numbers are before the triple bulk-billing incentive came into effect, on the ground I'm not seeing evidence of this trickling down to patients. I acknowledge that this has been an ongoing problem for both political parties, no matter who has been in government. It's one that I worked hard in addressing while the coalition was in government. I appreciate that there's not a silver bullet, but that we must put the current government on notice that more has to be done for the sustainability of practices and the health of our communities.

I met a number of times on this issue with Ben Dodds, President of the Rural Doctors Association of Tasmania, and I want to raise some comments that he made recently. What we've seen over a long period of time is the degradation in the Medicare rebate that has been available for patients, and there are many GPs who don't want to be in a position where they need to be charging a gap. Dr Dodds also acknowledged that, while GPs would often bulk-bill a patient who is in financial difficulty, it was not sustainable in the long term, and he said that the current Medicare rebates were still not enough to keep many rural and regional general practices going. I also know and understand from my long-term engagement with professionals in the health community that, again, it's not just the cost of going to the doctor that keeps patients at bay; as with child care, it's an accessibility issue, with many practices struggling with the recruitment and retention of doctors, and not for lack of trying.

There are a number of reasons behind this, including the classification of some areas in my electorate under the Modified Monash Model, which does affect the amount of the incentives they can receive, with some of areas of my electorate receiving the same classification as Hobart, providing further challenges when competing in a tight talent pool. I advocated for changes to the MMM when the coalition was in government and I'm continuing this fight. Plainly put, if we don't stop tinkering at the edges over proper reform it is only a matter of time before more practices close across my electorate. I'm available and willing to work with the government, or with anyone, to ensure that this does not happen. We must stop putting a bandaid on a gaping wound.

And then there is the issue of child care. While there are claims from the federal government that they have made child care cheaper—again, something I would dispute based on feedback from families in my electorate—there's a bigger area of accessibility. All the talking points on cheaper child care land nowhere if many parents are unable to access it. I'd like to read an email I received just before Christmas that sums up the experiences of too many families in my electorate: 'Over the past seven months I've been actively seeking suitable day-care options for my little one, who is set to start in February. Unfortunately, the waiting lists for these facilities are proving to be excessively long, making it challenging for parents like me to secure a spot for our children. This situation has left me feeling disheartened. Additionally, I want to emphasise that the current difficulties in accessing timely day-care services may force families like mine to make difficult decisions such as one parent having to stop working. The potential loss of income could be a significant financial blow for us and I imagine for many other families in our community. I'm also concerned about how families with lower levels of income, or single parents, are managing this situation. The challenges they face are likely even more daunting.'

The government was elected on a mandate to deliver greater trust, more accountability and transparency, but what we have seen so far is the usual spin and talking points rather than the substance that the public expects. You shouldn't be telling people they are better off and they should be grateful for it. What we should be asking our communities is: do they feel better off now than they did 18 months ago? The test isn't what they say or even what they do; it's the result.

See this speech in context