Margaret May (McPherson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2009-2010 and cognate bills. I want to take some time today to address some of my own concerns about the appropriation bills and the budget that was brought down just over two weeks ago and indeed some of the concerns that my constituents have raised with me over the last fortnight. There is no doubt that the budget plunges this country into enormous debt. In fact, we can look forward to years of debt. With a budget deficit of $58 billion brought down, there is no doubt we have a debt bomb, and this country is going to pay for this debt for many years to come.

The government wants to lay blame for the debt and deficit. This is a government who said they were going to stop the blame game, but they are back at it and have certainly started to point the finger. There is no doubt we live in difficult times and, yes, we are having a global financial crisis the likes of which we have never seen before. But I believe Australians are looking for leadership at this stage and they deserve a government that can make tough decisions and not buy votes with reckless spending. We all know in our own lives that whatever we put on the credit card has to be paid for. All Australians will come to the realisation that one day the credit card debt that is being racked up at the moment is going to have to be paid. I believe we now have a legacy of reckless spending—a budget deficit and a debt that will take us well into the future. It is going to impact very heavily on our children and our grandchildren for decades to come.

We have heard some very big numbers being bandied around over the last two weeks, but I would like to put some of those big numbers on the table today to put some of that debt into perspective—what these numbers will mean for the future, what they will mean for every Australian in this country. The word ‘billion’ seems to slide off people’s tongues with little regard for its enormity far too often these days. However, the Rudd-Swan deficit is equivalent to $10,000 worth of debt for each man, woman and child in this country. It is a $58 billion deficit. People might say: what does this matter? It will certainly matter in 2012-13, when the annual interest bill paid by the Australian people will be $8 billion—yes, $8 billion, which is more than the Commonwealth spends each year on infrastructure and housing combined. High interest costs will mean less money for public services like hospitals and schools and less money to address the needs of an ageing population—and I will have more to say on that a bit later.

It is projected that there will be more than one million unemployed Australians by 2010-11. Those unemployed will include someone in your family, a friend, your neighbour. Someone you know is going to lose their job. An extra 500,000 people have become unemployed since Mr Rudd was elected to office in 2007. Net debt by 2012-13 will be $188 billion, and that figure does not include the National Broadband Network—another $43 billion—or indeed the Ruddbank. Spending decisions since the 2007 election account for $124 billion. That is $124 billion spent in just 18 months. What a spending spree. In other words, two-thirds of the debt owed by taxpayers in 2012-13 will be due to spending decisions taken by the Rudd government in the past 18 months—spending that has not proven to be the economic stimulator that we were promised.

This is classic Labor: spend like no-one is watching the bottom line. But let me say to the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and all Labor members of parliament: we are watching and we will hold you to account. The Australian people will not accept such a sloppy destruction of the nation’s balance sheet—a balance sheet that the coalition left in the black. A surplus was left to this government when we lost government in 2007. Mr Rudd was not elected with a mandate to destroy our economy. He was elected as an economic conservative, a statement that seems laughable two budgets into his term as Prime Minister.

A lot has been said by Mr Rudd about our bottom line compared to the rest of the world. When the coalition were in government we made it our aim to be the best in the world. World leaders show the others how it is done, as the coalition did in the past. We went into the global financial crisis with a solid surplus, and Mr Rudd and Mr Swan, the Treasurer, have squandered the hard work of the coalition under John Howard and Peter Costello.

I want to talk about how the locals of McPherson have been hoodwinked by this budget. Mr Swan announced in his budget speech:

… $365 million towards a light rail corridor for the Gold Coast …

Imagine my surprise to read in the budget papers:

The Government has made provision for a possible equity contribution of $365.0 million in 2009-10 in relation to the Gold Coast Light Rail project.

Nothing but smoke and mirrors—’a possible equity contribution’, if the Queensland Labor state government can find some private partners for the project.

Mr Rudd wants to know what a coalition government would do to stimulate the economy. How about some infrastructure projects that deliver long-term economic benefits to local communities? Today I would like to propose a project for the Gold Coast that I hope Mr Rudd and his government will consider and adopt as policy. This idea would stimulate small business and the tourism industry on the southern Gold Coast by funding the extension of the train line from Varsity Lakes, which is nearly completed, to the Gold Coast Airport at Coolangatta immediately. Consider this: we have an international airport located at Coolangatta that is not serviced by any transport other than private vehicle, taxi or tour bus. The Gold Coast is the sixth largest city in this country. It is ludicrous for international passengers to get off a plane and not be able to get any public transport from the Gold Coast Airport. In my view, there is still no plan to address these needs of the Coolangatta airport. The state government, which looks after public transport on the Gold Coast, has no plan.

In the year to 30 December 2007, 850,000 overseas tourists visited the Gold Coast. I believe these tourists should be met with welcoming arms and easy access to our beautiful beaches, our theme parks, our stunning hinterland and our tourist spots. Instead they are stuck. I cannot tell you how many then contact my office to raise this issue with me. Small business would like to see the airport precinct developed more, with public transport as an option for those people arriving on the Gold Coast.

On the subject of small business, it is my belief that this budget does not help the 2.4 million small businesses that drive Australia’s economy. Small businesses are the engine room of our economy, and the 15,020 small businesses in McPherson need a break. The government want to stimulate the economy. I say to the government: to stimulate the economy give small business a break. The Labor government want to keep unemployment low—well, encourage small business to hire and employ people. If you want to help small business, you need to see their cash flow grow. The small business tax break offered is nonsense because small businesses are under cash flow stress and they cannot afford to buy any new equipment and qualify for the scheme.

Small businesses in my electorate are screaming for practical help from the Rudd government and it is falling on deaf ears. In particular, I have been contacted by dozens of restaurants that will be adversely impacted by the award modernisation process of the Rudd government. The Deputy Prime Minister’s Forward with Fairness IR policy has an ironic title given that it is completely unfair to lump restaurants and caterers with staff costs equivalent to those for hotels and casinos that stay open 24 hours a day. Award modernisation is just one example of how Labor continues to mismanage the economy and contribute to the unfavourable conditions currently faced by small business.

Restaurants in my electorate—and many of these restaurants have been operating for many years servicing our community and the tourists who visit the Gold Coast—are predicting that labour cost increases of up to 20 per cent will inevitably lead to higher consumer costs and job losses. And dare I say that many of them have indicated to me that they will be closing the front door. The coalition does not support any policy that results in increased unemployment and inflationary wage outcomes.

Unemployment on the Gold Coast has doubled in the last 12 months, after reaching a record low under the previous coalition government. It was no fluke that the coalition government presided over low unemployment. Our policy supported small business to employ staff and retain them. The coalition recognised that small business is the engine room of our economy.

Labor has missed the point once again with its present policies. It is enterprise that creates jobs, not government. McPherson residents have been let down by this government, and shamefully so. Not only have the Rudd government let down Australians; they have done it in a deceitful way, by giving with the one hand and taking with the other.

There is no more obvious example of this than their blatant disregard for the health and wellbeing of older Australians. I welcome the increase in the age pension in this budget, which came after the Rudd government rejected calls from the coalition to increase the pension last year. Across Australia young and old urged the government to recognise how tough it is for age pensioners, particularly single age pensioners, to make ends meet. Earlier this year I tabled a petition calling on the government to recognise just how difficult it is for age pensioners in this country. More than 7,000 people signed that petition calling on the government for an increase in the single rate of pension, and I am delighted that that has happened. However, it did take more than a year for the government to recognise how tough they were doing it. They ignored the stripping-off of clothes by our age pensioners in a Melbourne street and they ignored the legislation the coalition put on the table last year calling for that increase, so pensioners had to wait 12 long months to see that money come through, and they are not going to see that increase in their pensions until September this year. However, I would say, on a note of caution, to our senior Australians: they should be aware that the dismal state of the budget will affect them even with their pension increase.

Australians will work longer, will retire later and will live on less under the irresponsible changes to superannuation in this budget. The superannuation co-contribution scheme has been cut by a third, from $1,500 to $1,000, and tax relief on voluntary super contributions has been halved. The coalition encouraged people to save for their retirement. Many will be shocked to learn that this Labor government is not supportive of people planning for their retirement.

I am concerned that senior Australians will now pay more for their health needs, with this Labor government having broken their promise to leave the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate and Medicare safety net untouched. We heard from the Prime Minister, hand on heart, and the now Minister for Health and Ageing that they supported the private health rebate, and here we see in this budget—only their second budget—that they have attacked the private health rebate.

Labor’s changes to the Medicare safety net will have wide-ranging effects on local residents who try to access essential services such as obstetrics, reproductive technology and cataract surgery. It is disappointing that, with our ageing population, the Treasurer has presented no plan as to how he will sustain the pension rise and balance the books for the future.

Self-funded retirees have received a slight reprieve, with the government quietly backing down on their proposed changes to eligibility for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card, and so they should. We strongly opposed these changes from the outset and it is only because of pressure from the coalition and seniors groups that this government accepted that the proposal—the one they put on the table—was wrong. Now this measure, which was part of last year’s budget, has been quietly withdrawn. But they are not doing anyone a favour because while they give with the one hand they take with the other, having made cuts to the private health insurance rebate.

The 52,659 residents of McPherson with private health insurance will pay the price for the Rudd government’s sustained attack on private health insurance. The Rudd government hates choice and is pushing those who choose to provide for their health needs and that of their families onto the public health system.

Another broken promise that will adversely impact on my electorate of McPherson is the NBN, the National Broadband Network—more aptly named the ‘nonsense broadband notion’. First Mr Rudd was going to spend up to $4.7 billion on the rollout of a national broadband network, providing fibre based services to 98 per cent of Australians. Now Labor wants us to believe in a plan to construct a $43 billion network, likely to require a taxpayer contribution in excess of $21.5 billion, to be rolled out to around 80 per cent of the population. But when is this to happen? The key elements of affordability and commercial viability to encourage a partnership with the private sector are the obvious missing details. In the absence of a business plan or cost benefit analysis, the Australian people need assurances that such a massive government investment is going to work. It is a risky plan. We need more details. The coalition are committed to ensuring Australians have universal, reliable and affordable access to fast broadband services. Where we differ from Labor is on how that is to be delivered.

I would like to put on the record, in the few minutes I have left, a few comments about the aged-care sector. The Rudd government’s massive debt and deficit ignored a Senate report, a Productivity Commission report, industry leaders and its own National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission report when it callously overlooked the embattled aged-care sector in this year’s budget. I believe this government is not serious about addressing the challenges of an ageing population in this country. The Rudd government’s poorly targeted cash-splash handouts and reckless spending have come at a high cost to the aged-care sector, which has missed out as a result.

Wayne Swan was quoted on 8 May as saying:

… the federal budget will contain reforms to address longer-term structural problems caused by the ageing population.

What he says and what he does are two completely different things. The Rudd government has completely failed to recognise the impact an ageing population will have on the aged-care sector. If Kevin Rudd were serious about caring for senior Australians, aged-care infrastructure would not have been excluded from the $22 billion infrastructure package and the two previous stimulus packages. It is disappointing that investment in the aged-care needs of an ageing population is not a Rudd government priority. Investing in local aged-care infrastructure would have provided long-term economic and social benefits and created vital local jobs. There were no reform measures in this budget to improve the availability, quality, flexibility and sustainability of aged-care services throughout this country. Under the current policy settings, older Australians will not be able to access the quality of and the choice of care they want and need. It was a discouraging budget from a consumer and service provider perspective.

One comment worth noting was in Budget Paper No. 2. The Treasurer and the Minister for Finance and Deregulation stated:

The Government will continue to consider the longer term needs of the aged care system, taking into account relevant recommendations in the final report of the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission.

We can only hope that the absence of major reform measures in the budget may reflect the timetable for the NHHRC report. The final report is due to be released in June.

We know that baby boomers—people reaching the age of 65 in just over a year—will be looking for those aged-care services in the future, whether those services are delivered through an aged-care facility or at home, and we know the aged-care sector is under a lot of stress at the moment. The industry has said it and all those reports have said it. I think it is disappointing that in this budget we did not see anything for aged care for the next 12 months. We saw cuts in the budget but nothing to assist with the infrastructure needs of the aged-care industry and, indeed, for those people requiring aged-care services in their own home.

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2009-2010 and cognate budget appropriation bills. These bills follow what has been one of the greatest economic challenges of our times. In building the budget, the Rudd government were faced with a considerable challenge: how do we develop a budget that supports local jobs now, a budget which invests in infrastructure in the long run, and a budget that is fiscally responsible? These are challenges faced by the Rudd government at a time when tax receipts have been revised downwards for the forward estimates by $210 billion. They are the facts of this budget.

We have made some tough choices in this budget—choices that are in the interests of our nation’s future. We as a government have chosen to borrow responsibly to provide support for our economy at a time when investment is most needed. Almost 70 per cent of the Rudd government’s economic stimulus is going towards nation building, creating jobs today and building our nation’s infrastructure for tomorrow. This economic stimulus is going towards the largest modernisation of schools that this country has ever seen. It is building new road and rail links and investing in new buildings for hospitals and health facilities, and in higher education and TAFEs.

Already in my own electorate I have announced $9.5 million in funding to refurbish 85 schools across the Ballarat district, $40.1 million for major infrastructure projects under round 1 of the Primary Schools for the 21st Century program, funding for 59 social housing units constructed across my electorate, $563,000 for Moorabool Shire, $425,000 for Hepburn Shire and $1.5 million for Ballarat City Council to build community infrastructure to improve the wellbeing of our community. There will be $2.2 million towards a community recreation facility at Creswick, $5 million towards the Eureka Centre for Democracy in Ballarat and some $5.3 million for 18 black spots across my electorate. That is to name just a few of the announcements that have been made.

In the face of this global recession, the government have chosen to go down the path of building our nation because we know that this downturn in the economy needs to be addressed quickly. It needs to be addressed in the most productive way possible, and that is by building our infrastructure, removing capacity constraints in the economy, training our people and ensuring that our children have access to 21st century facilities to learn in. All of this is so that when this recession ends we will be in the best possible position to grow our economy and grow it strongly. These are the circumstances that we are in today. Our gross domestic product is expected to fall by half a per cent in 2009-10, with a recovery sometime in 2010 or 2011. Unemployment is expected to rise to 8½ per cent by June 2011. Government revenues are expected to continue to decline dramatically. That is why we have announced a third round of stimulus measures, to support our national economy for the long term.

But it is not all doom and gloom, as those opposite would lead you to believe. Our economy is facing this challenge in a much stronger position than any other advanced economy. A sturdy financial system, a strong public finance sector and early and decisive action mean that we are in a good position to come out of the other side of this global recession positively. I am proud to be part of a government that has acted so decisively instead of sitting on its hands and doing nothing. Our measures are going a long way toward supporting jobs and protecting families from the impact of the worst global recession in 75 years.

I want to go to some of the measures in the budget. As part of the Rudd government’s budget, we have announced we will extend the first home owners boost for an extra six months and then phase it out. This extension has been announced to support jobs and to support those looking to buy their first home. I encourage those in my electorate who are in a position to take advantage of this, and the additional money on offer from the Victorian state government, to act within that extension period. There is no doubt that the first home owners boost has saved the home building and construction industry from significant job losses and injected much-needed funds into local economies. The real estate industry across the Ballarat electorate and those whom I speak to in property development have clearly told me that the first home owners boost has been a significant factor in sustaining their industry during this time of global uncertainty.

I would also like to draw attention to our announcement, as part of this budget, to increase the small business and general business tax break from 30 to 50 per cent for eligible assets. At the start of May, the member for Rankin and minister for small business, Craig Emerson, visited the Ballarat electorate. We met with a large number of small business owners. The message from small business was across-the-board support for the original 30 per cent tax break. Over the past fortnight, I have had the pleasure of discussing the Rudd government’s commitment to increasing the tax break to 50 per cent. This is again a measure that is assisting small business but is also designed to keep cash circulating within local economies. I have no doubt that jobs in the retail sector in particular have benefited and will benefit from this initiative.

One of the central focuses of this budget is strong investment in major infrastructure projects across the nation. The investment in infrastructure via this budget across the Ballarat electorate is frankly unprecedented. Let me run through some of the projects. As part of the budget, we have allocated funding to have work started on two key major road projects on the Western Highway—one at Anthony’s Cutting, the Djerriwarrh Creek intersection between Melton and the town of Bacchus Marsh. We have also committed funds to start work on the Western Highway duplication from Ballarat to Stawell. These projects come on the back of the opening of the Deer Park bypass. The combination of these three projects alone will transform the Ballarat electorate into western Victoria’s regional network hub.

At the previous election, members on this side of the House committed to removing infrastructure bottlenecks across the country. We are achieving this commitment through such measures. Not only will regions of the Ballarat electorate be more accessible to Victorians for tourism but local residents will find it much easier to travel to work and to visit family and friends. Combined with this efficiency, this sound investment in major road projects will significantly improve safety on our major roads. It is anticipated that the Anthony’s Cutting project alone will support over 500 jobs, keeping people employed and money circulating through local economies.

Other measures have also been implemented locally, as part of this budget, to address road safety. In addition to these large-scale infrastructure projects, $5.3 million is going towards eliminating 18 dangerous black spots on local roads across my electorate, combined with funding for boom gates and other safety measures at six high-risk level crossings. The Rudd government has also been working with local councils to implement its infrastructure program. The Community Infrastructure Program has seen local councils across the Ballarat electorate receive funding from this budget. Community infrastructure projects that have had funding allocated are well underway. I have already opened the first of them in my electorate, at Paddock’s Creek Reserve in Gordon. I congratulate Moorabool Shire and the local community at Gordon on a wonderful job.

On top of this, the Rudd government is also providing some $5 million to the City of Ballarat for the Eureka Centre for Democracy. We have committed $2.2 million to the Hepburn Shire Council for the Doug Lindsay Recreation Reserve. Other significant infrastructure projects include the $1.5 million for the Ballarat aquatic centre stage 2 redevelopment, which is just about to commence, and some $200,000 for the Trentham neighbourhood centre renewal. All of this is significant investment that is supporting local jobs and businesses through the current global recession. It will support jobs across building and construction but also across other parts of our economy as the workers employed in that industry spend their wages in our local economy.

I also want to mention the National Broadband Network. We have committed to building a $43 billion superfast broadband network, an incredibly important piece of infrastructure for regional areas. The government has allocated in this budget some $54.2 million over two years to implement and establish the National Broadband Network. Across the electorate of Ballarat, I already have major stakeholders keen and interested in the rollout of the network and looking at how they can participate. Residents across my electorate are fully aware of the benefits of the National Broadband Network, the biggest nation-building infrastructure project in Australia’s history. I strongly support the rural and regional initiatives announced as part of the budget and look forward to working with Senator Conroy on how these measures will benefit the various parts of my district.

I also want to touch on our Clean Energy Initiative: I support our investment of $4.5 billion in new clean energy initiatives. I welcome the introduction of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and the changes to the national renewable energy targets. The Rudd government have continually recognised our role in the fight against climate change. This has been reflected in our nation-building plan. It is important in local and regional economies that we take advantage of some of these measures to make sure that we grow green jobs for our future.

As part of the budget the Rudd government announced $2.6 billion for tertiary education and innovation infrastructure through the Education Investment Fund. As part of that announcement, I was pleased to announce over $58 million coming into my electorate for the University of Ballarat. The University of Ballarat Vice-Chancellor, David Battersby, stated:

We look forward to developing these projects … to add to the learning, teaching, research and industry strengths of Ballarat and its region.

This funding is broken down into two major projects: $39.97 million for the university to rebuild its science and engineering precinct to establish a world-class regional learning, teaching and research facility, and $18 million for a manufacturing technology training centre for the University of Ballarat. The $39.97 million for the science and engineering precinct will fund a new three-storey building to enable both the science and engineering disciplines to collaborate and interact in a new multidisciplinary environment. Students, staff and researchers from the university’s mining, engineering and environmental sciences disciplines will all take advantage of this great new facility.

The head of school, Dr Kim Dowling, emailed me on the announcement and stated:

I am certain many people have thanked you for your support of the University of Ballarat but I wanted to personally thank you for your support of the School of Science and Engineering. The building project ($40 Million for the new Science and Engineering precinct) that was announced in the budget affirms that it is a great time to be in a regional University and this is a clear message of support for our work. There is much to do and I am sure we have some obstacles before us, but I have to say, it is a wonderful time to be in Science and Engineering.

The $18 million funding to go to the manufacturing technology training centre at the University of Ballarat’s TAFE campus will provide modern training facilities, both expanding and enhancing diversity and delivery of courses in emerging manufacturing technologies across my electorate. The introduction of state-of-the-art learning technology will address an area of skill shortage in the region by providing job-ready graduates who are familiar with current industry practice.

Both these projects are great news for the education sector across Ballarat as we work towards building first-class education facilities. But they are also good news for jobs. Not only will local tradespeople be able to get involved with the building of both these projects but by investing in projects such as a manufacturing technology and training centre we set up our local manufacturing industry for future growth. I also look forward to those opposite and senators supporting this funding for the University of Ballarat in these appropriations.

I also briefly want to talk about paid parental leave; it is something which seems to have got a little lost in the post-budget debate. Another measure outlined in these appropriations is our commitment to paid parental leave. This is the first of its kind in Australia and it ensures families can strike a good balance between paid work and supporting their children. The investment is over $731 million over five years and will start from 1 January 2011. The investment will see 150,000 new parents eligible for an income while looking after their children.

The Rudd government’s commitment to introducing a paid parental scheme in our country is something that I am very proud of, and is a significant moment in my time as a member of parliament. For too long our country has dropped the ball in the area of supporting working families, and members on this side are wholeheartedly supportive of this initiative. I also urge those members opposite to support it. I have no doubt the member for Indi will support the measure, as I note in her speech to parliament on 10 March 2009 she stated:

… the Labor Party cannot come up with any funding for a paid parental leave scheme about which it has built such high expectations.

We have come up with the money in the budget and we have come up with a decent scheme. I certainly hope the opposition supports it.

There are also a number of retirement income measures in the budget. Since the election I have spoken to hundreds of pensioners, as many other members of parliament would have. I have told many pensioners throughout the Ballarat electorate that I am committed to reforming our nation’s pension system. Let us make no mistake about this: there has absolutely been a need for change. Single age pensioners, in particular those who do not own their own home, are some of the financially worst off in our community. Despite years of talking about it in opposition, when in government the coalition did absolutely nothing. After 13 years in government they waited until they were in opposition—a position from which they can actually deliver nothing—to promise pensioners a pay rise: a meaningless promise. They made the promise knowing they would never have to deliver on it.

The Labor Party has delivered on its promise. It is the Labor Party that shows it understands the plight of people in poverty and acts to try and alleviate that poverty. As part of this budget we are delivering on our commitment to pensioners. As of 20 September this year, full-rate single pensioners will be delivered increases of $32.49 per week, and full-rate pensioner couples will receive an increase of $10.14 per week combined. For the 15,000 age pensioners across my electorate, many of whom I have talked to about their pensions, this is welcome news. These pensioners across the district will now receive $336.68 per week instead of the $304 they previously received.

As part of the budget we have also announced that the new annual carer supplement of $600 will be paid to people who receive carer payment. This payment will be provided to around 450,000 recipients of carer allowance, with an extra $600 for each person they care for. Some 5,000 carers across my electorate will benefit from these changes. These are just some of the income support measures that are happening across my electorate to support local jobs and to grow local economies. I have also outlined the infrastructure projects that are occurring.

I would like to recognise the government’s commitment to guide the nation’s finances back to surplus. As I said earlier, the global recession has ripped some $210 billion in government revenue out of the budget. Two-thirds of the budget deficit is as a result of the decline in government revenues. Despite the claims of the opposition, the decline in government revenues is the single largest factor affecting the size of the deficit—a deficit that would therefore exist whether it was us in government or the Liberal Party in government. The Rudd government have put together a budget for the future of Australia. We will continue to work to uphold Australia’s AAA rating given by the Standard and Poor’s rating agency and maintain our nation’s strong financial position. The Rudd government’s decision-making through this budget and other major initiatives will see removal of significant capacity constraints that have been pushing down on our nation’s economy over past decades. Our investment in the long term will ensure that we are in a much stronger position financially into the future. We are spending responsibly on those productive elements of the economy to ensure that we have strong growth into the future.

It is not possible, given the need to provide financial stimulus to the economy and with the collapse in government revenues, to avoid deficit budgets. That is the untruth of the Liberal Party’s line. If you follow their logic, the only way that there would not be a deficit is to either dramatically increase taxes or to drastically cut government spending. Unfortunately, the opposition has yet to present which of these alternatives it intends to follow.

The budget we have delivered is economically responsible. We have delivered a budget that supports jobs. It sets up our nation in the short, medium and longer term. Unfortunately, those opposite have taken a different view. They have decided to run yet another scare campaign—something that is very easy to do from opposition. We obviously managed to do that many times ourselves from opposition. It is clear that the opposition either does not understand what is happening with the global recession or is deliberately refusing to acknowledge it. It is clear that the opposition does not have a plan to support jobs in local economies. That was clear in the lack of any alternative fiscal policy in the Leader of the Opposition’s budget in reply speech. It included a lot of talking down of the economy and a lot of scaremongering, but it did not include an alternative fiscal policy.

It feels like only yesterday that former Prime Minister John Howard was in the chamber telling us how, yet again, he would splurge the government’s boost in revenue from the mining boom. As a result of that poorly targeted investment in the past, we have seen increasing pressure on infrastructure bottlenecks, underinvestment in health and education and lack of support in the long-term sustainability of our nation’s jobs. There was so much they could have done in those 13 years with that massive amount of money. They all know that most of this deficit has been caused by the end of the mining boom and the global recession. Those opposite have clearly been outspoken in their opposition to the government’s stimulus plan and in their decision not to support many of the infrastructure building measures—opposing our investment in roads, rail, ports, schools and broadband. Those are all measures to support jobs and to grow our local economy.

I challenge those members opposite and duty senators in my electorate who do not believe to visit some of the nation-building projects in my electorate and explain why they have not supported them. I challenge them, when they come to the openings of the school buildings—because we, unlike the previous member, will invite duty senators to openings—to explain why they did not support our local economy and why they failed to support investment in local projects. I rise here today proudly to support the budget. I commend these bills to the House.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to speak in this important budget debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2009-2010 and cognate bills. We have heard many things in the two weeks since budget night. A budget is more than just a set of financial statements. It very much tells the story of a government at so many levels. A budget shows the competence of a government. A budget shows the priorities of a government and sets a window through which the public can see how their government is really performing. This budget of two and a bit weeks ago, coming halfway through this parliamentary term, has given the Australian people a much clearer view of the Rudd Labor government.

Through this budget process the public are beginning to see the true Labor Party. At every level this budget has shown a government that is economically incompetent, a government that panics and bungles, and, most particularly, it shows a government obsessed with spin and silly language. It is obsessed with silly language to the point of comedy. The sad thing about it is that the only people that do not seem to see the comedy are the Labor Party ministers and their backbench.

We just heard a 20-minute contribution from the member for Ballarat. I do not single her out; she just happened to be speaking before me. We could check later, but I think she uttered the word ‘decisive’ about five or 10 times—as they all do. It is as if they have been told that every sentence they utter must have one of the Prime Minister or Treasurer’s buzzwords and that somehow that will cover for their economic incompetence and bungling.

We saw this begin before the government was elected, but we witnessed it plummet to new depths in the week before the budget. We saw the Treasurer and the Prime Minister talk seriously about temporary deficits for the next six years—six years being a temporary period of time! They persisted with this line day after day. As I have said in previous debates, it is lucky that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer are not running a garage, where you dropped your car off and took the temporary car while your car was serviced. Imagine coming back every night for six years only to be told, ‘No, your car is not ready. Stick with the temporary car.’ The language before the budget and the response to it all around Australia, and, rightly, from the press gallery, should have been a warning to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer that their obsession with cute lines and tortuous language was wearing thin.

In a time of economic difficulty you expect a Prime Minister and a Treasurer to be candid. On budget night we saw something that was utterly amazing. At the end of the day, Madam Deputy Speaker, all of the budget papers and the associated financial statements come down to the budget bottom line. That is what they all add up to. When everything is said and done it comes down to one figure—the surplus or deficit. We saw the Treasurer on budget night stand up and give a 30-minute speech and not mention the budget deficit figure. This was remarkable at one level, but I have to say it was sad for the Treasurer. One day he will realise just what a ridiculous omission that was—thinking that not mentioning the budget deficit figure in the budget speech would somehow conceal it from the Australian people.

Just in case that was some accident, the very next day, after the Treasurer had been questioned on budget night about why the figure was not there, we saw him still refusing to be candid and utter the budget deficit figure in a radio interview with Fran Kelly:

Kelly: Treasurer, you didn’t say the deficit number in the speech last night. Are you scared of saying it out loud?

Wayne Swan: No, I’m not scared of saying the deficit number.

Kelly: Do you want to say it now? What is the deficit?

Swan: We outlined it in great detail last night and it’s 57.

Fifty-seven what? This is juvenile beyond belief. Fifty-seven what? We all know—$57 billion. That is what he is talking about. He is talking about dollars. He could not say it in his budget speech and he could not bring himself to say it the next day. Far from concealing it, he highlighted the economic incompetence of this government and its utter determination to do anything but level with the Australian people. In his own performance he shone a spotlight on the failings of this government. Fifty-seven what? ‘$57 billion’ is what he was trying to say, but for those listening to Fran Kelly it could have been 57 hair dryers, 57 hard hats or 57 fluorescent vests—another obsession of this government. You would think that would be enough to make the tactics-obsessed Labor Party say, ‘Hang on—we’ve made a big blue here. We’d better change tack.’ But, no. The Prime Minister gave us a window to see where this was all coming from.

It is quite obvious that this was the Prime Minister again at his manic best, because the Prime Minister embarked on a similar ‘don’t mention the war’ strategy when it came to government debt. In the week following the budget the Prime Minister refused to mention the level of debt and the billions of dollars in the one sentence. It was absolutely torturous to watch, and it reached a peak on the Lateline program. Tony Jones must have thought that he was interviewing John Clarke. It made the John Clarke interview at the end of The 7.30 Report look lame. It is something that we have never seen a Prime Minister do before. Tony Jones said to the Prime Minister: ‘What is the actual figure?’ ‘Well, Tony, I’m about to come to that when I go to the constituent parts.’ He refused to answer the question.

Tony Jones followed up, ‘But all I’m asking for is one figure.’ Prime Minister, ‘I’m about to come to that. In the budget papers, we’ve been aiming to a gross figure of 13.8, which comes out at about 300.’ Again, 300 what? Jones, ‘That figure is $300-billion, is that right?’ Prime Minister, ‘As I said before, 13.8 per cent of GDP as described in the Budget papers.’ Finally, in exasperation, Tony Jones said, ‘Is there a political spin rule which says the Prime Minister must not say that figure, because it seems very hard to get you to say $300 billion.’

The answer to Tony Jones’s question is yes, there is a political spin rule and political spin dominates this government, at every level. This farce is continuing with the Prime Minister in his interviews. We saw exactly the same tortuous language when it came to whether he would admit he had broken promises. He has broken promises, solemn promises he gave, hand on heart, before the election; many of them. The first to stand out is the promise not to touch, in any way, shape or form, or to alter in any respect the private health insurance rebate. Kevin Rudd signed the letter in his own hand which said:

Both my shadow minister for health Nicola Roxon and I have made clear on many occasions this year that federal Labor is committed to retaining the existing private health insurance rebates, including the 30 per cent general rebate and the 35 and 40 per cent rebates for older Australians.

He said in a press conference:

Private health insurance rebate policy remains unchanged and will remain unchanged.

He is prepared to sign his name to a letter and break his own word. On superannuation, just a couple of weeks before the election, speaking on 4BC radio in Brisbane on 12 November, the Prime Minister said:

There will be no change to the superannuation laws—not one jot, not one tittle.

The day after the budget, the Prime Minister was interviewed by Neil Mitchell on 3AW, Melbourne, who began the interview by asking the Prime Minister:

Will you apologise to the Australian people for directly breaking the promises you made before the election?

PRIME MINISTER—Neil, I accept full responsibility for that and for not being able to fulfil some of these policy commitments.

MITCHELL—It’s not that; it’s the broken promises.

PRIME MINISTER—No, policy commitments.

MITCHELL—Promises broken, Prime Minister.

PRIME MINISTER—Policy commitments that we have not fulfilled. I accept full responsibility for that.

MITCHELL: But don’t you accept there were promises broken?

PRIME MINISTER: Well, we’re talking about exactly the same thing.

We are not talking about the same thing. This is ridiculous, tortuous language. The Prime Minister now says he has not broken any promises because he did not make any promises before the last election. That will be news to the Australian people. He made policy commitments and in the Prime Minister’s crazy world somehow they are different. The Prime Minister wants the Australian people to believe that he did not make a single promise before the election, that he made policy commitments, and it is okay to break those. The Australian people are beginning to wake up to this.

Australians are beginning to see a Prime Minister that is more worried about stunts than he is about the detail and about getting it right. They have seen a Prime Minister who will play with the truth and who will do anything to avoid levelling with the Australian people. We saw this in the imagery in the week after the budget: the Prime Minister in a fluorescent vest and hard hat, surrounded by fellow ministers. Whenever you see a fluorescent vest and a hard hat coming, you know the Labor caucus is on the way.

It is pretty obvious that in budget week the Labor caucus were not issued with briefing notes on the budget. That has been very obvious this week. The member for Petrie copped some criticism because she could not say at a press conference what the budget deficit figure was. It might shock you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it might shock my Liberal colleague here, but I felt sorry for the member for Petrie. She sat through the budget speech, and she did not hear the budget deficit figure. She would have sat through the caucus briefing beforehand for half an hour, and what we know from that is that the budget deficit figure would not have been released. When the Labor caucus members came to get their briefing material at the end of budget week for the budget sell in their electorates, they got a kit from Bunnings. They got a hard hat and a fluorescent vest. As I said the other day, when they appear at these sites they should also take a sign: ‘Danger! Reckless spenders in vicinity’.

Only today we saw the extent—and this is just one example—of the bungling of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer say money needs to be spent so, therefore, there should be no scrutiny and there should be no care and responsibility for how that money is spent. We have seen today some more detail on an earlier story about the $40 million of the stimulus package and the $900 payments going to dead people and expats. We knew shortly after the release of the February package that the $900 was going to criminals—Kev’s cash for crims. And today we have the headline in the Herald Sun: ‘Dead lucky: PM’s $40 million gift to Aussies in the grave’. Money going from Australia to overseas does not stimulate the Australian economy. Now $40 million might not seem like a lot to the Prime Minister with the amount he is spending, but this is an example of the litany of mistakes that we have seen at every turn from this Prime Minister and from this Treasurer.

This budget is a budget that Australia has not seen before. It took 10 long years to pay off the $96 billion of debt that the last Labor government left this country. It took 10 long years and it was $96 billion. Now we have debt not seen in our lifetimes and it is at Everest levels. What the Labor Party and those opposite should be saying as they wear their hard hats and fluorescent vests is what the interest cost of that will be for taxpayers not just today but 10, 20 and 30 years into the future, because every dollar borrowed has to be paid back and the interest on that every year is something that will borne by the taxpayers of today and tomorrow. (Time expired)

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great honour to speak in support of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2009-2010 and cognate bills, which are part of one of the toughest budgets that has had to be delivered in Australian history, certainly in the history of the Federation. I hear some snickering from the member for Mayo. He, of course, is part of that chorus of snickering that is taking place on the other side of the House. Looking at history, what does an opposition do? I am not asking what this opposition does; in the Westminster system what does an opposition generally do? As the name suggests, it opposes. But that is a bit of a misnomer. It really should propose rather than oppose, so I guess it should be called the proposition rather than the opposition.

But those opposite have lived up to the term ‘opposition’ because it does not matter how constructive our ideas are, how necessary the budget proposals are or what the government puts forward, the opposition just say ‘no’—’computer says no’; Malcolm Turnbull says ‘no’; the member for Mayo says ‘no’. They do not look at how times have changed. They do not look at the fact that the waves from the world recession have lapped on the shores of Australia. That requires different thinking.

It is not like 3 March 1996, when Australia had changed significantly in the previous 10, 11 or 12 years under the Hawke and Keating governments. Significant financial reform had taken place that had a significant impact in the community. It is not like workers had forgone pay rises so that there could be significant workplace reform. It was not the Australia of 2009. Back when John Howard became Prime Minister, all the heavy lifting had taken place beforehand. Hawke and Keating had made significant reforms. I have 20 minutes and it would take me that long to go through all the significant reforms of the Hawke and Keating governments.

Under the coalition, one significant reform was put forward, which I will acknowledge. It was basically an accounting readjustment: the GST. In terms of significant financial reform, when Peter Costello looks at his ledger he cannot name anything at all. I always give John Howard his due for three things. One is the fact that he got up and went for a walk every morning, even if he was busy, which is a good message to all Australians. If the Prime Minister is not too busy to go for a walk, then every Australian should be able to go for a walk, or do some exercise like riding a bike. He also brought in the firearm controls, which was quite commendable, and he did work hard for the country—so I acknowledge those three things. But the heavy lifting was done by the Hawke and Keating governments. As to significant reform in Australia, especially in the latter part of the term of the Howard government, when there were rivers of gold flowing into Australia because of the mining boom, nothing was done.

Having worked in the mining sector, I have been up to Dalrymple Bay and places like that, flown over Newcastle and seen all those infrastructure bottlenecks where the government could have stepped in and given a helping hand—a bit of guidance—which is what a good reform government does. It has an eye on the horizon rather than on election night. Maybe Howard and Costello were getting bad advice or something like that—I am not sure—but they were obviously not prepared to do the heavy lifting and instead did nothing.

The Rudd government has come into a situation in which the world’s books are a bit crook. So what do we do? We readjust to that. We look at the fact that we have to do what we can for the future. We have to do a bit of nation building. We have to have the commitment to go into places. We have to think of things like the Snowy River scheme. What is the modern day equivalent to the Snowy River scheme? It is broadband under our streets. That is why we have pumped 70 per cent of our economic stimulus into nation-building infrastructure that will improve all of our schools—

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Briggs interjecting

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When the member for Mayo went to those school meetings where they said, ‘We’re looking forward to our schools being improved,’ I am sure he would have said, ‘This is a fantastic way to spend our money.’ It is appropriate to undertake the biggest school modernisation program in Australia’s history. It is unbelievable. I was a school teacher for 11 years so I know how tough it can be for schools, both state and private. Going around my electorate and talking to the teachers, principals, P&C presidents and parents I have found that they love it. They absolutely love it. They, like every MP in this House, give it a big collective thumbs up. They love that we are investing in schools. Every community obviously has a school.

But we are not just doing that. In building for the future we are also investing in roads, rail, ports, hospitals, broadband and major solar energy projects. Whether you are in the bush or in the city people are starting to see how we will reap the benefits in the future. ‘Productivity’ is a word that Peter Costello and John Howard did not talk about, or the fact that when they handed over government productivity was at zero. What was it again? Zero. Obviously we needed a budget that was about addressing some of the economic circumstances, because that is what a budget does. Obviously productivity—

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Briggs interjecting

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are not suggesting are you, member for Mayo, that productivity is not a part of the economy? Productivity is the No. 1 indicator of a healthy economy. During a global economic downturn, such as this government has experienced, we obviously need to step in and do something and not, as is the opposition policy, wait and see. Now that is a great policy!

When things are a bit tough, it is okay for any responsible, healthy household to borrow. If you have an income of a hundred grand it is not inappropriate to borrow five grand. No-one would suggest that that is a bad thing. So the government is taking responsible decisions to make sure that that borrowing can be paid off, that we can return the budget to surplus and ensure that our net debt remains the lowest of any major advanced economy in the world.

It is great to go around the electorate and see what we have proposed. It is great to look at the black spot projects and how they will save lives. It is great to look at social housing. Now there is a quiet revolution. I think that what we have done and are doing for homelessness is wonderful. I think the Prime Minister’s first white paper was on homelessness. Why? Because it is something that he cares passionately about. You judge a society by how it treats those who are less fortunate not how it looks after millionaires, the upper middle class and the like. You judge a society by how it looks after the unfortunate. When the Commonwealth government deserted the field when it came to public housing what did they do? They rewarded landlords. That is how they addressed homelessness. They did not build units of public housing; instead, they said, ‘Landlords, here’s a bit of extra money in your kitty,’ as if that was a good thing, as if that was good policy.

Look at the policies we are rolling out which will stimulate jobs and ensure that the builder living next door to me—in fact, I have two builders living next door to me and a plumber living on the other side—will have work. They will be able to go to government web pages and phone up government helplines and find out where the work is. If they are not big enough to win the tender they can phone up the successful tenderer and say, ‘What work do you have for a plumber?’ or a builder, a painter, a glazier or whatever.

It is great to be a part of a government that has a plan. We are not the wait-and-see government, we are a government that says, ‘Let’s get out and do the hard stuff.’ We will cop flak from those opposite but, as I said, it would be great to hear them propose rather than oppose; it would be great to hear them put together a proposition rather than just remain the opposition, as if that is their reason for being.

It was great to see the other day that credit rating agency Standard & Poor’s reaffirmed Australia’s triple A rating, the highest rating that it gives to any country. That is a great pat on the back for the Prime Minister; it is similar to the pat on the back given to him by President Barack Obama in terms of his saying that this is what we need to do. I think he used the line, ‘If I had done what the Prime Minister of Australia had suggested, we would all be in a much better place.’ That is high praise indeed from one of the most recognisable and powerful people in the world.

So it is great to see that we are doing this responsibly. When we see fancy corflutes pulled out in question time—lots of stunts and lots of opportunities to say ‘no’ rather than saying what they would do. What would be the responsible decisions they would take to make up for the significant income shortfall? Were they at the mining dinner last night? Did they talk to any of the mining companies and say how difficult it has been for the mining companies that have had to lay off person after person—even in a state like South Australia that has only nine or 10 mines? I know there are a couple more good projects on the horizon.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The uranium industry.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think you know my position on uranium. Even though I have worked for the mining industry it is not something I can support. Nevertheless in a resource-rich state like Queensland the impact has been significant. People have lost their jobs and whole mining communities have been devastated by this downturn. What do we do? We do something practical. We do what we can to nation build and to give people work. I talked about housing, but we could also talk about the great practical initiative that will help save the planet and also put people in employment, which is our initiative to put insulation into homes and schools and to put solar panels on roofs. These are great policies that create work for both the unskilled and the skilled. There will be work in every community. I am sure the member for Mayo will be taking advantage of that government initiative. He will be getting pink batts in his house I am sure. He will be putting a sign out the front saying, ‘Thanks, Kevin.’ I am sure he will be doing that. It will say, ‘Thanks for helping to save the country, Kevin.’ I am sure that sign will appear in the front of his house just as a ‘rainwater tank in use’ sign is used, for example. You have a water shortage in Adelaide I am sure because it is all up in Queensland!

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You steal it all in Queensland.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have got to talk to the National Party senators. I am from that town but I do not live in that town. Then we move onto other significant budget initiatives. If you look through the budget papers, as I am sure people have, we see that we have a plan to combat climate change. It is important that we get funds available to look after climate change, not just between now and election night and not just between now and next budget night but, more importantly, for our children’s sake and our grandchildren’s sake. We need to act now. All of those policies that I have talked about—solar panels, insulation and even infrastructure bottlenecks—are about making sure that we have got a competitive economy, but they are also about recognising the fact that the world has changed. No scientist would argue about the fact that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased significantly since the industrial age. We have got data going back to the early 1830s that scientifically proves that CO2 has increased. Why has it increased? No fair-minded person—although I think there might be a PhD graduate in the chamber who has a slightly different view of climate change—would disagree with the fact that we need to combat the activities that contribute to climate change. That is why the refusal, seven times, by those opposite to make a decision is reprehensible. We are now up to the eighth opportunity to do something but instead they use the good old stand-by policy of ‘Let’s wait, let’s see.’ That is no way to combat one of the most dreadful economic challenges for the country.

I look forward to the budget taking effect in my electorate. I have had nothing but positive responses from all sorts of people—from the car sales people at the Moorooka Magic Mile to people involved in schools and P&Cs and people who look after the homeless and others who are doing it a bit tough. I have had positive responses from so many people in the community, including accountants and small businesses. Small businesses are happy to purchase equipment because of the tax breaks, which are not 30 per cent but are going up to 50 per cent. My friends in country electorates, where every pharmacist is a small business person, say that they are making decisions about purchasing, which then have a flow-on effect in the community, which creates wealth in those small communities. I commend the legislation to the House.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak today on the appropriation legislation before the House and also to make some comments, from my perspective as shadow minister for Customs, about the Rudd government’s cuts to Customs, broken election promises and the appalling neglect of our border security. But first to the budget and its effect on all Australians, including those in my electorate of Farrer.

We have all been horrified at the numbers that have been brought before us in respect of this budget. I had an email this morning from somebody in my electorate who said: ‘Can you stop saying “billions” because we do not get an appreciation from that word about the size of the debt. Could you please start saying “thousand millions”.’ Yes, I can. It is worth reminding ourselves that the debt will rise to $315,000 million by 2015-16.

The other point to make about the budget is the government’s response of ‘We had the global financial crisis.’ The only thing that Prime Minister Rudd used the global financial crisis for in the context of this budget was cover. It was cover for him to flood money into our communities at a rate not seen in Australia’s post World War II history. It was a cover to buy votes, to buy popularity and to make him and his government look good. The evidence is there in the budget, because it demonstrates that the spend-a-thon is new money that need not have been appropriated. And of course that is what these bills are doing.

I and my constituents are alarmed, disgusted and quite afraid—and that is not putting too fine a point on it—when we confront this future debt. From 2006-07 to 2021 or 2022 is how long the Prime Minister and the government tell us it will take to get us back into a surplus position—and that in itself is highly problematic because who could possibly forecast that far into the future. It will take 13 years just to get us right back to where we started. Thirteen years is a long time. It is a lot longer than Mr Swan’s temporary deficit. It is a lifetime at school. It is one or two careers. It is half a mortgage. And to think that 13 years of this country’s history will be involved in this long, drawn out effort to repay debt that need not have been accumulated to this level in the first place is an absolute disgrace.

When Mr Rudd comes into the parliament with his ministers and their hard hats, metaphorically speaking—although they are out in the community in their hard hats—and they talk about projects and they challenge whether opposition members support the projects in their electorates, it is a very cheap political stunt and it offends me and my constituents, I can assure you. It is a cheap political stunt because it is the same as saying to people receiving their $900 payment, ‘So you don’t want your $900?’. Of course people would appreciate a $900 payment, and of course people want to see projects, many of which were started under the Howard government, come to fruition in their electorates. It does not mean that we as local members sign off on the economic and financial strategy that has given rise to this expenditure. Again, we welcome new projects that make sense but we do not sign off on the strategy that created them.

There has been a lot of talk about the infrastructure spending, and the hard-hat brigade—the 24-hour spin cycle which says ‘appear to be doing something, appear to be moving and travelling, appear to be contributing to the productive economy for the future’. But there was only $8½ billion worth of new infrastructure spending in the budget. There was a lot of talk about a $22 billion or even $25 billion figure—and apologies to my constituents; I cannot keep on saying thousand million. There was talk about this large appropriation, and of course that was raided from the previous government’s surplus. So the new spending is $8½ billion. They are talking it up big, with $1.7 billion of spending in the current financial year. They are not talking that up so big, because $1.7 billion this year is not really that much—not when you compare it to the stimulus packages, which totalled $23 billion. That has all gone out the door, flooding into the Australian community to buy popularity and buy votes.

So we have $23 billion in the stimulus package and $8½ billion over the forward estimates on new spending for infrastructure—which is the Rudd government talking about? If the level of expenditure was so necessary and so important, why are they not shouting from the rooftops about the $900 payments? They don’t talk about those payments at all. I think, by now, they are somewhat ashamed of them. I have a constituent, who does not want to be named, who has received three payments—one for being a student, one for being on a low income and one for no particular reason. He, to his credit, went to Centrelink and said, ‘I have received three payments; this can’t be right’. ‘Oh no, that is right,’ they said, so he has received three payments. Today we read in the press that deceased estates have received payments and overseas residents have received payments. I am fairly sure some pets have received payments, too.

This has been just a shovelling out the door of money at an unprecedented rate, and it all has such a temporary effect. I talk to retailers, and, yes, there may have been a surge in retail spending, but not as much as they thought and not in every retail outlet either. Many people have saved their $900, paid off their mortgage or paid off their credit card. So, yes, there has been an increase in recent retail spending but that is temporary. In another couple of months, when that $900 is gone, it is not going to guarantee that shoppers are going to continue to walk through the door. The essential fundamental problem is still there. The previous speaker and other speakers have talked about this investment in the productive economy. That was the one sad thing about the budget—that if we were going to borrow up big, $315,000 million, taking 13 years to get us back into surplus, you would think that we could have spent it on something productive for the long term. Only $1.7 billion of that has been allocated for infrastructure spending. They are so embarrassed about the infrastructure spending that the government has scooped up a broadband into that as well.

On the subject of broadband, there has been no response to my questions to the government as to what happens to the many towns in my electorate that have less than a thousand people and miss out on the broadband plan. I do not think the broadband plan makes particularly good sense, and the more people who do not sign up to it, the more expensive it gets. So we have no concept of its cost, the time taken to implement it or the numbers of people who may choose to sign up to it. Many people probably would like these very high speeds and they will work well for them, but in their reaction to the government announcement what I am detecting is their view that the government is actually going to provide it for them and pay for it and their costs will not go up. In fact, their costs will go up by perhaps three times. The numbers of people required to keep the cost at, say, $100 a month in today’s terms is quite large, so if people fall away and say they are happy with their current broadband and with their current speeds, the costs will go even higher. So, for the big regional towns that I represent, those over a thousand people, there are big questions about cost. For many of the rural areas I represent, those questions do not arise because they are excluded from the plan; they have been told they will get some sort of satellite second class option. The problem is that Mr Rudd and his ministers, not one of whom has lived a life in rural Australia, do not appreciate what life is like for us.

Back to the budget. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry strenuously insists that drought funding is in place, or at least that the system that allocates it is in place, and that exceptional circumstances will continue. But there are no dollars in the forward years. Maybe they believe that the drought will end; maybe they know something that we do not. But unless they appropriate money to support farmers and rural communities during the drought then I do not buy the line that they are continuing to provide exceptional circumstances drought support. They have a disregard for the agricultural sector of this economy. The cuts to Biosecurity Australia and AQIS have been remarkable. Haven’t we learnt from equine influenza? The Beale review recommend $260 million minimum in new spending on quarantine, but instead we have staff positions and resources cut from AQIS.

The very department that administers AQIS and the agriculture budget, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, seems to have been singled out for special punishment in the budget because it has to meet a double efficiency dividend. In a previous life, I was the parliamentary secretary for agriculture. I thought and do think very highly of that department. There is no waste that resides there that needs to be extravagantly cut. I can only assume that in cabinet the minister did not sufficiently stick up for his department and the work that it does to prevent this extraordinary decision.

The biggest reaction to the budget in my electorate has been the response to the changes to youth allowance. That has been spoken about much in this House and I will certainly return to it when the bills are introduced. I look forward to the opposition-initiated Senate inquiry, which will reveal the truth of the matter. That truth is that rural students from modest families are going to be excluded from going to university. If we want to be as equitable as we should be in terms of access to education, we should recognise this simple statistic: right now, twice as many students from the city are reflected in university attendees as are students from the country. We are already significantly underrepresented. That concerns me. It is not the case that students from the country are less bright or even less willing to go to university, but they are a hell of a lot less able to get there and pay their way.

Parents carefully work out a plan to send their children to university. And remember that this is not parents signing cheques and young people sitting there living off their parents. Youth allowance is just a supplement. They need to work and their income is also supplemented by savings from their parents. The youth allowance is an important component of their support while studying away from home. By the way, those who are currently between school and university do not even get a mention. The clock seems to have to start for them again from 1 January next year. They have not been grandfathered in these provisions and that is totally out of order.

In order to qualify for independent allowance, students will have to work 30 hours a week for an 18-month period within two years. It is not possible for students in small rural towns to find a job for 30 hours a week for 18 months, so they then have to leave home. If they leave home, they have to support themselves. If they cannot go to university, they have to leave home, set themselves up in separate accommodation somewhere and get a job to qualify for youth allowance two years later in order to go to university. Meanwhile, their university place has lapsed, because deferrals generally do not last for longer than 12 months. That means they have to reapply.

What career advisers tell us is that by the end of two years students have lost interest, their life has taken a different direction or it has all just become too hard. Students have come to me and said, ‘If I can see the financial pressure that this is going to place my mum and dad under, I just do not want to do it’. We see that in the country a lot. We have seen it with the present drought. I see young people on farms in western New South Wales. I wonder what they are doing there because they have recently left school. I think they should be entering the next stage in their life, but they have come home from further study, often in Melbourne or Adelaide, to help because they cannot in all conscience leave their parents to struggle with a drought which, in many cases, has gone on for five or 10 years.

We are going to see the same thing. We are going to see students saying: ‘I’ll do something else, Mum and Dad. I won’t go to university. It’s something I can pick up later.’ But do not think that young people do not have a dream to go to university, if that is what they want, and do not think that the destruction of that dream by the present policy is anything short of appalling. We all have different philosophical perspectives and we come to this place with those different perspectives, and it is important that we respect alternative views—that is the foundation of our democracy—but I do not understand or accept this sudden, savage attack on rural students. That is whom it will affect. There are rallies being held across north-east Victoria and southern New South Wales. I hope that the strength of view that is expressed in those is going to get through to the education minister and members opposite. They probably do not represent rural electorates to the same extent that we on this side do, but they certainly have regional students in their areas. I ask members opposite to get this message through.

I understand that there were inconsistencies, even rorts, in the previous system. Fine—attack those and use policy instruments to correct the loopholes that apparently very wealthy parents and students were able to find. I have no problem with that. I am not saying we should restore the system to what it was before. What I am saying is: please do not attack rural students so that we lose our best and brightest from universities.

In the few minutes remaining I will talk about the effect to Customs, the area for which I am the opposition spokesperson. In spite of a promise to increase the level of air and sea cargo inspections made last year and the year before, the Rudd government has cut $58 million from the Customs budget. There was a promise prior to the last election that there would be an increase in the X-raying and inspection of containers arriving at our ports from overseas. In fact, we saw the first stage of that promise being implemented at the end of last year, with container inspections in Adelaide and Darwin nominated to increase from five per cent to 7½ per cent. Apparently all that is unnecessary now. A container that might have been risky before the budget is no longer risky, is no longer deserving of inspection and will not be looked at.

One in 20 does not sound like very many containers to inspect. We understand that we use this risk based approach because you cannot inspect every container. Intelligence needs to be applied to which ones are likely to contain smuggled goods—including drugs, weapons, cigarettes and alcohol—on which exercise is not being paid, but I can only assume that, without additional intelligence being applied and with the target being lowered, we will see more illegal drugs, weapons, narcotics, cigarettes, alcohol and smuggled wildlife. I will throw in illegal fishing, which does not come in a container, but illegal fishing is important too. All these events are going to occur. From the point of view of men and women on the street, we are going to see more drugs on our streets, more drugs being pushed in our nightclubs and more kids being subjected to this scourge. Do not think that it will not happen, because Australia is a top market for the sale of drugs. We have some of the highest prices for ecstasy and cocaine in the world. So, if you are pushing those drugs, come on down. This is where international drug syndicates know they can get the highest price for their products.

Precursor chemicals do not attract a huge fine. Precursor chemicals for pseudoephedrine and amphetamine type stimulants are not necessarily illegal on their own, so sometimes the fine is not huge and the risk is low for someone to send perhaps several drums of these from South-East Asia. If they get caught with three, they might get one drum through. Once it is cooked into amphetamines the damage that it will wreak on our streets is, as we all know, enormous. It is a weakening of the Tough on Drugs strategy, on which the then opposition agreed with the previous government. Tough on Drugs was a bipartisan position and this is a crack, a chink, in our armour. So a reduction in air and sea cargo inspections is not something we welcome. It is something we are very concerned about.

There was a big fanfare on budget night about the increases to border protection because of the unauthorised arrivals et cetera. One of these increases concerned the bay class vessels, the Customs and Border Protection fleet of vessels that are nearing the end of their life. In Senate estimates yesterday, it was revealed that a further $1 million has been allocated to study what we should do after the bay class vessels go out of service. So there was $1 million from the previous budget and $1 million from this budget. In estimates yesterday we could not get a response as to what value we had received for this $2 million. We are simply going to continue in a holding pattern, keeping the vessels that are nearing the end of their life and not making any plans for replacement. As we all know, you do not just click your fingers and say, ‘We’re going to replace our vessels.’ You actually have to embark on a program of ordering, construction et cetera, and that is nowhere near happening.

The government talked up big about the Triton Customs vessel. In fact, all they were doing was extending its lease—business as usual—and bringing the Oceanic Viking from the Southern Ocean to the northern ocean, moving one asset. But I have not received a guarantee that the entire coastline of Australia is going to be protected in the same way, so we might be cannibalising hours spent patrolling other areas to move that vessel to the north. Serious infrastructure decisions are being delayed by this government. Yes, there are additional flying hours. They add up to 20 hours a week of aerial surveillance, with two additional leased aircraft, but I do not believe that is enough. The intelligence effort allocated to overseas countries is insufficient. (Time expired)

Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to rise and speak in favour of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2009-2010 and cognate bills. In beginning to do so, I want to address the economic background to the bills, the canvas against which the Treasurer needed to frame this budget. I want to note particularly that this seemed completely absent from the opposition leader’s reply. There was no consideration of the gravity and the magnitude of the global recession confronting Australia and pretty much every other country around the world—with the exception, perhaps, of North Korea.

It is 75 years since we confronted anything of this magnitude. The global recession that we confront today has a depth and a breadth that none of us have ever confronted. Though it started in the American financial and housing markets, it has spread all around the world and no-one who is at all connected to the global economy is immune. It has impacted on equity markets and financial markets which around the world are still quite sclerotic. It has impacted on industrial production, on business investment, on consumer confidence and, importantly for these purposes, on government revenue, but most importantly it has impacted already and will continue to impact on jobs. Jobs is the central theme of this budget and the other responses which the Rudd Labor government has made to the global recession over the last five months.

For the first time since World War II, the world economy will shrink. In 2009 it is forecast to shrink by about 1½ per cent. Although there have been quarters since World War II where the world economy has shrunk, this will be the first full year that sees shrinkage in world GDP. For example, following of the 1974 oil shock and global economic downturn, the world economy that year still grew by two per cent. After the 1981 oil shock the global economy still grew by one per cent. This will have a very serious impact on the global economy. We will also see, for the first time since World War II, the sharpest downturn in world trade that any of us have seen, and this is particularly impacting on advanced economies. It is forecast that in 2009 the GDP of the advanced economies collectively will shrink by around 3¾ per cent, although we think our shrinkage will be limited to about half a per cent.

There are particular countries where this is impacting with very great severity, and I would point particularly to our largest export market, which is still Japan, where the economy is suffering a very severe contraction. Industrial production in the December quarter of 2008 in Japan shrank by 11 per cent. In the March quarter it shrank by 22 per cent. This is industrial production that is fuelled by Australian raw materials that have been exported to Japan for most of the postwar period and is the reason why Japan remains although not our largest trading partner our largest export market. There has been some recent recovery in Japan’s industrial production, which is pleasing, but it remains to be seen whether that has not been something of a dead cat bounce as Japanese producers seek to restore the inventories that they wound down over the last several months.

Other major trading partners of Australia are suffering similar contractions, though not as severe as Japan’s. I point particularly to the US and the UK, both of which are suffering quite significant contractions, and to other countries of the EU and to Korea. In that picture of gloom, perhaps the only slightly hopeful note is China, where GDP growth appears to have come back to about six per cent. That sounds good, but we all know that the Chinese economy needs to grow at around eight per cent if it is going to absorb the many millions of workers who are moving from the countryside to the cities. Growth of 6.1 per cent is not sufficient to keep the Chinese economy going at the pace that is needed to absorb those workers. But what we have seen very recently is industrial production turning back up. We know that, in the October to February period, Chinese exports dropped by about 25 per cent. This is of very significant concern to Australia, given that our raw material exports drive industrial production, which in turn drives Chinese exports. We have seen, though, in the last month or so industrial production starting to turn up again in China, which is pleasing.

Overall, our exports have been hit very hard. An industry very dear to my heart, and which does not attract as much public attention as some, is tourism. It is the largest service export industry in Australia and accounts for about 10 per cent of total Australian exports in services and goods. We have seen very big declines in traditional markets by way of international arrivals. In the traditional markets, we have seen a drop of 16 per cent in the 12 months to February in business arrivals, a drop of 29 per cent in convention based international arrivals and a drop of about six per cent in leisure arrivals. Those are for the 12 months to February. The figures that are out now for March and April show that those declines are continuing. We have seen continuing increases in the VFR—visiting friends and relatives—market and in the education market, which are mitigating those losses to some degree. But tourism is suffering already as a result of the global economic recession, and we expect it to suffer more as a result of the growing swine flu pandemic.

But the greatest attention is being paid to resource exports, which are obviously being hit very hard as a result of the decline in industrial production in countries that I have mentioned, such as Japan and China. Global steel production has declined very significantly over the last several months. There has been some pick-up in recent weeks in China. Again, one expects that is simply to rebuild inventories that were depleted over the last several months. It is too early to tell whether those increases in production will be sustained or whether they are short term. However, what we do know is that our major exports for steel production of iron ore and coking coal have dropped in the six months to March by about 12 per cent and 23 per cent respectively. Those are very significant declines in the country’s export earnings and, as a result, in government revenue.

Inevitably, all of this has affected the Australian economy. The GDP figures for Australia are expected to decline by about half a per cent in 2009-10. Although this is a decline, it compares favourably to the advanced economies around the world that are expected to shrink by about 3¾ per cent. Business investment is expected to be hit especially hard. We are already seeing that flow through in the economy as some of the pipeline projects that were started before the impact of the recession come to an end. We expect business investment to decline by about 18½ per cent in 2009-10.

These declines are across the board. We are already seeing declines in capital imports, which are having some good results for our current account deficit but which overall are bad. We are seeing very significant declines in non-residential construction, another very major part of business investment. Because of these impacts, the very important story for these purposes is a huge hit on government revenue—a hit which we expect to be of the order of $210 billion out to 2012-13, about $23 billion for the current financial year of 2008-09 and to grow to $50 billion for the next financial year, 2009-10. Compare this to the good fortune enjoyed by the previous Treasurer. In the last five years of his stewardship of the Australian budget, the BCA estimates—

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You’re better than this. Come on!

Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

that is, the member for Mayo’s good friends the BCA—showed upward revisions in his last five budgets totalling around $87 billion. We can all continue to wonder where that money went.

Confronted with the magnitude of this global recession and its impact on the Australian economy, the Rudd government since the beginning of this recession and the impact of the global financial crisis around the world has acted decisively. That decisive action has come, effectively, in three stages. The first stage was the government’s Economic Security Strategy of October, which was rolled out in December 2008. That was effectively an adrenaline shot to the economy in order to prevent an immediate collapse in confidence and a resulting collapse in jobs. There were very clear targets there: household spending and residential construction. These were seen, on advice from the Treasury and other economic institutions, as being the best way to get money quickly into the economy and preserve jobs. All of the relevant figures show that that strategy worked.

Anecdotally, in my electorate, the largish department store just across from my office reported to me that they were up about 15 per cent over the Christmas period compared to the same period in 2007. One small business, which I spoke to when I asked them to do some work for me, reported that they had had their best summer period—December and January—in eight years. Hospitality venues were reporting the same thing to me. They were reporting very good takings in the food and beverage sections. Broadly, as I said, the macrofigures for the retail and housing sectors showed that the government’s strategy from October to December was spot on.

The second stage of the government’s response to this recession was the Nation Building and Jobs Plan. It was opposed by the coalition, to their shame. It is currently being rolled out all around the country in every electorate. There is no better way to disperse economic activity than by targeting schools. The $15 billion greatest school modernisation program in Australia’s history is being enjoyed by parents, teachers and students. It will be enjoyed by future parents and future students for many, many years to come. In spite of some pretty cynical media coverage in the days following the announcement of this plan, the response from teachers, principals, school councils and parents in my electorate has been overwhelmingly positive. The social and public housing aspects of the Nation Building and Jobs Plan will see the greatest injection of money and the greatest building program for public and social housing since World War II. This will be great for Australia as a whole. For a state like South Australia, which has a very proud history in this area, it will be a wonderful thing. The energy efficiency aspects of the Nation Building and Jobs Plan mean that 2.2 million homes will receive insulation and all of the economic and environmental benefits of that. Again, that has been very well received in my electorate.

Finally, for the second stage, the Jobs and Training Compact initially targets seven regions around Australia, including northern and western Adelaide in my electorate of Port Adelaide. We have already seen unemployment figures in the 12 months to February 2009—and I cannot remember the precise figures off the top of my head—rising from something like 5.7 or 5.8 per cent to about 8.2 or 8.3 per cent. The Prime Minister has recognised that our region of South Australia—northern and western Adelaide—needs some very immediate action to support and sustain it and to create jobs.

The third stage that I want to talk about briefly that is set out in this budget and in these bills is investing in Australia’s long-term economic infrastructure. Compare that to the way in which the previous Treasurer, the member for Higgins, frittered away the benefits of the mining boom and frittered away the upward revisions totalling about $87 billion in the last five budgets he handed down. At the end of his stewardship of Australia’s budget and Australia’s economy, the member for Higgins left Australia ranking somewhere around 20th out of 25 OECD nations in terms of infrastructure investment—a lack of activity that created bottlenecks in the Australian economy totalling around $8 billion to $10 billion of lost economic activity in Australia each year. Although it is hard to compare apples with apples, the best estimate you can make is that the infrastructure investment generated by the member for Higgins in the latter part of his stewardship of the Australian economy was around the same percentage of GDP as it was in the late 1980s. Given the economic good fortune that was enjoyed by Australia over the last decade, that was a shameful contribution to the long-term economic prosperity of our country.

There are a couple of other budget measures I want to talk about briefly—firstly, pensions. There are over 30,000 people in my electorate, whom I represent, who receive one form of pension or another. Early last year I conducted an eight-page survey of older people in my electorate and had 2,500 responses, so there were 20,000 pages of data that someone in my office analysed. They analysed very clearly and specifically the income and expenditure of the average pensioner in my electorate. As a result, I was able to make a pretty substantial submission, I think, to the Harmer review, calling for an increase in the base rate of the pension, and I am very, very pleased that even in a very tough budget this government has been able to find its way through to a significant increase in the single age pension in particular, because all of us who have looked at this know that the single age pension needed a significant boost. Although we would have liked to see more money going to couples, the more you give to couples, the more you have to give to singles if you are going to reach that benchmark of two-thirds of the couple rate being the single rate. So I think all of us realised that this one-off hit needed to have a bias in favour of singles, and I am glad to see it. Also, carers and those on the disability support pension, not just age pensioners, will be receiving this and more.

One aspect of this that I am particularly pleased about is related to a concern that I picked up from my surveys and in the course of last year—that, for pensioners in public housing, whatever increase came from the federal government would be lost, to the tune of 25 per cent, to state public housing authorities. I took that up with our state government in South Australia by writing to the Treasurer some weeks before the budget, foreshadowing the likelihood of a significant increase in the pension and asking that the state government quarantine that increase from the public housing rents. I am proud to say that the South Australian state government was the first state government to respond to the Prime Minister’s call for state governments not to take 25 per cent of the pension increases that are flowing from this budget, something that I think is very important.

I would also like to mention the provision for paid parental leave in this budget, which is long overdue in this country. This country remains one of only two OECD nations, the other being the United States of America, that does not have a statutory paid parental leave entitlement. Very quickly, what it means is that, although we rank 10th in the OECD in terms of female labour participation, we rank 23rd in the OECD for female participation at childbearing age.

All the experts and research show a very clear correlation between supporting female workers during their early stages of motherhood and labour participation. This is not only an important social reform; this is very important economic reform to improve labour participation. If we were able to reach the labour participation rate for female workers in Canada, as a percentage of total females, we would add an extra 200,000 workers of prime working age to Australia’s labour force, and that would be a very significant contribution to the Australian economy.

The last thing I will say in the very short time that remains is that I and the people in my electorate of Port Adelaide were very pleased to see budget support for the core elements of the defence white paper—in particular, confirmation that we will be building at least three air warfare destroyers over coming years in Port Adelaide. I hold out hope that we can make the case on an industry basis, but most importantly on an operational basis, for a fourth air warfare destroyer before the time comes for Port Adelaide’s expert workers to begin constructing the next generation of submarines. This was a tough budget but one I am very pleased to speak in support of.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I seek to make some further remarks to address a couple of the issues raised in the debate. Firstly, I support the member for Port Adelaide on the last issue he raised about the capabilities of the South Australian defence industry to meet the government’s white paper desires. It is an industry which has been built up very strongly in recent years, with a lot of support from the former government. It has the bipartisan support of those of us in South Australia. It does a very good job. We hope very much that this government is able to ensure that the work conducted in relation to building more defence assets is done through that industry in South Australia. It would benefit the member for Port Adelaide very much, of course.

In this debate we heard from the last couple of speakers on the other side about the supposed great bars of gold raining down on the previous Australian government and that the previous Prime Minister and Treasurer did not have a very difficult task at all—that they had an amazing run of gold rush and so forth—which of course is simply not true. It was good management—dedicated and strong economic management—which led to surplus budgets and low unemployment. I will not hold up the Main Committee’s time and, on that note, will conclude my very brief remarks.

John Murphy (Lowe, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to support Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2009-2010 and cognate bills. The test for any budget is how well it addresses the needs of the present while also investing in a sustainable future. The 2009-10 Commonwealth budget reflects how the Rudd government has ably addressed this dual challenge. The current global economic crisis has presented the Rudd government with an additional challenge. However, despite the difficulties presented in the current economic climate, this budget represents the Rudd government’s commitment to stimulate the economy and support the jobs of millions of hard-working Australians. It provides the necessary stimulus to ensure that the Australian economy is well-placed to emerge from the worst global recession since the Great Depression. Simultaneously, the budget lays the foundation for future productivity and prosperity by investing $22 billion in vital infrastructure such as transport, schools and hospitals.

Put simply, this budget is about nation building for recovery. Prior to the last election, Labor warned that the Australian economy could not simply continue to ride on the back of the resources boom. We recognised the need to invest in infrastructure and education to support our productivity, to remain prosperous and to boost our international competitiveness. This budget shows that the Rudd government remains determined to fulfil this objective.

The impact of the global recession highlights that Australia can no longer rely on record company tax receipts generated by an unprecedented resources boom to maintain a healthy fiscal position. Much of the $210 billion decline in revenue in this budget is a result of a shortfall in tax revenue, particularly company tax. The previous government wrongly assumed that our trading partners, particularly China, would continue to demand our commodities. They wrongly assumed that the resources boom would last indefinitely. Worse still, they squandered the benefits of this boom, using it to buy votes rather than invest it in nation-building infrastructure. Their misguided and short-sighted approach to economic policy has resulted in significant long-term problems.

The global financial crisis shows that we can no longer rely solely on the commodities sector as the principal source of our economic prosperity. That is why we need to invest in infrastructure, schools and universities, hospitals and ports, roads and railways. We need to invest in infrastructure so as to diversify our economy and to ensure we no longer rely on one sector to keep our economy strong. A nation that does not invest in this productivity-boosting infrastructure is effectively robbing future generations of their prosperity.

The infrastructure spending announced in the 2009-10 budget supports job creation in the short term whilst also providing the facilities with which to grow our economy. We are investing in a knowledge-based economy that values education and innovation. We are investing in a low carbon, low pollution economy that tackles the real challenge of climate change and supports green-collar jobs. And we are investing in a digital revolution that will increase the efficiency and productivity of businesses throughout Australia by building a national broadband network.

Labor Governments are nation-building governments and the Rudd government is certainly no exception. With a $22 billion investment in nation-building infrastructure, such as roads, ports, clean energy and universities, this budget ensures that Australia is well placed to emerge from the recession in a much stronger economic position than many other developed countries.

I welcome a number of key measures that will develop much needed infrastructure in my electorate of Lowe. In particular, I note the provision of up to $6.95 million to local councils in my electorate through the Community Infrastructure Program. This ensures local councils have the necessary funds to build and renew local infrastructure such as community centres, town halls, parks and playgrounds, pools and sporting localities. This investment by the Rudd government will support jobs, small business and families. This is an economically and socially responsible program. The investment will support jobs and stimulate the local inner-west economy. The investment in infrastructure will deliver lasting social benefits and a stronger community. I also welcome the allocation of $1.16 million to local councils to assist in the upgrade and maintenance of local roads. Again, this funding will support jobs and provide lasting benefits with safer passage for people and goods.

This budget also recognises the role that a strong education system plays in developing a productive and prosperous economy. Whilst the opposition preaches the virtues of unfair and unjust workplace laws as a means of boosting productivity, the Rudd government recognises that the answer lies in a world-class education system. That is why on budget night we allocated $2.6 billion over six years in infrastructure projects, including $613 million to fund 11 higher education and 12 vocational education and training projects.

The Rudd government is committed to building a world-class tertiary education system. We aim to have an additional 50,000 students attend university by 2013 and we will achieve this by removing the cap on the number of public university places from 2012 to ensure that anyone who is eligible for a place of their choice can secure one. Moreover, we will spend $394 million over four years to encourage young people from low-income families to attend university. An individual’s socioeconomic background should not determine the attendance of a student at university. For this reason, I welcome the announcement by the Deputy Prime Minister prior to this year’s budget that the government will pursue vigorously the ambition that, by 2020, 20 per cent of higher education enrolments at an undergraduate level of people from low socioeconomic backgrounds. In total, universities will share in $5.7 billion in new funding for education and innovation as a result of this budget. Secondary education, I am pleased to note, will receive over $62 billion from 2009 to 2012.

The proposed funding by the Rudd government signifies our commitment to Building the Education Revolution. On this point, I would like to acknowledge that three schools in my electorate were successful in obtaining funding in the first round of the Primary Schools for the 21st Century program. Combined, those schools will receive over $7 million to build new halls and libraries. Further, under the National School Pride program, the Rudd government has already delivered millions of dollars to my schools for projects such as covered outdoor learning areas, upgrades of playgrounds, replacement of old electrical wiring, refurbishment of dilapidated teaching areas and specific-purpose classrooms. The works on these facilities will support job creation and ensure that students at these schools enjoy the best possible education in the long term.

Amazingly, the Liberal Party opposed this measure earlier this year, and the shadow Treasurer suggested on the ABC’s Q&A program on 14 May that the opposition opposed this measure. When asked what the Liberal Party would do to reduce the size of the deficit, the shadow Treasurer said:

One of the hardest decisions we made was to oppose the $42 billion package that the government came up with earlier this year … a lot of that money is still to go out the door … and that’s where the $25 billion at least would be saved on the amount of money they’re spending today.

It seems that the shadow Treasurer was suggesting that we should not spend the remaining $25 billion of the Nation Building and Jobs Plan. If this is the case, let us take a moment to consider what it would mean for our economy if the Liberal-National coalition were in government. A coalition government would have no choice but to cut much of the $14.7 billion allocated to schools as part of the Building the Education Revolution program. They would have no choice but to cut funding for ceiling insulation and solar hot water. They would also have no choice but to cut funding for public and community housing, as well as defence housing. Therefore, the stimulatory benefits generated by these projects would not eventuate, leaving our economy more exposed to the negative effects of the global recession, such as higher unemployment. This would be the stark picture if the coalition were in government. Thankfully, they are not.

It is astounding that the opposition are still opposed to increased federal funding for schools. In my electorate of Lowe, local schools were delighted that the Rudd government finally recognised the shortfall of funding after 10 years of neglect from the coalition government led by the former Prime Minister John Howard. One principal in my electorate noted how her school desperately needed the funding for several important projects. She noted that an increase in enrolment numbers will now continue and that the construction and renovation of facilities under Building the Education Revolution were paramount for a safe and convivial learning environment. And I am pleased to reiterate that, despite the difficult economic circumstances the Rudd government now face, we will continue to invest in education and to support our schools. We will continue to fund the education revolution, because it is the right decision, and the schools in Lowe clearly understand this.

The budget reaffirms our commitment to building a highly skilled economy. As the global recession progresses, unemployment will naturally rise. Unfortunately, when people are unemployed they often lose skills and, understandably, some of them become less inclined to look for work. The Rudd government do not blame people for being unemployed. Rather, this budget demonstrates that we will do everything in our power to help the unemployed find work. The $1.5 billion over five years for the Jobs and Training Compact will support young Australians, retrenched workers and local communities. In particular, $438 million of the compact initiative will be allocated specifically to providing immediate assistance to retrenched workers, including access to intensive employment services, 10,000 training places through the Productivity Places Program and increasing the liquid assets test threshold. In the last couple of months a number of my constituents have been made redundant and are seeking help in their search for work. I know that these services, provided under this budget, will be of valuable assistance to those people.

Climate change is a real and serious economic challenge that cannot be ignored. This budget responds to the challenge by investing in green infrastructure that will lay the foundation for a low-carbon future. At the heart of this is a $4.5 billion investment in the Clean Energy Initiative. This includes $2 billion over nine years for carbon capture and storage demonstration projects and $1.5 billion over six years for up to four large-scale solar electricity generation projects. The Clean Energy Initiative highlights the Rudd government’s firm commitment to addressing climate change. These measures will assist Australia in becoming a low-carbon, low-pollution economy. Unlike the opposition, we are committed to an emissions trading system. The coalition’s policy is to delay the introduction of such a system, which is a reflection of the climate change scepticism that exists among the coalition. Many of the opposition members, in my view, are not serious about addressing climate change.

I am a firm believer that a society should be judged by how it treats its most vulnerable citizens, and for this reason I am also proud to be a member of the Rudd government which has provided much-needed support to pensioners in this budget. I applaud the increase of $32.49 per week to full-rate single pensioners and $10.14 per week to pensioner couples. I note that this will benefit more than 15,000 pensioners in my electorate of Lowe. I am also particularly pleased that carers have been recognised in the budget. I welcome the carer supplement of $600 per annum for carer payment recipients and the additional $600 per annum for carer allowance recipients for each eligible person in their care.

Another important measure in the budget, a first in Australian history, is the introduction of a government funded paid parental leave scheme. I am extremely pleased that the Rudd government has taken the first steps to join the majority of the world in providing paid parental leave for working Australians. Prior to this budget, Australia and the United States were the only developed economies without a national paid parental leave program. Even the Congo and Ethiopia have had longstanding paid maternal leave programs. In the budget the Treasurer announced that, from January 2011, Australia will finally have a federally funded paid parental leave scheme. This scheme will be paid at the federal minimum wage of $543.78 for 18 weeks. I also draw to the attention of the House comments by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Elizabeth Broderick, who said the scheme was a ‘major triumph for not only mothers and parents but for our community’. I could not agree more.

Small businesses are the backbone of our national economy, and they are the backbone of the economy of Sydney’s inner west, where my electorate is. One of the finest features of the Lowe electorate is the large number of small businesses there. One has only to walk down the main streets of Lowe, including Majors Bay Road, Concord; Great North Road, Five Dock; or Burwood Road, Burwood—to name a few—to understand just how prominent and important these businesses are in my electorate. Since the budget was handed down I have spoken with numerous small business owners in my electorate. The overwhelming feeling is one of relief. They have welcomed measures that support small businesses and are appreciative of the support the Rudd government is providing to our economy. This includes $141 million to increase the tax breaks for small businesses from 30 per cent to 50 per cent for eligible assets costing at least $1,000 during 2009 for use by the end of 2010. Small business owners in my electorate have also expressed strong support for the newly announced Small Business Support Line, which will provide much needed assistance to small businesses during the economic downturn. I applaud the small business measures announced in the budget, and so do the majority of the small business people that I represent in this place.

I mentioned at the beginning of my speech that Australia could no longer rely on record company tax receipts generated by the resources boom. Australia needs tax reform to ensure that any future slowdown in global economic growth never again results in such significant crippling of our revenue base. I eagerly await the release of the Henry tax review. I have no doubt that the recommendations of this review, coupled with the government’s infrastructure investment, will pave the way for future productivity growth and prosperity. The severe decline in government revenue as a result of the global recession has led to a deficit of $57.6 billion and has given us no choice but to borrow responsibly. The infrastructure investment contained in this budget, the investment in schools and universities and ports and rail, will boost the productive capacity of our economy and provide a source of future growth. As our economy grows as a result of this infrastructure, we will be in a strong position to repay our borrowings.

It is basic economic theory that governments need to spend money in times of downturn to stimulate the economy. HSC students currently studying economics right through to prominent and respected economists like Saul Eslake, Stephen Long and Ross Gittins understand and accept this. Why, then, is the opposition so intent on running such a misguided fear campaign about deficits and debt? I refer the House to comments by Stephen Koukoulas, global strategist for TD Securities, who has described this budget as a ‘nine out of 10 budget, a solid effort in the middle of the great recession’. He went on to say, about the government:

… it has limited the extent and time in which the Budget will be in deficit by offsetting some of the areas of economic stimulus with spending cuts and criteria tightening; it has a realistic set of economic parameters underpinning its projections and importantly, it is as clear as the smirk on Peter Costello’s face that the government will return the budget back to surplus as soon as economic conditions permit …

This all adds up to a Budget that is a well balanced approach to economic management. To do less would have compelled the economy to an even weaker performance and even higher unemployment: To do more would have threatened to damage the country’s AAA credit rating. This about right.

The opposition, who criticise this budget, would do well to consider these wise words from Stephen Koukoulas. Then again, it does not surprise me that the Liberal Party is criticising the spending measures contained in this budget. After all, the Rudd government has done what the Howard government could not—invest in infrastructure that will drive Australia’s future economic prosperity.

Perhaps we should ask ourselves then what the Liberal Party would have done if they were still in government. Indeed, the former Prime Minister, John Howard, indicated what he would have done in a recent interview with Sky News. When asked, Mr Howard began to eulogise his beloved Work Choices. That is right; he believes that the best way to address a recession is to continue with policies that strip the pay and conditions of hardworking Australians. This would only serve to shatter consumer confidence, slash consumer spending and further weaken aggregate demand. This raises an important question: how many members of the current parliamentary Liberal Party agree with their former leader? I give Mr Howard credit for one thing: at least he has indicated in some way how he would respond to the current economic crisis. It is a pity that the same cannot be said of the opportunistic federal opposition.

The opposition have again displayed the audacious opportunism that Australians have come to expect of them since the last federal election. Playing politics in the midst of the worst global recession since the Great Depression is, in my view, very irresponsible. My electorate knows this and I believe that the wider electorate across the continent understands this. One minute the opposition claim they would not have to borrow despite the $210 billion shortfall in tax revenue. The next minute they admit that they would also need to borrow to make up for this revenue shortfall. One minute they would be implementing a $25 billion budget deficit; the next minute they would be in surplus. We have had the shadow minister for finance running around quoting former US President Herbert Hoover, the very man who sat back and refused to intervene in the early years of the Great Depression and merely exacerbated the problem.

Members opposite have shown a frightening level of economic ignorance and a clear inability to articulate a consistent policy. For a group of people who regularly boast about their economic credentials, their budget reply leaves much to be desired, and the people of Australia are aware of this. Only the Liberal Party—the party that oppose this government’s $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan—would criticise a government that spends money to stimulate the economy in times of recession. Only the Liberal Party—the party that continues to espouse the flawed theory of neoliberalism—would stand on the floor of this parliament and put forward a recipe for disaster to get Australia out of this recession. It is discomfiting that the opposition seriously believe that you can restore a budget surplus by simultaneously cutting spending and cutting taxes.

The difference between the government and the opposition could not be clearer. The Rudd government have a clear vision to stimulate the economy in the short term. Through our one-off tax bonuses we have been able to promote the flow of income throughout the economy by boosting consumption. Now, in this budget, we turn to infrastructure to stimulate the economy and support job creation in the short term and to boost our long-term productivity and prosperity.

This is a nation-building budget. It is a budget that meets the economic needs of the present while also laying the building blocks for future productivity and growth. It is a budget that diversifies our economy by ensuring we no longer rely on one sector alone to fuel our prosperity and it is a budget that builds a modern Australian economy—an economy that recognises that a strong education system is imperative for economic progress, values small business, supports green infrastructure, develops a national broadband network and looks after the most vulnerable people in our society. I commend the bills to the House.

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This House is hearing a great deal about debt and deficit versus building and infrastructure from the two tribes that go to war in this place on a regular basis. They are both very legitimate positions, and I will follow the debate closely. I continue to place faith in our national economics and in the budget, and in the Secretary to the Treasury, Ken Henry, who is a local mid-North Coast person. I have a very high regard for him and the role he plays, and the status he holds in the Australian Public Service. I therefore place faith in the general budget settings that we see implemented in these budget 2009-10 and associated appropriation bills.

Whilst the debt and deficit versus building and infrastructure debate is all legitimate and very alive, my focus is on whether the mid-North Coast of New South Wales has a net gain or a net loss from these appropriation bills and the budget generally. Generally, in my view, we have net gains. In a lot of ways this budget allows the public policy participants and makers on the mid-North Coast to continue the long and difficult campaign to address some of the deep structural issues faced on the mid-North Coast. I am referring to some of the very real and too often undiscussed issues that the mid-North Coast and indeed the entire North Coast face when compared to the rest of the country.

The mid-North Coast and North Coast areas of New South Wales have tertiary education levels among the lowest in the nation. Poverty levels for all four electorates, including Lyne, Cowper, Page and Richmond, are some of the highest in the nation. Employment rates and participation rates for the mid-North Coast region, Richmond-Tweed, are the lowest in the nation right now when compared with other electorates. We have some deep structural issues there. It is even worse when we consider that we have low employment and a low participation rate alongside some of the highest unemployment rates in the nation. Whilst we hear plenty of debate in this place about whether the national figures are going to tip over 10 per cent or not, we are there. Last month we went over 10 per cent unemployment for the mid-North Coast and Richmond-Tweed. We hit 10.6 per cent in the last figures, and we are now down, right on 10 per cent. Hopefully this makes the point to everyone in this place that we have a very low participation market and, alongside that, a very high unemployment rate—so people are looking to participate—which indicates that we face some very substantial structural issues.

As well, our region is not immune to what the rest of the nation is facing from the trigger of the situation we are in—the global banking collapse. The practical implications of that are seen in the fact that some of the local authorities have been significantly caught in regard to their investment portfolios. One local council has now written $25 million off its investments. That is a significant loss on investments for a regional local council, and the implications for future service delivery to the community cannot be understated. As well, in my home town of Port Macquarie we estimate that between 3,000 and 5,000 people in a private sense have been affected by the collapse of three locally managed funds. Again, this is in an area where we have a high population of retirees. Investment funds are incredibly important for people at that stage of life, and having three local managed funds in receivership is placing a great strain on many individual households and the community generally on the mid-North Coast. We are faced with a suite of issues, both structural and more immediate, in regard to people’s financial situation. This means the work that government does through measures such as appropriation bills and the general policy settings really do matter in a practical sense, on the ground.

We can, of course, throw into the mix the more immediate and natural disasters which also have practical implications on the ground. For the third time in three months my region is currently going through a recovery process after the floods, winds and evacuations which occurred on the weekend. The question for me, then, as the federal member for this area, is how this budget fits in with that setting.

There are some pretty important net gains for my region, which the region is certainly appreciative of and which will make a difference with regard to some of those structural issues. Without doubt, the investment in the Pacific Highway and, in particular, the bringing online of the Kempsey bypass—a $618 million commitment of infrastructure—will make a significant difference. It will employ hundreds of people in the Macleay Valley in the short term. It will also remove one of the significant bottlenecks, which is currently the township of Kempsey. It will therefore, overall for the Pacific Highway and particularly the stretch from Hexham to the Queensland border, make a much safer and much more efficient dual carriage highway and be one step closer to the completion of a job that should have been done already.

Plenty of political commitments and promises have been made by all sides of politics, and it is a frustration for many of the one million residents in the North Coast window that still only 50 per cent of the job has been done when it was promised in 1996 by Paul Keating and John Fahey. They were hand in hand up on the Tweed and said it was going to be a 10-year job, and we are 50 per cent there in the year 2009. It is a frustration—and it is dangerous. I think the figure is that there have been close to 500 deaths on the highway since those commitments were made. If each of those deaths equates in public policy terms to at least $1 million in coronials and the whole process around a highway death, in purely economic terms there is a very strong argument for fixing this highway a lot quicker than it is being done—and that is before we get into the family and the emotional and moral arguments for it to happen.

So any commitment that the federal government delivers for the Pacific Highway is certainly welcomed, and the $618 million in the budget for the Kempsey bypass had people jumping in the streets of Kempsey and the Macleay. So, to the minister involved, to the executive and to the government generally: thank you very much, on behalf of residents of that region.

Also, some of the infrastructure projects did make a difference and have made a difference in this 12-month window. The commitment of the federal government to build a closer relationship with local authorities that we are seeing through the Community Infrastructure Program is a real winner on the ground on the mid-North Coast. The three councils that I represent are very happy and want to see that program continue. I again say to the executive and the minister in question that, when the mayors and shire presidents come together nationally at the end of June, I would certainly hope that something that comes out of that is a re-commitment to the Community Infrastructure Program.

Regardless of which side of politics is in government, I think there is a general recognition of the need to build a closer relationship between the federal government and local authorities. The previous government started to do it through various roads programs—Roads to Recovery springs to mind. We are now seeing this government take it a step further with community infrastructure. It is working. It does make a difference, it does have general support on the ground and it does make the federal government real for many communities. So it is a fantastic program. Our region is very happy that it has happened. As I have said, there has been record council funding from the federal government so far this year, and I implore the minister and the government to continue that program, because it does very good work.

As well, there were two larger projects in our region that were successful through this budget process that will be funded through these appropriations. One involved the Wauchope Bonny Hills Surf Life Saving Club, which was about to close its doors. Again, they were very, very happy with the money and will certainly be enjoying that new facility in a couple of years time. It is not only a surf club facility but a general community facility for Wauchope, Bonny Hills, Lake Cathie and the Camden Haven region.

In addition, the Taree recreational centre received a substantial amount of money. And, again, for the range of sports on offer in the Manning Valley—there is a very rich tradition of elite sports people coming from the region—this was very well received. It will make a difference and it will allow local communities to attract more events to the region. Our area is realising that there are some real financial benefits in having a strategy of trying to attract more and more sporting and general events to the region. But to do that good facilities are needed.

Debate interrupted.