Kay Hull (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak today on the issues that I see that will confront my electorate and probably many other rural and regional electorates across Australia as a result of the budget, which will impact on us greatly. One of the issues that we are going to have to confront now is the removal of many of the programs that were key to the establishment, the progressiveness and the sustainability of rural and regional areas. In three key areas, particularly in my electorate of Riverina, we have seen many of these programs cut and slashed. In fact, regional development, communications and agricultural cuts in the budget have stripped more than $1 billion from regional and rural Australia.

The Labor government has abolished the Regional Partnerships and the Growing Regions programs. This measure saves the government $436 million and it has only put $176 million back into regional development, all of which has already been allocated. That means that there are no programs eligible for funding, particularly in the next financial year, because that funding has already been committed to Labor’s election promises.

But I am relieved because much attention has been paid to the Regional Partnerships program. There have been many assertions about it being a National Party slush fund and claims of corruption. Many derogatory comments have been thrown around about this program by the minister and others. I was very pleased to note that last night the minister recognised the essential worth of at least 86 of these programs. I congratulate the minister on recognising the absolutely essential programs that had funding promised to them but were slashed and burned in the budget process. The minister now obviously recognises that comments made in the past about Regional Partnerships, about the Nationals’ involvement, about the former government’s involvement and about it being just a slush fund for regional Australia were wrong. He now recognises these programs as essential and accepts that they have integrity, are not flawed and have stood up to the process of scrutiny. I thank the minister for agreeing with the Nationals and the coalition by recognising that these projects certainly are worth while.

I know the projects in my electorate absolutely stand up to scrutiny, because they have delivered medical services. When medical services walked away from my region the program delivered the services back in. When banks walked away from our region this program delivered banking services and other associated capacity into communities through rural transaction centres. We have had many fantastic initiatives. We have been able to establish child care to enable us to attract rural professionals—doctors and lawyers and people of the general professions—of whom we currently have a critical lack. We have had the resources to be able to secure their services in our electorates by the provision of a simple thing taken for granted by most city people—access to child care. The program has assisted enormously in the procurement of many of these services right across my electorate.

The Commercial Ready program has helped businesses in my electorate—new businesses. We have a business called Flip Screen Australia. They would never have been able to get off the ground, employ people and provide valuable economic input into our economy if they had not had the Commercial Ready program. We have seen the destruction of the $10.5 million Building Entrepreneurship in Small Business program, which enabled small businesses to get skills development in incubation and advisory services to enable them to move forward and to provide innovation and employment opportunities. Many of our councils under the Riverina Eastern Regional Organisation of Councils—REROC—and the Riverina Regional Development Board, a New South Wales government development board, have been recipients of grants under this program.

The Small Business Field Officer Program has also been slashed. My small business officer in Griffith is no longer employed and no longer able to give advice to those who want to set up independent businesses. This will affect their ability to move forward and expand and to provide much needed employment opportunities in the ever-increasing squeeze caused by the prolonged seven-year drought in my region. The New Industries Development Program was a great program that increased opportunities for innovative and market orientated industry development for small- and medium-sized agribusinesses. One business in my electorate, Cootamundra Oilseeds, was a previous recipient of funding under this program. It is one of our largest employers in the Cootamundra area. The New Business Intensive Assistance Program has also ceased. There is much red tape and much to comply with when deciding to set up a new business or even for those existing businesses with people who are not familiar with the GST and the BAS and general bookkeeping requirements. For such people, that intensive assistance program was invaluable. Again, it has been slashed. We also have the problem of additional funding to our Export Market Development Grants program. We have nothing in the forward estimates after 2010. I think that is a shame because we have had significant beneficiaries of that program who have been delivering back to the GDP of this great nation.

I am disappointed in the scrapping of the Investing in our Schools program. It was able to deliver to the mums and dads of communities. It was not out there pork-barrelling—as we have been accused of—these mums and dads. It was providing the P&Cs with their priorities. There was one particular project in my electorate at the South Wagga Public School. The P&C had been trying to raise money for 15 years to get a covered outdoor learning area. In that time they had only raised $30,000. When we were able to give them the Investing in our School’s grants of $150,000 not only were they able to build the outdoor covered learning area that they had been waiting for for 15 years but they were able to put in tanks to collect the water off the outdoor covered learning area. They were able to utilise that water to provide the kids, for the first time, with a playground where they could play on grass. That was certainly welcomed.

I understand the need for innovation and technology in schools, but there is also a need to assist mums and dads who are desperately putting in mammoth fundraising efforts to ensure that their children are attending a school that is at least reasonably comfortable, whether it be a public, private, or Catholic school. I am very disappointed to see that program go.

Then there is the Community Water Grants program. Community Water Grants was a program that I was very proud of because it was able to establish best practices, particularly in teaching school students about the need to conserve water. It involved the collection of water to be used in tanks to preserve groundwater and surface water systems. I feel that schools did a sterling job. In fact, my electorate received $4.7 million in programs, each and every one of them with integrity.

I note there have been concerns raised in the House by many people on the government side about the replacement of a bowling green turf with a synthetic surface. That makes absolute sense if you are living in a dry area. Our country towns do not have picture theatres, tenpin bowling alleys or the great entertainment facilities found in cities. For some of our communities the only social fabric that can bring us together is a bowling green—just two little bowling greens with a bowling club where regional people, farmers and local inhabitants can get together. We have such a fantastic response from our young people. Our schools are the biggest participants in lawn bowls. Our young people are there, taking their instruction from older people, who give great mentoring and role modelling. That is what happens in a rural community.

When you see it in action, it actually makes you feel very pumped in your heart and soul. You say, ‘Here are some young people gathering together with a group of elderly men and women to learn from them and be involved in a healthy aspect of life.’ If the only opportunity for that healthy aspect of life is a bowling green that requires a considerable amount of water to keep the surface in place, it stands to reason that the turf should be replaced with a synthetic surface. If a struggling community has little water and it is environmentally sound to put synthetic turf in, it stands to reason that the community should be able to get some assistance. Whether you are on the outskirts of Western Sydney or Melbourne or in the Riverina, it stands to reason that you should be able to apply for these grants and not come under some sort of cloud with people saying it is an absolute waste of money.

When I was going through the budget, I wanted to see what benefits had come to rural health. When I was a government member I did not believe in line items for the Riverina. I wanted to have money available for the Riverina when we needed it. I did not want to have an allocation to the Riverina and then be forever waiting for another allocation. When I wanted and needed assistance for the people I represent, I wanted to be able to go to the minister with a properly constituted proposal that had integrity, and I expected it to be supported.

Rural health issues in regional Australia are staggeringly difficult. I noticed an entry in the budget papers which seemed at first glance to be a fabulous initiative, and I was very warmly appreciative. I congratulated the government on many of their initiatives. I thought the childcare and some education components were terrific. I thought: ‘This is great, we’re now going to have an additional workforce to meet the needs of Australian communities. We’re going to enhance the medical workforce by the addition of 5,000 international medical graduates. Wow, this is fabulous; we’ll get some spin-off.’ But then I looked for the line item that gave us some resources for the training of those 5,000 international medical graduates. There was no sign of any allocation—no budget line anywhere for resources.

GPET, the General Practice Education and Training program, does a fabulous job right across Australia, whether you are in the Riverina or in any other electorate. But it is an intense and enormously difficult job, because it provides vocational education and training support for medical graduates who are seeking to become general practitioners. There are 21 regional training providers to do that. Our GPET force is already burdened, with 21 trainers, but now we have no-one to assist our international medical graduates to obtain the necessary education and training to fit them into Australian general practice. That is what we are trying to achieve. We are trying to attract more people into Australian general practice training programs. I am not being critical at this point. I absolutely welcome the 5,000 places. But I am not sure whether the requirements that international medical graduates will have to undertake to fit into the Australian GP process have been overlooked—and they will be quite extensive. I would like to raise this matter in the House today to bring it to the attention of the minister—whom I think is a tremendous minister. You need to apply money to enable those 5,000 medical graduates to enter into general practice. It is essential. I appeal to and urge the government to look at this issue and to consider this not as a criticism but as an appeal for only what is required. I am not asking for any more than what is required.

As a past chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs, which dealt with substance abuse—illicit drugs, alcohol, tobacco and prescribed pharmaceuticals—I am concerned about the implications, ramifications and unintended consequences of the alcopops tax. In my view, the alcopops tax seems to be counterproductive and disingenuous because, out of all of the proposed revenue that will be collected from the alcopops taxation, only $58 million will be put into programs. I have long called for the delivery of programs on the ground. I called for it when I was part of the last government. I argued for fewer research programs and more delivery of assistance on the ground. But only $58 million of the tax windfall from the imposition of this excise on alcopops will be returned. If this were a genuine proposal, all of that revenue—it is fortuitous additional revenue; it is not part of a budget surplus—should go into actually doing something on the ground such as providing more rehab and detox centres. I have no detox centre anywhere in my electorate. I have fought for and delivered a rehab centre, but I do not have a detox centre for regional people to go into in order to be able to attend a rehab centre. If you cannot do detox, you cannot attend rehab. I called for it from the last government and I will call for it from this one. It is essential.

I have a letter from the Distilled Spirits Industry Council of Australia, who are very concerned by the unintended consequences of the tax. I have seen an article in the Australian today that says sales of alcopops have plummeted by almost 40 per cent in the fortnight following the lightning tax hike, but sales of 375-millilitre bottles of full-strength spirits have gone up by 20 per cent. Sales of 700-millilitre bottles of full-strength spirits have gone up by 21 per cent. Sales of dark spirit ready-to-drinks—scotch, rum and bourbon—have gone down by 39 per cent and sales of light spirit RTDs have gone down by 37 per cent. I am not quite sure we have managed to achieve the intention of the tax, and there will be more of this to come.

I am very concerned that we have just transferred the problem of substance abuse from one drink to another drink. I hope that after seeing these statistics the Prime Minister will reconsider how he wants to spend the tax take on addressing these problems, which will only increase with people mixing their own drinks and not knowing how much alcohol they are putting in. We are obviously going to have a big problem dealing with these issues, and I think the spend has to be much greater.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great pleasure for me to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and related legislation because they reflect the very first budget for Labor in 12 years. This budget is about building a strong economy that delivers for all Australians. This government was elected to not only represent all Australians but also act in the nation’s collective best interest. This government is funding its election commitments and responsibilities by investing in the future. The Rudd Labor government takes the economic situation left to it by the previous government very seriously. It will do everything in its power to responsibly manage the economy for this and for future generations.

Every single dollar of new spending has been more than matched by spending cuts elsewhere in the budget, which makes this the most responsible budget in many years. This government has built a strong surplus because it is an important way to fight inflation and invest in long-term improvements in our hospitals, roads, universities, TAFE colleges and schools. This budget will fight inflation and keep downward pressure on interest rates while at the same time investing in all of our futures.

On the other side, the Liberal’s response to this budget shows that it is the party of irresponsible spending. It is the party of high inflation and welfare for high-income earners, who just do not need the money. I have been talking extensively with people in my area in the western corridor of Brisbane. They admit that times are tough and that making ends meet is more difficult than it has ever been. Times have been getting tough for most Australians, for families and for the aged for many years. That is why this budget is so important. This government is pleased that their needs are no longer being ignored in favour of the top end of town. This budget rebalances the scales to give everybody a fair go.

People will also be pleased to see that all of Labor’s election commitments are being and will be met and delivered fully funded, instead of previous years where non-core promises continually knocked them for six in the budget directly following an election. The Rudd Labor government will keep all of its promises—core and non-core. This budget sets out a long-term plan to build a stronger economy that will deliver in the western corridor and right across the nation.

The past 12 years prove, if anything, this: the Rudd government actually understands the pressures on working families, ordinary people, the aged and those who are doing it tough. We will do everything in our power to make life a little bit easier for them. The reality today is that more and more of the family income is being eaten away by mortgage repayments, rent, groceries and petrol. This is the reality of life as it has been governed over the past decade. We will now do everything within our power to step in and make life easier. There is still a bitter taste in the mouths of a lot of Australians—in fact, I would say most Australians—from the former government’s statement ‘Working families have never been better off’. Today, just as it was then, that is an offensive statement.

It is time that we actually reward those who have worked very hard, and those that are working hard, and help them cope with the rising costs of living. This budget is that reward. It is the first stage in the reward for all Australians. Take for example the Working Families Support Package: $55 billion worth of support, which includes targeted initiatives specifically delivering in a range of key areas, such as personal income tax relief. Our commitments to personal income tax are fully met and will be fully met. We will help with childcare fees because we understand the pressures that ordinary families face. We have made a serious move in childcare fee rebates, raising them from 30 per cent to 50 per cent. We will support parents investing in their children’s education, by making some educational expenses deductable for the very first time—something that has been asked for by parents for a very long time.

We will move on the big-ticket issues, the big items that are hurting ordinary people, such as improving housing affordability. We are the party that listens to people, understands their needs and will deliver their needs. We will support older Australians and carers. We are introducing a Teen Dental Plan. We understand that people’s teeth are central to their health and their full enjoyment of life. We will introduce a fairer Medicare levy surcharge threshold for individuals and for families. And, for the first time ever in the country, we will introduce the national FuelWatch scheme, which will follow the lead from Western Australia on their very successful model and is based on advice from the ACCC.

This suite of budget measures, along with a whole range of other measures, is a comprehensive package. It is the first budget from a government that has very seriously taken its obligations and the things that it needs to do for all Australians. The previous government would not even have comprehended a package like this, because it simply did not understand the pressures that people were under. While this government discusses within its cabinet easing the pressures on working families, ordinary people, the aged and carers, around their cabinet table the previous government talked about themselves and about slugging ordinary Australians and workers.

The Rudd government is taking action in this budget to address cost-of-living pressures, household budgets and those sorts of pressures. This government has shown a disciplined approach to its budget management to take the pressure off inflation by paying for all new spending promises with savings. It is a responsible budget, with spending met through savings. Every dollar of new spending is offset by savings. This government promised during the election that a minimum of 1.5 per cent of GDP would be a surplus. Not only have we met that but we have exceeded that: we have actually achieved a surplus of 1.8 per cent of GDP. Very importantly, the government is also tackling the skills shortage and road and port bottlenecks, which push up the cost of doing business and hurt the Australian economy for everybody.

These are the matters that were ignored for over a decade by the previous government. These matters were ignored boldly in the face of countless recommendations, countless sets of advice and countless reports and indicators that pointed to the growing need for the government to take action. I just cannot understand the logic or the thinking of the previous government and why it was so focused on its own re-election and on what it was doing, on its own survival, rather than the needs of the nation as a whole. We will invest in skills and education, and we will deliver 450,000 new training places over four years. The new $20 billion Building Australia Fund will provide the economic infrastructure for that future.

One way that any budget can help all Australians—a very central key—is by keeping inflation in control. Everybody wins when inflation is low. This budget is about keeping inflation down. Fighting inflation is the Rudd government’s No. 1 priority. Inflation does not discriminate but it does treat people on lower incomes worse than it treats others.

Inflation pressures have intensified over recent years, with underlying inflation now rising to 4.2 per cent in the year to March 2008, its highest rate in over 16 years. This is the legacy, this is the reality, that was left to us by Costello, by the Howard government. We will not sit back and allow that to continue. It is not good enough. Prices for many essential items have gone up, and that has put a lot of pressure on ordinary people’s budgets—on the families and on the aged—and we are acting to alleviate those pressures. Inflationary pressures have led to the Reserve Bank of Australia lifting interest rates eight times in just over three years—in fact we saw 12 consecutive interest rate rises under the stewardship of the previous government. This is their legacy; this is what they left ordinary Australians. Australians are feeling the impact and the effects of the inflationary rises of interest rates through their mortgage repayments, their rent, their grocery bills, the price of petrol and the cost of living, and all we get from the previous government is: ‘Don’t do anything.’ They themselves do not know what to do, and yet anything we do they say we should not do.

The build-up in inflationary pressures is the result of years of strong growth in demand that has not been met by increases in the supply capacity of the economy. Governments need to avoid wasteful spending that puts unnecessary pressure on the economy, which makes the Reserve Bank’s job of controlling inflation even harder. That is why we are working very hard to keep inflation under control. We must also note that productivity growth has fallen to its lowest level in over 17 years. A key driver in keeping this country prosperous is keeping productivity up. Even with productivity at its lowest level in 17 years, the previous government did not acknowledge that a problem existed. This budget actually begins to meet the much needed investment to expand our productivity capacity and our economy through infrastructure, through education and through training. These are the policies that lift productivity and are a key part of our reform agenda, including investing in key economic and social infrastructure. Investing in skills is vital to help us work more productively. A workforce with the right mix of skills leads to higher productivity and participation, lower unemployment and increased living standards and is a long-term approach to ensuring that we have a prosperous country that delivers to everybody, not just to a few people. Tighter monetary and fiscal policy is expected to gradually ease underlying inflation from the current 16-year highs.

In the western corridor, residents regularly talk to me, particularly recently, about a wide range of topics, but none more so than my local pensioners and the aged. Pensioners are doing it tough—there is no escaping that—and that is why we have invested an extra $5.2 billion in this budget to try and take away some of that pain for them. On this side of the House the government recognises the financial pressures that seniors face. We are the only ones committed to helping seniors make ends meet. We understand the problems that they face. We must not forget that it was Labor, when in opposition, that called for a Senate inquiry into the cost-of-living pressures that face senior Australians. The then government could have done something but it chose not to. It made a conscious decision: when it was in the cabinet room, it chose not to act. We are committing $5.2 billion in additional new funding for seniors in this budget—that is, 3½ times the amount that was pledged by the previous government—because we understand that more needs to be done. That does not mean that all has been done; it just means that we have taken those first essential steps to ensure that those who need our support the most in the community actually get it—real long-term adjustments that will make a real difference for seniors.

The implementation of Labor’s election commitments in this budget will provide an average additional annual benefit of $400 for aged pensioners and seniors. Recently we introduced into the parliament a bill to pay aged pensioners and seniors a $500 bonus, with 2.7 million seniors benefiting from this measure—that is, $900 extra for millions of seniors on top of other measures, which makes a huge difference. This bonus will be paid before the end of the current financial year, 30 June 2008. These bonuses come on top of an increase in the utility allowance from $107.20 per year to $500 per year. I note that the first quarterly instalment has been paid to aged pensioners and seniors already, in March. These important financial measures come on top of an extension of the telephone allowance, new dental funding for concession card holders and petrol vouchers for volunteers who use their own transport in helping others in the community. There are more dollars for carers and aged care as well. But still more needs to be done—I acknowledge that, we acknowledge that and we have taken the first steps.

One of the most pressing issues now affecting all Australians—in fact, affecting just about every country in the world, and we have seen in the media in recent days what is happening in the UK, in France and globally—is the price of petrol going through the roof, and this is hurting ordinary people. While the opposition get on the petrol bandwagon, for 12 years while they were in government they did nothing that would ease the pressure in the long term. They talk about taking just a few cents off, but the reality is that with the huge price differences in major cities around the country a few cents is insignificant. While it might seem good for a day or a week, the reality long term is that when there are price gaps of 20c to 30c between bowsers at different places it is a matter of being informed by having that information readily available to make the right choice and get 20c rather than just a few cents off.

Our government will introduce a national FuelWatch scheme to improve the transparency in pricing and promote competition. It is a tough decision being made in the face of some strong criticism, but there is also some very good backing. There will be some very good outcomes that give consumers choice for the first time to understand where the cheapest prices are. If the fuel companies and those selling at the bowser want to compete, want to play by the rules and want to provide people with a fair and decent price at the bowser then let them use the system. Let them attract customers and get people to their service stations by keeping the price low and competitive. That will ease the pressure on people paying too much for petrol at the bowser, unlike just sitting back and saying. ‘We’ll remove some excise and give you a few cents off.’ That would literally disappear into thin air within weeks or months if the global rise in petrol prices were to continue as it is now.

On the issue of housing affordability, Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, you would know and understand that the western corridor in Queensland is booming, and my electorate is probably the fastest-growing electorate in the country. This rapid growth and expansion comes with some unique challenges of housing affordability and access to broadband and road networks and a whole range of infrastructure and social issues. It is obvious that it is becoming harder and harder for first home buyers, especially with rents going the way they are. The Rudd government has committed $2.2 billion to do something about housing affordability—again, something the previous government did not even acknowledge. We are not just acknowledging it or just having an inquiry or a summit—

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are!

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

we are backing it up with funding of $2.2 billion. It is another first step. It is all right for the opposition to say, ‘You’re having a summit; you’re having an inquiry,’ but we are following through. It is called follow-through. Do that, get the right information, invite the community to participate and then do something about it. In the budget we are also providing $1.2 billion over four years to assist first home buyers and committing $623 million over four years to the National Rental Affordability Scheme. That is on top of $8,000 annually for 10 years for people who build investment rental houses and keep rents 20 per cent below market rate. Housing affordability is front and centre. We are committed to it and we are doing something about it.

In the past I have talked a lot about broadband. I talked about it in opposition but I am going to talk about it in government as well. Areas in my electorate, such as greater Springfield, Sinnamon Park, Forest Lake and new estates around Acacia Ridge, have been neglected for many years. It is a difficult job that we have to do. It is a long-term job; it is not going to be fixed overnight. Most people understand that, but you need to take the first steps. You need to invest; you need to understand the problem. The Rudd Labor government is committed. We will make a difference in these areas.

Nowhere could you go where infrastructure is more critical than Queensland. Queensland is a booming state and the Rudd Labor government will continue to commit additional resources to Queensland. We have given over $826 million in nation-building roads and rail projects in Queensland, including more than $63 million to make an early start on election commitments. There is an urgent need to fix a whole range of Queensland’s overstretched road networks. The reality is very simple: when a state like Queensland has net migration of between 50,000 and 80,000 every year from the southern states, it puts the pressure on. They are coming to live in the western corridor, and no amount of roadworks can possibly keep up with the pace, but we are committed to doing it and will continue to do it. Particularly with the Ipswich Motorway, I am very pleased that we have met all of our election commitments. I am glad to see there was $5 million advanced for planning for the Dinmore-to-Goodna upgrade.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Truss interjecting

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Wide Bay will have his opportunity to speak.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have committed millions to it. We will continue to deliver on the Ipswich Motorway. We will meet all of our election promises and commitments for a full upgrade of the Ipswich Motorway ahead of time. Work is going on right now, and it will be completed ahead of time. Those on the other side, the opposition, had 12 years to do something but they did nothing. Well, they did a little bit just before the last election, which they lost, but they did nothing overall.

On urban planning, we understand the issues. I do not have the time today to go into all the detail, but I can assure you that in my electorate we understand the issues very acutely.

I will end by speaking briefly on schools and what we call the education revolution. It is a bold step in the right direction, and this budget has moved on with that commitment. One of the biggest commitments we have made in the budget is to the future of young Australians, our children, through investing in their education. We have called this the education revolution and have committed billions of new dollars towards ensuring that all of our schools are properly resourced to deliver the best possible services to our kids. We recognise that all of our kids, regardless of what school they attend, deserve the very best. The old debate over school funding is dead. The new debate is about how much more we can do to acknowledge properly the work of our teachers and to ensure that the highest level of educational standards are met. This is Labor’s first budget in 12 years. It is a great budget, and there will be many more to come. I congratulate the Treasurer on a fantastic job.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Treasurer concluded his budget speech by saying this was a Labor budget, and he was right. This was a typical Labor budget, being the biggest spending budget in Australian history and the biggest taxing budget in Australian history. It was also an occasion for Labor to get square with all of the people that it hates. It was payback time. The people on their hit list included those who had been successful, people in small business, the tourism industry, stay-at-home mums, people who live in rural and regional areas, people who produce ethanol and believe in alternative energy, people who have private health insurance and self-funded retirees. All of these people have long been on Labor’s hit list and they all suffered in Labor’s first budget.

The government spin doctors and circus ringmasters told us that this was going to be a Robin Hood budget that took from the rich and gave to the poor. Is a large family that needs a people mover rich? Is a family living in a remote area and needing a four-wheel drive for the dirt roads rich? Are families who work 80 hours a week to earn $75,001 in six months too rich to need some help with their babies?

The reality is that Labor’s budget did not take from the rich and give to the poor; it will hurt the poor. It will hurt the poor more than anyone. It will hurt the poor when one million people are added to the public hospital queues as a result of Labor’s attack on private health insurance. It will hurt the poor because this budget does nothing to help them pay their mortgage, to lower food prices or to reduce petrol prices. The budget will create 134,000 more unemployed. The budget delivers nothing for pensioners and it takes the seniors card away from self-funded retirees. There were no tax cuts for these people, just longer hospital queues, higher rents and higher food prices.

The reality is that, yes, this is a Labor budget. It has failed the Australian people as Labor budgets have failed them in the past. It has demonstrated yet again that Labor are completely unable to effectively manage an economy. They inherited an enormous surplus. They copied the tax cuts committed by the previous government. They spent a proportion of the heritage that they received from the good management of the previous government, and as budget follows budget under Labor that heritage will be further eroded. As the economy runs down, as it always does under Labor governments, the budget surpluses will turn into deficits. The slush funds that have been put aside will be drawn on to try to keep future Labor budgets afloat.

This was a budget that was very much about spin. We were told that there needed to be a new tax on mixed drinks because that would attack binge drinking. But that has been exposed as the phoney assertion that it is. The reality is that figures as late as today have shown that there has been a 20 per cent increase in the sales of higher alcohol content spirits as a result of these tax changes. People have simply changed their drinking patterns and their purchasing patterns and they will get double the hit for half the tax. This was not a well thought through measure; it was a classic example of Labor’s busy spin doctors suggesting that what was, in fact, about binge taxing was really about binge drinking.

This particular budget will do nothing to address key issues of inflation. I was interested that the Labor Party announced a five-point plan to deal with inflation. One of the key elements of that five-point plan was to build more infrastructure. The reality, of course, is that that, of itself, will be inflationary in the short term and it will take many, many years before the benefits of that increased infrastructure flow through into better pipelines and therefore lower inflation.

We do need to spend more money on infrastructure—I am wholeheartedly supportive of that—but it is surprising, therefore, that in the budget, where I have heard the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government boast about the increased commitment to roads and to rail, Labor between now and 2013 will actually spend only about half as much on roads and rail as the previous government had committed. Labor has only identified $15.5 billion worth of road and rail projects. We had committed over $31 billion. The minister for infrastructure acknowledged as much in the parliament yesterday.

The centrepiece of this budget are three new slush funds: the Building Australia Fund, a health fund and an education fund. The Building Australia Fund steals $2 billion from the Communications Fund set up from the proceeds of the Telstra sale that was to be used to provide new technology in perpetuity in areas where it would otherwise not be profitable or possible. What Labor have effectively done is to steal the money intended for future generations to provide new technology for people living in rural and regional areas and, for that matter, some parts of outer metropolitan areas where it is economically difficult to provide the latest technology. They are stealing that money to provide a replica of existing technology in the cities. Where is the $2 billion actually going to go? They have acknowledged that they need $4.7 billion for their Connecting Australia program, although the latest estimates suggest that to provide fibre to the node to 98 per cent of the Australian population will properly cost closer to $100 billion, not $4.7 billion. The reality is that country people who have had the OPEL contract axed will have no access to high-speed broadband for a minimum of five years even if the Labor Party are ever able to deliver on their promise in relation to fibre to the node. The establishment of this slush fund includes $2 billion put aside for regional Australian telecommunications.

We are told that the balance of the money is to be spent over a range of infrastructure projects. However, during the election Labor made a whole range of promises to build roads—the previous speaker referred to one—and we were told that all of those were going to be funded without question. Labor have set up Infrastructure Australia, which is supposed to assess projects on their merits and ensure that the very best value is obtained for the available money. Yet every project that Labor promised during the election campaign is going to be immune from the Building Australia assessment. That money will therefore be committed to and taken out of the Building Australia slush fund before they have even done the assessment process.

The reality is that the only real funding provided for roads in this budget is for planning, studies and examinations. A classic case is the F3 to Branxton in the Hunter Valley, where Labor are about to fund the 28th study into the traffic needs of the area rather than getting on with the project upon which $100 million has already been spent to acquire land and to plan and ensure that that vital piece of road infrastructure can be built.

Labor are taking $500 million from the funding of the Bruce Highway, much of which is in my own electorate, to spend on other projects, even though they know that this project has been classified by the Automobile Association and, indeed, the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics as the highest priority road project in Queensland. There have been more than 30 fatalities on this road in recent times, yet Labor have taken money away from the project to spend on others without any scrutiny from the Building Australia Fund or any other independent assessment. They have simply moved off in their own direction.

Of course, not all this money is going to be spent on roads and rail. The Building Australia Fund—if there is any money left in it after Labor has fulfilled its election promises—is going to be shared around amongst all kinds of infrastructure projects. The reality is that it will not go around. It will take a year or more, probably two years, before any commitments are made as to how this money will be spent and that will be on the eve of the next federal election. Those who describe this fund, the health fund and the education fund as Sussex Street slush funds have got it right. The reality is that this is money that is being put aside to fund Labor’s next election campaign. It has nothing to do with the welfare of the people of Australia; it is all about a desperate attempt by Labor to get itself re-elected whenever the next election is held.

I refer also to the education fund. More than half of the money in the education fund has actually been taken from our universities endowment fund. It is not Labor’s new money at all. It is closing down a fund that was to provide money in perpetuity to build infrastructure at our universities. It is going to spend the capital as well as the interest for a range of pre-election commitments. This is classic Labor governance: do nothing year after year, talk about planning and studies—more than 100 reviews have already been commissioned—then just on the eve of an election suddenly get the bulldozers to move or provide some money for a grant in a key marginal electorate. That is the way Labor governments operate at state level. The photocopier for the plan has been moved to Canberra and we are seeing exactly the same kind of strategy here. It is a government about spin and about the image of the Prime Minister—making sure that his ties are correctly chosen by the right butler; making sure that he moves with appropriate entourages around the world, with a fleet of aircraft to meet his every need. Labor creates that kind of image rather than actually doing constructive things for the Australian people.

Country Australia took a particularly savage hit in this budget. In the first announcements of budget cuts by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, more than three-quarters of the cuts were to rural and regional Australia. One-third of the people got three-quarters of the cuts; the cities were left largely untouched. Country people are always on Labor’s hit list. Kevin Rudd said on election night that Labor would govern for all Australians, but seven million Australians who live outside the capital cities found in the very first budget that they do not count in Labor’s eyes. In three key areas alone—regional development, communications and agriculture—Labor stripped $1 billion from regional and rural Australia. Labor abolished the Regional Partnerships and Growing Regions programs, saving $436 million. But it only put $176 million back for regional development, and nearly all of that money has been committed for Labor’s election promises—projects like the Fort Street school rort and the respringing of the Canberra dance hall, which would never have stacked up under any kind of proper scrutiny or independent assessment.

Existing agriculture programs worth $334 million have been replaced with climate change programs worth just $220 million. Labor has provided no funding at all for an alternative to the scrapped OPEL contract—$959 million essentially taken directly from regional Australians. Broadband is unlikely to be available to people for at least five years and probably longer. Labor did extend the coalition’s Broadband Guarantee, at a cost of $271 million. That is welcome but it does not meet the hopes and aspirations of people in rural and regional areas who had expected that by now, under the OPEL contract, they would be starting to get the broadband speeds that city people take for granted. So this has been a devastating budget for people who live outside the capital cities. Once more, they know that there is no hope that their concerns and legitimate interests will ever be taken seriously by this government.

Labor’s long list of hates extended through to people in small businesses and  to people in the tourist industry, where programs were slashed substantially. New taxes have been imposed, particularly taxes on people leaving and arriving in Australia. We desperately need to encourage people to come to Australia to keep our tourism industry strong, especially at a time when world fuel prices are high. Labor’s response to that is to increase taxes on people coming to Australia and then also to slash support for the tourist industry in its promotion and in its support programs for Australians in those industries.

They have also attacked a number of important social programs. Stay-at-home mums have never been considered a priority by Labor, and this budget has really demonstrated Labor’s priorities. Rich families who put their children into child care will get an increased tax rebate. They will get an increased tax rebate as long as they put their children into a childcare centre. However, the changes to the family tax benefit income test mean that a mother who earns no income at all and stays at home will get nothing. So a stay-at-home mum who earns nothing will get a significant cut in this budget, but a rich family which puts their children in a childcare centre will get significant tax benefits. This is typical of Labor’s approach to social policy. They believe that children should be raised in childcare centres and that families who take the decision to raise their children within their own environment should be penalised. I think it is an ill-thought-out and very foolish policy. I know that childcare centres do a good job and, to the best of their ability, provide care and support for children, but families which choose to make the sacrifice to be a one-income family and families where the mother or the father spends their full time raising the children also need support. They should not be penalised by a deliberate budget strategy. The coalition’s policy was to try to make that choice possible for families and to make it as taxation neutral as possible. What this government has done is to ensure that families who want to stay at home and look after their children are going to be seriously adversely affected.

This particular budget does nothing for people who were expecting the government to do something about petrol prices, after promising it would. It does nothing to provide any confidence that the government was sincere when it said it would put downward pressure on grocery prices. The reality is in fact that this government is putting upward pressure on grocery prices. Its proposals to introduce new taxes on the transport industry are quite incredible. At a time when fuel prices are going up, this government actually wants to increase the taxation on the transport industry. That will flow through to every item on every shelf in every store around the country. It will have a particular impact on the manufacturing industry outside the capital cities because of the extra cost of transporting products to the marketplace. It will also have a radical impact on industries such as tourism, where people will have to pay more to visit Australia’s leading tourist attractions.

The Treasurer, Wayne Swan, has produced a budget of confusion. Labor says that it will fight inflation, but it introduces a whole range of new inflationary taxes. It is a budget that Labor says will build new infrastructure, but decisions will not be made for years and, in reality, the total expenditure on infrastructure will actually be less. It is meant to be the budget that addresses skills shortages, yet skills-building programs have been cut or abolished. Regional programs that have created and maintained jobs in some of the nation’s most hard-pressed communities have been abolished. Labor has inherited an economy that is the envy of the world, but it is so caught up with its short-term slogans, its slick spin, its vendettas and its hit lists that it has created a visionless mess.

Some taxes go up, some go down, but the losers in this budget will be the very people who Labor claims it supports. The losers in this budget will be successful people, small businesses, the tourism industry and, as I said earlier, stay-at-home mums and people who live in regional areas. The government have attacked key new industries in the ethanol sector. They have axed programs like the remote renewable energy program, which provided opportunities for people who live in remote communities to switch to renewable sources of energy. They have slashed all the support for the ethanol industry to try to drive out of business those who might seek to provide alternatives to expensive oil imports into Australia. And, of course, they have mercilessly attacked private health insurance, which will put an enormous burden on the public hospital system and indeed those people who are already waiting for essential care. This is a budget that attacks the poor. It hurts people in regional Australia, it is a disaster for this country but it is indeed, as the Treasurer said, a true Labor budget.

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to primarily discuss the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and related bills—the budget—in my capacity as a parliamentary secretary and talk about development assistance issues, but before I do I want to briefly make some comments about some national issues and some issues particularly relating to my constituency. The fundamental long-term political significance of this budget is that it has already changed the public understanding of economic management. The economic responsibility equation has changed already and it is reflected in the opinion polls and also in public discourse. The irresponsibility of the spending of previous budgets and the irresponsibility of the spending proposals of the alternative budget is remarkably apparent. It is unwise to underestimate the capacity of the public to see through these things. That in such a short time the Treasurer has been able to establish a lead in the polls on the issue of responsible economic management is a very significant transformation of the political landscape as a result of this budget.

Of course, the debate around budget measures has provoked the usual flurry of short-term, post-budget diversions, with the immediate displacing of the important, and a phalanx of sanctimonious hypocrisy has come forward. We have had people claiming that putting a tax on luxury cars is a terrible imposition, when they are the same people who supported a tax on luxury cars for a decade. They are simply saying we should not change it from 25 per cent to 33 per cent. They are standing up and railing about the definition of luxury cars when the definition has not changed; what has changed is the rate. We hear the most sanctimonious hypocrisy, and it is galling but common. I think we need to cut through all the smoke and haze that surround the immediate, which causes great media frenzy but is of no lasting significance whatsoever, and go to the core of the budget, which is about economic responsibility, nation building and equity. From a national perspective, I am very proud to be supporting the budget.

From a local point of view, mine was the constituency where the alarm about what might happen was very great because of the alarmist talk that was going on about the catastrophe that would befall Canberra as a consequence of the budget. The alarmists have been proved wrong. We are a sector and a city that has taken a bit of a hit, but we have stopped relying on an unsustainable level of spending and got back to a spending base on which we can build. We could not sustain real spending increases of four per cent. Of course it was good in the short term for people in my constituency, and I enjoyed the fact that it meant that there was virtually no unemployment in my constituency. It was a very positive thing, but everybody knew it was unsustainable. We are now moving to a sustainable base.

I welcome the fact that in parallel with this budget and reflected in it is a major review of the role of the National Capital Authority. I do not wish to divert this speech to a discussion about the merits of that—we will deal with that when the review is concluded—but everybody in my constituency knows that I have been very critical of some aspects of the performance of the National Capital Authority. I welcome the review, I welcome the changes and I look forward to the process continuing.

The biggest issue for my constituency in this election related to measures involving universities generally and in particular with regard to the ANU. My constituency has more university campuses in it than any other in the country and they are a very important part of what makes the city tick—not just the ANU but the University of Canberra, the campus of the Australian Catholic University, the Defence Force Academy and, outside my electorate but still in Canberra, the campus of Charles Sturt University. All of those are an important part of Canberra and I welcome the establishment of the $11 billion education infrastructure fund. Not only is it bigger than the older Higher Education Endowment Fund; it is better structured. I was worried about that fund. I was pleased when it was set up and said after the previous budget that I welcomed it because it did create some capacity for enhanced funding of universities’ capital requirements, which was necessary. But there was a disjuncture between the investment profile that was needed to preserve the long-term viability of the fund and the capital requirements of the universities. It was better to have it than nothing, but it was not well structured for the purpose. The EIF looks to me to be a better proposition and I welcome that. I welcome the short-term $500 million provided to universities in the lead-up to the budget. That will be reflected in all the universities here in Canberra to which I have referred, other than ADFA, which is separately funded. In particular, I welcome the special recognition for the ANU, which has been disadvantaged by the formula operating for higher education funding for a long time.

I had a community meeting in my electorate recently, one of a series I have regularly all year round, in the Downer Community Centre in the inner north suburbs of Canberra in my electorate. I was pleased to be able to settle a couple of the myths that had spread and been perpetuated in public discourse, particularly as they related to the pensioners in my electorate. There were people who, because of the character of the public debate, seriously thought that their pension was no longer indexed, and I think people had been deliberately setting out to create that impression. They thought they were not going to receive the bonus when in fact they are. They thought there was no increase for them when in fact there is an approximately $1,000 a year increase for pensioners in the budget. So I am pleased that those who attended that meeting were able to leave satisfied—not that everything had been done for them or that we had finished the task of improving retirement incomes for pensioners but because they had been recognised in this budget and we had set the framework for enhanced recognition in the future. They are the local and national matters I wanted to raise.

In the remaining time, I want to focus on the budget as it relates to Australia’s International Development Assistance Program. As a person who has been engaged in this issue all his adult life, who for the 12 months before the election had the responsibility of developing policy alternatives for the then opposition and who now has responsibility for the new government in implementing these programs, this is a very exciting budget document for me. It is a key building block for the government’s long-term strategy to make our development assistance programs bigger and better. In travelling around the country since the budget I have been delighted to find people of different political persuasions, including some very conservative people, who made it quite clear that they had never voted for my party in their life—

Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And won’t do it again.

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think, in the case of the two I am talking about, that is true—they did not on this last occasion—but who are delighted by this part of the budget and support it. Actually, it took place in South Australia, I am pleased to tell you. They were not from Barker but they were from a very conservative electorate. They did not vote for my party but they think this part of the budget is morally right, is politically right and, I would add, has some significant longer term national interest factors.

I was delighted with the response, for example, at a forum organised by my colleague the member for Kingston. We had a really interesting discussion with a range of people in the community about the strengths and merits of the budget and where it fits in the long term. What the budget papers show, of course, is that in this budget there is a significant improvement in our development assistance funding. We have lifted the ratio of ODA spending to gross national income to 0.32 per cent. While it is still terribly low, significantly this is the highest it has been since 1995-96, when the Labor Party went out of office. The forward estimates show it rising to 0.38 per cent, which will be the highest rate we have had for a very long time, going back to the 1980s. The Treasurer has recommitted us to our election commitment of 0.5 per cent by 2015, which would make our aid budget the highest it has been since 1974-95, as a percentage. We are on track for the biggest increase in the development assistance budget in our history.

When you look at that massive increase—nearly 10 years of scaling up to make up for how far we have fallen behind as a nation—you see that after those 10 years of scaling up, the biggest increase in our history, we will still be a long way below the leading countries in the proportion of our economic assets that are applied to assisting the poorest people. No developed country in the world lives more closely engaged geographically and economically with developing countries than Australia does, yet we have been trailing at the bottom of the pack for a decade in our contribution to development assistance. It is neither morally right nor economically or diplomatically sensible. So we are starting the process of remedying the historic failure of the previous government.

We are also in the process of implementing our election commitments. I will talk about these on subsequent occasions, but I want to mention them today because they are an important part of the pattern of the budget. There is a program which in the short-term will focus on the very important task of dealing with avoidable blindness in developing countries in our region, but it is a precursor to a broader program assisting people with disabilities in developing countries. There is a commitment to scale up assistance for projects around water and sanitation—unclean water and poor sanitation are two of the biggest killers, particularly of young people, in our region—and there is a commitment to assist developing countries to adapt to the challenge of climate change. All those were explicit election commitments that we said we would implement in our first budget, as we have, or that we said we would scale up in our first budget, as we have.

I want to spend the remaining time talking about a particular aspect of our development assistance challenge where we are seeking to not just repair our relationships but transform them. I have the privilege of working with my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs, Duncan Kerr, on re-establishing good relations with our neighbours in the Pacific, where they have been so badly damaged, and creating a new framework for the future. The Prime Minister has spoken of Pacific Partnerships for Development and he has given that tangible status in the Port Moresby declaration, which he issued during his recent visit to Papua New Guinea. That made significant progress towards repairing our relationship with that important neighbour.

Pacific partnerships for development are very important and the Prime Minister will have important things to say about them over the months to come. This budget makes an important contribution to positioning ourselves as a nation to implement those fine words. Fine words are important. They do matter in relationships, but actions matter more. That is why I want to refer to three specific major commitments in this budget. Only two of them I will be able to talk about in any detail. There is a Pacific regional infrastructure facility, an investment in Pacific public sector capacity and there is an initiative with regard to Pacific land issues.

Can I talk first about the question of Pacific public sector capacity. There is a new $107 million four-year initiative called Investing in Pacific Public Sector Capacity—only $6 million in this budget, scaling up over future years as we develop the framework for the policy. It is designed to strengthen public sector administration in the Pacific. This is not where I would have started before I became more closely engaged with this issue, but it is clear that one of the key constraints on the delivery of decent services to the poorest people in our region is the lack of capacity on the ground to develop policies and then implement them, to deliver services to the men and women of the developing countries of our region such that they get a better life. In the long term we are talking about better education for their kids, better health services and better job opportunities, but we need to create the capacity of the governments to set a framework where that can happen and where the government itself is delivering the services—so that it can be done efficiently and effectively.

We are not going to change this overnight, but we do have a commitment to work with the governments, the tertiary institutions and the training institutions in the region, to build up public sector workforce performance, to enhance the regional training institutions that produce graduates and to enter into twinning, mentoring and similar arrangements so that we will foster strong people-to-people and organisational linkages, which will be good for our relationships, will enhance the partnerships and will also strengthen public service capacity in our region. We will be particularly focusing on training for all levels of the public service—for entry level public servants and for mid-level public servants as they start taking on responsibility, and with specialised programs for the current and potential leaders of the public sector, including formal and on-the-job training and work attachments in Australia and within the region. It is not the glamorous side of development assistance but it is a fundamental thing that we need to do and is an initiative of which I am proud.

The Pacific regional infrastructure facility is something we intend to do initially with the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, but we are trying to create a framework where other significant donors in the region, such as the European Union, Japan and possibly China, will come together to contribute within a coherent framework for the regional development of infrastructure. I am not talking just about region-wide infrastructure but infrastructure country by country, economy by economy, in some instances competing across the region to see whose infrastructure proposals have the highest return—economic, social, environmental—so as to develop performance linked support to the basic infrastructure services, in combination with the multilateral development banks and potentially with other donor partners. We are very interested in enhancing the quality of the analytical work that underpins funding allocation and to do it in a manner that is comprehensible locally. It is no good creating a sophisticated black box into which data is put and from which recommendations emerge with nobody understanding the linkage, the criteria or the basis on which they have been made.

We are keen to do that and I have been pushing very hard to make sure that, in addition to the things which we ordinarily think of in infrastructure investment—such as building new roads and new structures—we focus on maintenance. It is the untold story of development assistance around the world—build, degrade, replace. We are not going to continue to do that. Neither is it efficient use of money nor does it send the right economic signals to people whose behaviour we want to change. We want to build these roads so that people will increase production and take it to market on the improved roads that we have supplied. If there is no confidence that the road is going to stay useful for more than five years, you are not going to invest in increased production to take advantage of the market opportunity. We want to look at enhanced analysis and performance links for the basic infrastructure we build. We want to build incentives into the contracts and the mode of operation to ensure that the maintenance is undertaken.

I am please to have the opportunity to speak in support of this budget. As the member for Fraser, I am very pleased to see the things which have emerged within my constituency. As a member of the Labor government, I am pleased to see the national economic responsibility and benefit that is flowing. As the Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance, I am pleased to see the manner in which this budget has created the foundation on which we can transform our relationship with the countries of our region, discharge our obligation and serve our interests as a generous, intelligent donor participating as a responsible international citizen in the task of achieving the Millennium Development Goals.

Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no doubt, if you want to define this budget in one area, that it is a city centric budget and it has been a kick in the guts for people in rural and regional areas. There is no doubt that, when you look at the cuts to the government programs, they have centred on the rural areas which the government obviously do not understand. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry lives in inner Sydney. In fact, if you look at the make-up of the ministry in this Labor government, the ministers are from the cities of Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne—forget about the rest of the country. We have one token minister from Western Australia and one token minister from South Australia and they do not seem to have that much influence on what is happening in this country. Again, the rural areas have had the biggest cuts in this budget. Even before the budget, it was announced that the first cuts would be in rural areas.

The government continue to talk about the so-called skills crisis in Australia, yet one of their first actions was to cut funding for agricultural and horticultural apprenticeships. How smart was that? We really need to continue with apprenticeships to upskill people in our rural areas, but one of the first actions of this Labor government was to cut the funding, just as they cut quite severely the FarmBis program—a very successful program in skilling our farmers and people who help farmers in this country. The only way you can get a FarmBis training program up now is to say it is about climate change. There are a lot of other issues in farming besides climate change. I agree with the agriculture minister when he says we need to adapt to climate change. We have always had climate change and we need to adapt to it, but it should not be the be-all and end-all of getting a training program up for the FarmBis program.

When you look at some of the other training subsidies that the government give, it is interesting to note that they say, ‘We’ll give you a training subsidy for something like picture framing, but too bad if you’re in the mining industry, we’re going to get rid of those training subsidies.’ So there is no training subsidy for the mining industry and many of the other important areas where they are needed. One only has to have been at the Mining Council function last night to realise the importance of the mining industry. But this government say, ‘Okay, we’ll give training subsidies for picture framers’—it might be an important minor area of our economy—‘but forget about it for the mining industry itself.’ How dumb is that sort of situation, when you have a government that does not give training subsidies for the mining industry?

Rural and regional communities across Australia are by no means homogeneous. Indeed, there are many great differences across the states and territories in the size of the towns, the wealth and the environment. Even in my own electorate there are great differences. There is high rainfall areas in the lower south-east—30 to 35 inches, in the old terms—but further up north, in the Riverland, for example, the rainfall is only about 10 inches. So it does vary quite dramatically, even around my electorate, in the things that are grown there. But what they do have in common is a small population spread across a vast area, something that I think city-centric politicians find very hard to understand. The challenges this poses for the rural economy and society for the provision of infrastructure and services are immense. Australians, including many in my electorate, are concerned with agriculture. I have a very large agricultural base in my seat—in fact, the seat of Barker has often been termed the most agricultural seat in Australia. We produce nearly half of Australia’s wine—I am proud to say it is the best wine in this country—in areas like the Barossa, the Coonawarra, Padthaway, Mount Benson, Wrattonbully and Lower Murray. We have some fantastic areas in my electorate for wine production.

We also have a very heavy agricultural industry in the traditional areas of beef cattle, dairy cattle, sheep, horticulture and forestry. Forestry, as I said in my maiden speech, provides about $2 billion per year for the economy in the seat of Barker, so it is a very important part of our economy. We also have very large areas of horticulture. The Riverland, with its citrus, almonds and viticulture, is very important for the economy. Unfortunately, as I have said previously in this House, they are under really severe stress at the moment because of the crisis with the Murray River, which unfortunately this government does not seem to be helping all that much.

We are certainly very much the food bowl of South Australia, if not Australia. What this budget offers for rural and regional Australia, not only in agriculture but also in water and transport, is therefore very important to the constituents in my seat of Barker. It did not take Labor long to show their attitude of ideological indifference and callousness to the needs of rural and regional Australians. Minister Albanese’s decision to abolish the $236 million Regional Partnerships program and the $200 million Growing Regions program is all about a mean-spirited politics of city versus the bush. And they have made great play of some of the problems with the Regional Partnerships program. I do not know of any government program that does not have some problems, but to the best of my knowledge there have been something like 700 successful projects and only a handful of problems with that program. So, on the basis that it has actually been a program that was always going to be a bit risky, in fact many of the things that have happened due to Regional Partnerships would not have happened without the Regional Partnerships program. The decision to scrap 116 Regional Partnerships projects, which were approved by the former government, is a direct swipe at people in the bush. Interestingly enough, in the last 24 hours we have seen one of the biggest backflips that I have ever seen by any government. The government have actually restored 86 of those 116 projects. So, even this new Labor government recognise that many of these Regional Partnerships Programs were in fact very beneficial to Australians in the bush.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That’s because Kochie got onto him!

Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That could be so. We had, for example, programs to help the olive industry. In my electorate the olive industry is actually kicking a lot of goals and it has got up to a size where it has become a quite efficient industry. As another example, we built the first phylloxera treatment plant—very important to our viticulture industry—to kill a bug which could have a devastating effect on our viticulture areas. That was another great program that was funded under Regional Partnerships. Improving the water outlet at the Mount Gambier airport for our firebombers was another fantastic way of spending government money. On the very same day that we had those tragic bushfires on Eyre Peninsula in which several people died and we lost a lot of country—and I was very close to the action—a fire started in the forest in Millicent. As anyone knows, if that fire had gotten away, there perhaps would have been even more tragedy than we saw on the Eyre Peninsula. But the fact is that we had firebombers stationed there that were able to be filled up with water very quickly at the airport, which enabled us to put out that fire within minutes. That was a direct result of funding from the Regional Partnerships program. To say that is somehow a regional rort is absolutely ridiculous.

Concordia Kindergarten, in Murray Bridge, is a small community preschool which sought to expand its premises to offer community services and support to families who were doing it tough. Concordia had raised more than $50,000 from local businesses and the community. The Labor state government had put in $70,000 and Concordia was just waiting on a $107,000 Regional Partnerships grant. Unbelievably, Minister Albanese said, ‘Bad luck, we don’t need that community program at all.’ So he scrapped the Concordia Kindergarten expansion and 115 other projects. We now have a community, already short on services, economically suffering from the drought and now facing the situation of the community donations having to be given back.

The other rural and regional communities in my electorate and across Australia will not be able to apply for any new projects, be they youth projects, community projects or other much-needed infrastructure for at least two years. Another 470 Regional Partnerships grant applicants across Australia—and there are many in my electorate—who have been waiting for over six months for an answer on the future of their applications have been treated with absolute contempt by the Rudd government and none of them will be funded. Disgustingly, Labor frontbenchers like transport Minister Albanese and Finance Minister Tanner, who live in inner Sydney and inner Melbourne respectively, have spent the week in parliament scoffing at these various projects that have been funded under the Regional Partnerships program.

This is a callous government which has clearly targeted regional and rural Australians seemingly for no other reason than that they do not live in eastern seaboard cities and are not represented by Labor members of parliament. But let us not lose sight of the fact that somewhere in Queensland there is a dead tree that is about to get a $2.6 million grant approved by Minister Albanese—and I know that you, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, know that well. It is getting funding because it is a Labor tree. It is a Labor tree so it is going to get $2.6 million worth of funding! This is a disgrace and makes a mockery of Minister Albanese’s claim that the reason that he scrapped the Regional Partnerships program was the Australian National Audit Office report.

The scrapping of Regional Partnerships clearly shows the more than seven million Australians who live outside the major cities exactly what Labor thinks of them. It is a fact that irrigation is a huge economic driver in rural and regional communities, and it certainly is in my electorate. There are many businesses reliant on the irrigation industry and, as the drought has demonstrated, without water these businesses are doing it very tough. Already job losses and loss of population are having a severe impact on many communities in the Riverland and in the Murraylands in the seat of Barker. The Labor government cannot turn a blind eye to the impact that the buying of $3.1 billion worth of water entitlements will have on rural communities along the river. Under our plan, we would ensure that communities would have restructuring and that farmers would be helped to put in water-saving technologies for more efficient irrigation so that they could get more crop per drop.

But not this government. It seems intent on buying water, not necessarily in the overallocated areas. Often this buyback will not provide anything, because the government is buying entitlements from empty dams and from areas that cannot get an allocation now. It is a Clayton’s buyback—you can see that from the average price it paid for the water. For a decent water entitlement you would be paying at least $2,300 a megalitre, and the buybacks have averaged out at $1,400. Many of these buybacks are vacant uses at the moment, so it has not really achieved anything. The Rudd government’s Water Stakeholder Consultative Committee is more than qualified to investigate the socioeconomic impact of buying water entitlements, and its terms of reference should also be widened to include looking at the exit fees on selling water, which make it extraordinarily hard to buy water out of many areas. These caps and exit fees are very important tools to ensure that expensive assets are not stranded and that communities reliant on irrigation are not destroyed.

My electorate is large; it is 64,000 square kilometres; it is actually 10 per cent bigger than Tasmania—not quite as large as the Deputy Speaker’s electorate, but still a large electorate. It is over 500 kilometres from one end to the other, and for the most part it is not served by public transport like the cities are. People in the bush are reliant on filling up at bowsers to go about their business, to get their children to school, to attend medical appointments and to do their grocery shopping, and these can involve long distances. As far as petrol is concerned, the one thing that the Prime Minister can do right now is reduce the excise on fuel. Every day that Australians fill up with petrol  they need to know that under the coalition, whatever the price at the bowser, petrol would be 5½c a litre cheaper. Five-and-a-half cents a litre is a lot of money for a rural family heavily dependent on their car—and they are much more heavily dependent than people in the city. People in rural areas tend to drive at least twice as much as people in the city, if not more so. The 5c tax that the Prime Minister is choosing to place on Australians hits the pockets of rural and regional Australians harder because they are faced with those longer distances and no public transport.

The Prime Minister is trying to deflect attention away from the fact that he does have control over one element of the price of fuel—that is, the excise. If you drive through my electorate you will encounter heavy vehicles. Indeed, the south-east of South Australia is a hub of the heavy transport industry, with its B doubles and articulated vehicles transporting food and household goods to cities and towns across Australia. Labor’s plans to increase diesel fuel excise and registration charges for heavy vehicles will hit rural and regional Australia hard. The transport industry cannot afford to absorb Labor’s increases in fuel excise and registration charges, so the costs will be passed on to the consumer. The government has admitted these rises will flow straight through to consumers and drive up grocery prices for all families. Australian families, working families, will be hit hard with steep increases in prices across the board. For example, it is estimated that the cost of milk will rise by 17c a litre as a consequence of Labor’s slug on heavy vehicles.

With businesses facing closure, many constituents in my electorate held some hope that tourism might hold some salvation. My electorate has much to offer in tourism—unique features such as the Blue Lake in Mount Gambier, the spectacular scenery of the Limestone Coast and the drawcard of wine-tasting in the Barossa and the Coonawarra, to name just a few offerings. The Riverland has a wonderful climate and the magnificent Murray River flowing through it. Unfortunately, it is going through some hard times with the Murray-Darling crisis, not helped by this city-centric government.

The Rudd Labor government has turned its back on the tourism industry, scaling back funding for Tourism Australia, the nation’s peak tourism organisation, plus introducing $940 million in new tourism taxes. How dumb is that? At a time when the tourism sector is dealing with challenges from the high Aussie dollar and increasing fuel prices, Wayne Swan has cut funding for Tourism Australia by nearly $6 million in this budget. In the past, we have seen state Labor governments across the country, but especially in South Australia, slash tourism funding in the face of industry pressures. Now the Treasurer has joined the conga line of inexperienced bean counters.

The tourism sector is sick of being ignored by state Labor governments, and now Australia has wall-to-wall Labor robbing the tourism industry. Staffing levels at Tourism Australia are also being cut back by nearly 10 per cent; however, Labor is choosing to remain silent on this issue. In addition, Labor has effectively halved funding for the Australian Tourism Development Program from $29.9 million to $16 million. This is a major blow for the tourism sector, with the ATDP promoting tourism development in regional and rural Australia on a merit basis, contributing to long-term economic growth and increasing visitor numbers and yield throughout Australia.

People coming to Australia on a tourist visa will now be forced to pay $100 per application, which is an increase of $25, plus $240 for a visa extension, which has gone up from $215. This is highway robbery—slugging tourists more to come to Australia, particularly at a time when the Aussie dollar is so high. Labor is treating tourists like some sort of money-spinner and sending the wrong message to young people overseas.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak today on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and related legislation and to support the government’s budget. This is the first budget of the Rudd Labor government, which has honoured all its election commitments to take practical action in assisting all Australians—older Australians, working families, those on fixed incomes and everyone in the community—with the rising cost of living. This budget will assist our older citizens and those on fixed incomes, including disability support pensioners and carers. It will assist with the day-to-day living expenses and the living pressures that they face. This budget also introduced the $55 billion Working Families Support Package to assist those families in need of support.

The electorate of Hindmarsh, which I represent, has some 25,000 people aged over 65. We know that approximately 218,000 people born in 1945 or 1946 turned 60 in the 2005-06 financial year, and it is estimated that the number of persons aged over 65 will more than double by 2051. There is no doubt that as a society we should always appreciate the economic and social contributions of our older Australians. In addition to their continued work in retirement, many elderly citizens have worked hard throughout the majority of their lives. Some served our country in times of war and others worked very hard either caring for their family or bringing in a decent income for their family to survive. In four years of being a federal member of parliament I have greatly benefited from the relationships I have formed with many of the older residents in my electorate. It is now time to give something back to the elderly in our society, who have contributed and who continue to contribute to our great nation.

That is why there is a commitment in the government’s very first budget to spend over $4.1 billion to help older Australians. That includes a $500 one-off payment for eligible seniors. With the introduction of superannuation under the Hawke-Keating government—something I am very proud to know was introduced to this parliament by the party I belong to—we have seen an increasing number of retirees with a part pension and of fully self-funded retirees, which is a good thing. We are hoping that as people take up the superannuation that has been offered over the last 18-odd years there will be more people funding their retirements and being self-funded retirees.

Nevertheless, there are still a substantial number of seniors who rely solely on the pension. Many of these people may pay rent and be repaying debt. For many of these retirees access to utilities is of utmost concern. That is why this budget will see an increase in the utilities allowance, the seniors concession allowance and the telephone allowance. The budget will inject $3.7 billion into increasing the utilities allowance to $500 for eligible singles and couples per household. This will aid payment of household costs such as energy, rates, and water and sewerage. This is the first time that the utilities allowance will be extended to other eligible persons on the carer payment, the disability support pension, the widow B pension and the wife pension as well as bereavement allowance recipients in addition to current eligible recipients. An increase in the utilities allowance will address the hardship that is inflicted on pensioners who, in many cases, cannot afford to keep the electricity on in winter. We continuously hear horror stories of pensioners’ fear that they will not be able to afford the ever-increasing costs of their bills. I was shocked to hear of people who in winter sit in the dark without a heater on to save on these costs. The extension of the utilities allowance will assist more individuals and families to make ends meet, especially those in severe financial hardship.

I turn now to the proposed increase in the seniors concession allowance. This will be a welcome relief to great numbers of retirees within my electorate of Hindmarsh and across Australia. The seniors concession allowance for retirees will increase to $500 a year. These payments will be paid every three months so they will arrive in the pockets of pensioners in time to pay their many household bills. The increase in the seniors concession allowance will ease some of their concerns. Those who are eligible and are holders of seniors health care cards will now have additional funds every quarter to ease the pressure of daily living costs. We also understand that one of the challenges facing older Australians is remaining connected to their communities. My electorate of Hindmarsh has one of the largest numbers of single households in the country—mainly older Australians, residents who prefer to remain in their own homes as they age. In many cases, this contributes towards their isolation. As such, the threat of isolation for many elderly residents is very real. It is perpetuated by poor access to information regarding services, events within their local communities and assistance that could be offered to them.

The budget will increase the current telephone allowance by 50 per cent for eligible seniors, carers, people with disabilities and other eligible individuals. This increase will encourage more elderly Australians and others on fixed incomes to go online to remain in touch with family members and community groups. Inevitably, the internet will play an increasingly larger role in seniors remaining up to date with what is happening within their immediate community and the broader Australian community. Statistics continue to show that the fastest-growing audience to take advantage of the internet is the elderly. Whether their connection is through email or updates on community based web pages, this allowance will assist older Australians to remain engaged and will encourage lifelong learning—which many older Australians are taking up at an increasing rate. Those individuals who are in receipt of a disability support pension, who are eligible for the allowance, will also benefit as physical or cognitive disabilities will not be barriers to them keeping in touch with their community. With the benefits of the internet clearly visible, the government will establish a seniors internet fund to encourage older Australians to enjoy the benefits of the internet.

Additionally, the government has committed $50 million to introduce a national seniors transport concession scheme for seniors card holders by 1 January 2009. On this note, when I was first elected, one of the very first people to come and see me was the Hon. Kevin Hamilton, who was the former member for Albert Park. He lobbied me on this—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned.