Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This morning I rise to add my voice to those of so many around Australia including among my constituency who are concerned about the levels of debt and deficit this country is entering into under this government. The Treasurer has now said that peak net debt will reach some $203 billion in 2013-14. What a sorry situation we find ourselves in that we will have turned this country from one of zero net debt—where, indeed, we were running budget surpluses—to a situation where by 2013-14 net debt will peak at around $203 billion. I have found that people in my community understand this is a big concern and a problem for our future.

As I move around Mitchell, people are saying to me that they are very concerned about how we are going to be able to pay all of this debt back. They are concerned about the amount of interest that we are going to be paying on the debt that this government is racking up. But they are also concerned to know whether this money is being spent in a way that will provide us with a solid basis for economic recovery or a future that will see more people employed and business able to produce more. In the north-west of Sydney—and in Sydney more broadly—this budget, and the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2009-2010 and cognate bills, represents a completely lost opportunity. The 2009 budget, which is often much vaunted for its infrastructure spending, failed to invest in any infrastructure spending within the Sydney basin. We know that only $91 million was allocated to Sydney, for a study for a metropolitan rail line which, of course, may never be built. Reports indicate that the lack of investment in Sydney was perhaps because of the ongoing incompetence and mismanagement of the New South Wales state government in applying for money for infrastructure for Sydney. I say on behalf of my constituency, and on behalf of the people of north-west, south-west and outer Western Sydney, that this is a massive betrayal of residents within Sydney, who are paying land taxes, property taxes and infrastructure levies on developments, on land and on all of their property and not receiving adequate infrastructure in return. So, certainly for Sydney and the Sydney basin, this budget did not deliver. It is delivering no infrastructure for the wider Sydney basin area.

When you consider that within the two stimulus packages around $22 billion of Australian taxpayers’ money was handed out in cash to people around Australia, you realise that that $22 billion could have been spent on better infrastructure. It could have been spent such that we could now say we have something to show for all of that expenditure. This is one of the biggest concerns that people have when they speak to me about these cash handouts. Why did we not seek to spend all this money—enormous and unprecedented sums of money—on things that would enable us to progress, such as major infrastructure? That infrastructure could be a dam or a rail line or a broadband network, quite topically. They are things which will sustain us in the long term and allow for a recovery. Of course, we know that this government preferred to hand out cash in a vain attempt to ameliorate the effects of this global financial crisis.

When examining some of the expenditure in this budget, I have a number of concerns. Recently there was the Mitchell jobs forum. There were about 130 businesses there and the shadow minister for small business attended. It was hosted by me and the Sydney Hills Business Chamber. At the forum there was a great deal of concern about how the government is assisting small business and the self-employed in our country. Recent statistics show that the rate of self-employed people and entrepreneurs in Australia is at its lowest level in 30 years—that is, the number of people who have found the capacity to start and run their own businesses and entrepreneurs is at its lowest level in 30 years. I think that is a cause for grave concern.

Government policy should be directed, particularly in a time of downturn, more at providing an environment where people are not just seeking the security of a wage or a salary but are seeking to innovate, create, employ and start their own businesses. That is why the coalition has come forward with a six-point action plan for small business. This is enormously important. This policy will provide for recovery because it will stimulate those parts of the economy that employ people. It will stimulate the economy where it matters the most. Our capacity to innovate, create and self-employ is enormously important to the Australian economy and to the Mitchell economy. Indeed, small businesses and self-employed people will form the basis of a sustainable recovery.

We have proposed a two-year window for businesses to offset the tax value of any operating losses that they suffer in 2009-10 against up to $100,000 of taxes paid over the last three years. These will be refunded. This was well received. We have proposed that the Commonwealth partially cover the superannuation guarantee contribution for two years—with three per cent in the first year and 1.5 per cent in the second year—for firms with 20 or fewer staff. This would allow employers to keep people on the payroll. There are many small businesses that are examining how to cut costs to sustain themselves through difficult economic times, and, of course, labour costs are one of the biggest costs for small businesses. If we can devise measures and put in place policies that will assist small businesses on the margins to keep people in the workforce, that will benefit our economy. That is another positive initiative that the coalition has proposed.

We have also proposed to cut red tape and the time spent filling in forms. We will reduce our overall regulatory burden to match and surpass OECD best practice. Who in this place could argue against cutting red tape for small business? It is certainly a major concern for them.

We have proposed some other great initiatives, including a one-stop regulatory portal. Small businesses in particular find it extremely hard to tender for government contracts, which puts them at a competitive disadvantage. The costs of applying for a government contract can be quite substantial. Small businesses can find that they are unable to even file competitive tenders for government contracts. That is something we ought to think about very carefully. It will be another part of how we initiate a recovery.

At the Mitchell jobs forum the coalition’s plan for recovery was well received. Small businesses felt it was important for the federal government to focus on this at this time. When you consider that unemployment is expected by the Treasury’s own forecast to dramatically rise in the future and that all of this debt we are getting into will not help sustain jobs in the economy, then we do need to look at ways to encourage small businesses to continue to employ and at ways to provide the self-employed with an environment where they can start their own business, innovate, create and make something of themselves.

I also want to turn quickly to another area of the budget. Of course, budgets have many hidden and complex measures that take some time to come to light. On behalf of cancer patients in this country, I want to highlight a change that the government is making in the budget in relation to surplus chemotherapy medication. The government is proposing that surplus chemotherapy medication be reused, not disposed of. This will save the government something like $30 million a year.

However, when I speak to cancer sufferers and medical specialists like specialist pharmacist Bruce Heal, they tell me this is a mistaken assumption and that surplus chemotherapy medication cannot be reused and would need to be disposed of as these drugs are very toxic and volatile. This is something they have been talking to the government about for about 11 months. At the moment they do have wastage and discard it, but under the new system that the government is suggesting, they cannot reuse it. Mr Heal says that for a breast cancer patient, for example, it could mean an extra $500 to $600 for these chemotherapy drugs. This is a program that would start on 1 September. While this may save money, let me record in this place that I am bitterly opposed to this measure. The idea that somehow we will recoup money from people suffering very serious cancers in order to attempt to reuse drugs that the senior specialist pharmacists I speak to say cannot be done is something that we ought to abandon. It is one of those hidden things within a budget that all of us may not have been aware of. While cost savings in general are something that we may all look for, it is a very important matter to many people across this nation that I would want to record that we may have to recover.

Unfortunately time is short this morning. I know that we have been asked to limit our speeches, so I will simply say this: the Rudd government in its first 18 or 20 months in office has sought to set up the narrative that it has a Robin Hood approach to budgets. This is something I want to reject. This concept that they are taking from the rich and giving to the poor is a false dichotomy in this country. People who work hard and try to make something of themselves ought not to be penalised for doing so. People who seek out private health insurance to look after their own health care ought not to be penalised. People who try to fund their own retirements must not be targeted by government policy as if they have somehow done something wrong. This narrative that the government is attempting to build will only lead to a greater state of welfare dependency in this country if these policies are pursued, and it is something that we must all think very seriously about. What kind of policy settings in this place do we want to have to encourage a society that is more self-reliant and not welfare dependent? It is very important that we all in this place reject the notion that increasing debt and deficit is the way to ensure that we have a greater self-reliant society.

Maxine McKew (Bennelong, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Early Childhood Education and Child Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this morning to speak in support of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2009-2010 and Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2009-2010. This is an ambitious nation-building budget with investment in jobs, skills and education at its heart. It is about giving individuals and families the support they need. It is also about meeting the challenges of the global recession head-on and consolidating a foundation for recovery. The measures contained in this budget represent a continuation along the ambitious journey of reforms that this government has already begun. They represent the chance of a better life for the millions of Australians entering preschool, school, TAFE and university in the next two decades. The measures will enable greater access to employment and skilling opportunities for all Australians, allowing individuals to improve their standards of living and overall well-being. They will ensure a more prosperous nation that is able to compete successfully in the global economy.

The road to a more productive Australia starts as soon as children are born. Early childhood education sets the foundation for learning and wellbeing throughout life. Investment in early childhood education is a long-term investment in the future because of the significant benefits that flow to individuals, to families and to national economies through improved learning and skills, increased participation in the labour force and reduced public expenditure on welfare, health and crime—that is all well-documented.

To that end, this budget commits $12.8 billion over the next four years to support around 800,000 Australian families with the costs of affordable, quality child care. There are two components to this: $8.4 billion over four years for the childcare benefit that will reduce childcare fees, and $4.4 billion over four years for the childcare tax rebate, soon to become the childcare rebate—a continuing commitment to Labor’s delivery in its first budget last year to pay 50 per cent of families’ out-of-pocket childcare costs. Payments can now be received quarterly to better assist families and are not subject to an income test. This means that childcare costs have never been more affordable—a very important foundation as we roll out the next phase of our ambitious reforms in early childhood. Investment in the special childcare benefit will assist services in establishing a child’s eligibility for this special childcare benefit and will enable more children at risk to access quality child care.

This budget, importantly, also delivers on paid maternity leave. It is Australia’s first comprehensive statutory paid parental leave scheme. It gives families the opportunity to care for their babies, with income certainty, in those first few months when they bring a new baby home. I think it will ensure physical, cognitive and emotional wellbeing during the first early months for young infants. It will also promote workforce participation and help keep women connected to the workforce and to the skills environment. It is a scheme that brings Australia into line with most other OECD countries and will be available to parents for births and adoptions that occur on or after 1 January 2011. These parents will get 18 weeks of postnatal leave paid at the federal minimum wage.

Men and women have overwhelmingly welcomed this. It is interesting that, in my own electorate of Bennelong, Andrew Bland, who runs a midsized law firm and is a very active participant in the Ryde Business Forum, told me that he feels that this is a huge boost for local business—businesses which, of course, place a very high value on their female workers. Andrew is confident that the government’s commitment to funding paid parental leave will help with staff retention and help promote that much-desired work-life balance. So I am confident that, over time, the combination of this historic move and our reforms in early childhood will see a real transformation in maternal and infant care. It has certainly been a long time coming.

I want to refer to the overall spending on education in this budget, because it is substantial. The government has increased spending by about 50 per cent in real terms over the current five-year period compared with the previous five-year period. This funding includes significant investment in capital infrastructure for tertiary education and schools modernisation. I know that, because of the Building the Education Revolution money, every primary school in my electorate of Bennelong, over 30 of them—public, Catholic and independent—will have approximately $2.5 million to $3 million spent on modernising facilities. That is $2.5 million to $3 million spent on every primary school. Again, this will be a transformation. It is part of the $14.7 billion investment in Australian schools.

There are also major reforms to higher education outlined in the budget. These are the reforms that are responding to the comprehensive Bradley review of higher education. They include an uncapped, demand-driven university system from 2012; high goals for low SES enrolment; and improved indexation arrangements which better support the sector for the long term. We are creating, as well, new places in vocational education and training—an investment of $3.8 billion over four years. This will strengthen Australia’s skill base and help ensure that workers have transferable skills.

In this budget, the government has embarked on a landmark reform agenda for higher education and the innovation sectors. A massive $5.7 billion has been allocated over four years to give Australians access to a world-class tertiary education and research system. The reforms will transform the scale, potential and quality of the nation’s universities and open the doors of higher education to a new generation of Australians. The reforms will also increase the nation’s share of the jobs of the future. The workforce of today and that of the future need a fair and flexible work environment that meets the needs of employees and employers, and we are delivering on that.

So this budget looks to the future. It acknowledges the neglect of the past and produces solutions for today in order to ensure tomorrow’s prosperity. We are providing stimulus today to protect jobs and to support businesses right round the country and, hearteningly, we have already seen so much encouraging evidence in the recent week, in strong retail figures, impressive trade figures and positive building approval figures—all of which suggest that the government has been absolutely right with its decisive, pre-emptive stimulus. I commend the bills to the House.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When looking at this budget one realises what a thin, pathetic document it really is. Not only did we have a Treasurer who could not mention the fact that it had a $57 billion deficit—it was completely omitted from his speech—but we also had the farce that ensued where he and the Prime Minister could not say the word ‘billion’ for the next week. This is really evidence of the fact that the major blow-out and the cause of our deficit and debt was money committed before the budget was even delivered.

We have criticised the $42 billion expenditure for very good and sound reasons. We have called it a splurge of money, because it delivers nothing for the future. We are experiencing a very difficult time; there are no two ways about that. When the first stimulus of $10.4 billion was spent before Christmas, you could see some rationale there. You could see that small businesses, for instance, had ordered their stock for Christmas 2008 in about July, when the dollar was riding high, almost at parity with the US dollar. They paid 20 per cent, and by the time they got to pay the remaining 80 per cent before Christmas the dollar had taken a plunge and unless they sold those goods in the Christmas market there would have been an enormous difficulty for very many small businesses. So it was sensible that there was a stimulus to ensure that they could survive that period.

What we could never see was why it was $10.4 billion. Why was it not $8 billion; why was it not something else? There were never any figures released to tell us why that amount was picked. The $42 billion splurge looked like real panic spending. There was nothing for the future. The rebuilding of school halls and libraries is important, but it is important work that they are supposed to do all the time. The building of social housing is important, but where is it going to be built? Dare I suggest in marginal seats that will prop up Labor’s vote? And if the answer to the question is ‘pink batts’, it had to be a hell of a question.

If we look at what we could have spent money on, at what would have been a realistic proposition that would have been of value for Australians for the years going forward, I would like to suggest a couple of things. Firstly, we seem to not have in this country a policy which we desperately need to have, and that is a food security policy. We hear all this talk about the Murray-Darling Basin, and the Darling itself and the Murray itself, and the need for water for South Australia. We hear about buyback plans; we hear about the enormous sums of money that Senator Wong wants to spend taking water rights back from farms, which will in fact turn those farms into nonproductive areas and the towns that depend on those populations and those active farms will also become desolate places. So, again, it is a policy which is misdirected—and it could cost anything up to $12 billion if you add in compensation for the collapse of those towns. I am talking about those towns particularly in and around the Riverina.

All these splurge payments of $900 went out, as we well know now, to deceased estates, to people who live overseas—which will not benefit our economy at all—and to people who are in prisons. And, as I said, there was spending on often important infrastructure but not on things that are going to give a benefit to the country in the long run. As I said, building school halls and libraries is a state responsibility which we were addressing. We were assisting them to do that through our Investing in Our Schools program, which was a targeted program which allowed refurbishment and new buildings to be constructed according to need, and not simply by saying ‘Here is the cash, go out and spend it’. Of course, that program was cancelled by the incoming Labor government and replaced by another, which really amounted to a rebadging, and then the additional expenditure was added through the $42 billion.

Let us look at what we could have done. Let us look at the problem of water in this country and the fact that water is in abundance in Northern Queensland and we desperately need it in the south. There is a program being put together that I have been privy to. It has been put together by some people called T. Bowring & Associates, who have experience of moving water in the United States. They have proposed a program which, I think, has enormous merit and needs to be thoroughly looked at. They propose that we could take water from the Burdekin Dam in North Queensland and bring it down to the Darling River. That would allow flows and increased productivity, certainly in those areas which under the water buyback program are headed for desolation. It could increase our ability to export both dairy and beef and the benefits for the future could be enormous.

These people have done reasonable costings and you could basically say that for about $9 billion you could put in place such a project. It is not a piped project—everybody knows it is difficult to pump water. It is harder to pump than gas or, indeed, other commodities that we might wish to pump. But water can still be transferred through cement-lined, open canals where the evaporation loss is said to be around four per cent—not a huge evaporation loss.

But there was another quite exciting part of this program that could be developed, and that is to use as a cover a thin photovoltaic film which could generate full canal power needs while reducing water losses. The solar power could be stored by varying the daily canal water levels to maintain a 24-hour flow. It is an innovative program and it is one which would offer a tremendous benefit for this country for the future.

If we look back on how we feel in Australia about the Snowy Mountains scheme, what an innovative thing that was to do. The Australian people really supported it. Australian people know that in a land of our size where so much water is wasted as it flows into the sea, innovation is needed. A government that would say, ‘We are going to capture that water and deliver it to people so that they are able to prosper and their lands are going to prosper again,’ would support that plan. If you translate the cost of the Snowy Mountains scheme into today’s dollars, I am told that that ought to come out at about $10 billion. So we are not talking about something that is beyond our ability to do. When we are talking about the need for a stimulus, we have always said that there is a need for it to be something that would deliver for the future.

But I would just like to say in the short time that is available to me a couple of things about that very slim and core budget document itself. I hear Labor Party members talk continually about the importance of education and about how they are going to put more money into education. Somewhere along the line they do not practise what they preach. Hidden away in that little budget is evidence of how hypocritical their attitude to education really is. The coalition set up a $5 billion Endowment Fund for Higher Education. That fund of $5 billion, which has now grown to about $6.2 billion, was subsumed by this government’s Education Endowment Fund. It had a slight change of name, but they took the money out of the fund we had created and put it into their fund, and said, ‘We are going to grow that fund to $11 billion, and the first additional payment of $2.5 billion will come into that fund by 30 June 2009.’ The trouble is it was even legislated for. The trouble is that, when the budget document came down, it negated that. The government said, ‘That $2.5 billion will no longer be put into the education fund; it will go into an environmental fund.’ So we have this whole plan of the great Labor government: the Minister for Education, the Deputy Prime Minister, is building an education revolution. You can drive a revolution, you can incite a revolution, you can do all sorts of things. But I do not know how you build a revolution. Nonetheless, that is what the minister said. But money is needed. She said, ‘We’re going to have a bigger and better endowment fund than you are. We’ll take the money that you put aside and we’ll add to it.’ Well, she didn’t. As I said, it was legislated for. That $2.5 billion was to go into that fund before 30 June this year, but the budget overrides it and says, ‘No, no, that money will not go to education; it will go to the environment.’ So where is the real commitment? This is pea and thimble stuff! And there are more examples in this tricky little budget of the government saying one thing but actually delivering something else.

It is quite clear that it is the coalition who are the good managers of money. We left an economy with a $20 billion surplus. We left it with a Future Fund of over $60 billion. We left it with an education fund, established with $5 billion, which has now grown to $6.2 billion. We left no debt. It took us 10 years to pay off the last Labor government’s legacy of a $96 billion debt. We left no debt, which meant that we were saving about $10 billion a year in interest payments, which was money that could be returned to the Australian people either through tax cuts or through services. That is good management. But this government has a budget deficit—and it took just 18 months—of $57 billion and a debt which will peak at about $315 billion. How long will it take to pay off that debt? How much hardship will there be to pay it off? That is the legacy. With all the talk about a temporary deficit, all I can say is that the only way it will be a temporary deficit is if this is a temporary government.

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In opening my contributory remarks on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2009-2010 and cognate bills I had planned to start off with a particular introduction, but I feel I have to respond to some of the comments made by the honourable member for Mackellar in her contribution. When we took over government, we inherited a lot of things. We inherited a structural deficit in the budget and that was there in 2007 and previously. We also inherited a lot of programs that had been unfunded by what is factually known as a spending spree that was not put into the forward estimates. We also inherited about 12 interest rate rises; Work Choices; a disinvestment in public housing; a disinvestment in education; and a disinvestment in health, ripping the guts out of the Australian Health Care Agreement. If we look at the ledger and talk about what we inherited, there are many things that we inherited that put us in a very difficult position.

I know that members opposite are climate change deniers, but it appears they are also global recession deniers. The words do not come off their lips at all in speaking about the situation that we are in. The Australian people know that the global recession had its origins offshore, not in Australia. They know that. They are sensible. They get it. The opposition do not seem to get it and they spend their time talking the economy down; whereas we spend our time talking the economy up and building it up so that it is built up for the future.

This budget is premised on nation building and jobs, on laying the foundation for our future and for recovery, and on the approach to debt and deficit that is covered in the path being charted—as outlined by the Treasurer in his budget speech, in the budget papers and from Treasury—to return the budget to surplus. The Business Council of Australia, in their budget submission Budgeting for revival, which I read very carefully, talk about placing the federal budget ‘into deficit in a way that maximises Australia’s future productive capacity.’ That is exactly what has happened. There are no secrets in the budget. This one has more information than any before it since Federation. It is a good indicator of open government.

When I hear the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Wentworth, and the opposition gaggle talking about the budget and the economy—and only to talk the economy down, I might add—it is obvious that they just do not get it that the world is gripped by the worst global recession in 75 years and a revenue downturn of some $201 billion, with the combined effect of the end of the mining boom and the global recession. This has not passed the people of Page by. The people in my electorate of Page know that we are in the worst global recession in over 75 years and they know the roots of that. They also know that the government acted decisively in our national interest to protect jobs and to protect our economy by adopting an economic stimulus recovery plan that has as its core 70 per cent infrastructure, with over 35,000 projects nationwide.

In my electorate of Page I have 97 schools, with 84 of them being primary, special or K to 12, which are all eligible for new infrastructure—a new hall or library or other infrastructure that is a pressing priority in a particular school—under the Building the Education Revolution or under the National School Pride Program funding. And the high schools are eligible, on a competitive basis, for a new science lab or language lab. I know that all schools love it and the locals love it. It is about nation building at its best and it is about local jobs. It is the largest school modernisation building program the nation has seen, and it complements the education revolution. But it is not just about schools; it is also about universities and TAFEs. I have the Southern Cross University in my local area, which covers the whole North Coast. It has benefited through this budget. The North Coast TAFE is in my area. I hope the North Coast TAFE is successful in its bid for some project funding under the capital component in the budget.

This takes me to last week’s decision by the Prime Minister to support my local area getting recognised as a priority area for the Jobs and Training Compact and securing our local employment coordinator, Christine Williams. Christine has had a lot of experience in this area and will work really well in this position. I have had some preliminary discussions with her on some of the ways forward. I want to say thank you to my parliamentary colleagues the member for Richmond, who is the Minister for Ageing, and the member for Lyne for working cooperatively together to ensure that we secured this outcome for the Richmond-Tweed-Clarence Valley area and the mid-North Coast.

Across Page, the government’s nation building for recovery plan has some 157 projects underway, with an investment of $43.8 million—121 school projects to date; 16 black spots and boom gates already funded under the program; and $10.9 million for five local councils under the Community Infrastructure Program. This program will see the federal government working directly with local government through the local members, thus ensuring that local priorities are responded to. I work closely with my five local governments and especially with the mayors.

I would like to speak a little more about Page. I love representing the people of Page. It is beautiful country—rural, coastal, mountainous, forested and urban. I love Lismore, where I live, but I could live anywhere in Page and be happy. There are so many beautiful, welcoming places. We are a friendly bunch of people and very kind to each other. The reaction to the floods that we recently experienced showed this, as does the way we have welcomed into our midst refugees from war-torn places in Africa and the way we help our own—our children in need, our homeless, our forgotten, our veterans and more.

Turning to the national and local retail figures, we all would have seen yesterday that the Australian Retailers Association released its fact sheet which showed that in April there was a 0.3 per cent growth in retail turnover that heralded an 8.4 per cent increase in retail trade company profits over the March quarter. Locally, I have had discussions with local shopping centre managers who confirmed to me that their figures are up by a similar margin and even more. The same can be said of shop owners and businesses, especially food outlets. Real estate is also tracking along nicely. The first home owners grants are working. Yesterday the Housing Industry Association said that figures were up and that that is a good sign for recovery—though I am not at the point of wanting to gloat about anything; I am just outlining what other people are saying and the figures that they are revealing. We do know that the combination of the increase in retail spending and the increase in building approvals and developments is showing good signals. Along with this, the government’s insulation project, a major component of the recovery and infrastructure spending, is one of the biggest environmental and jobs projects the nation has seen. My area has had a huge take-up and I am pleased to report that our local TAFE, the North Coast TAFE—and this will probably also occur at Wollongbar—has organised training courses for locals to be trained in insulation installation. That was something my team and I advocated for.

I want to make several comments about the opposition. On the one hand you have the opposition talking the economy down. When they are pressed to suggest what an appropriate level of debt might be, you get all sorts of figures from different members of the opposition—there is no unity—or you get a blank look and no reply. One member might say that under the coalition it would be $21 billion less than the projected deficit; another might say it would be $125 billion less. You have the Leader of the Opposition saying maybe $177 billion, but there is no clarity at all. The member for Cowper, which is the electorate beside mine, is a member of the National Party. In the November 2008 edition of the Clarence River Lifestyle he said a number of interesting things about the Rudd government’s economic stimulus package. His comments were the opposite of what some members of the opposition have been saying—it seems they do and say anything. He said:

The global financial crisis is not just about financial institutions. As its longer term effects become clear, it will affect each and every one of us, particularly if the Australian economy slows further as a result.

The package will help stimulate the economy …

I have heard other members of the House denying that. Here it is in print. The article finished:

“The local economy will benefit from these increases in the first time buyers’ grant. The more homes that are built, the more people are employed. The more homes that are bought, the more money is spent on fitting them out and on renovations, all of which helps local businesses,” said Mr Hartsuyker.

That is what I have been saying about the economic stimulus package recovery plan: it is about jobs, it is about small business, it is about recovery and it is about helping local economies—all very interesting.

Turning to local issues, the issues I have covered have been my election commitments—the Ballina bypass, the Alstonville bypass. On ABC radio this morning, I heard the Nationals News South Wales leader, Andrew Stoner, talking about how the Alstonville bypass had been dropped from the state budget priorities. I got on radio to correct that. It really proves that they will do and say anything to put fear into the hearts of people. It is a federally funded program of $90 million. It was an election commitment. The money is there and the project has started. Along with the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, I turned the first sod, in company with the chair of the Alstonville Bypass Committee, Bob Wilson, and other members. The project is underway. This just proves that they will do and say anything and do not care if they mislead or strike fear into the hearts of people, particularly the people who advocated for decades to get the Alstonville bypass up and running.

I would like to say a couple of things about the floods. You would know that the floods swept through my seat of Page recently and also across the North Coast of New South Wales and South-East Queensland. The recovery effort, which is underway, is wonderful. I want to thank some people who did not get a guernsey when I was speaking about it recently as my time expired. I want to thank our local commercial radio stations, which played a major role in keeping our communities up to date with flood and emergency service issues and warnings. The local Lismore based 2LM and the local Grafton based 2GF are both well-listened-to and well-regarded local commercial radio stations which play a part in the lives of our respective communities. There are also two local community radio stations. I am sure there are more, but the ones I heard were Bora Ridge based 88.9FM and Ballina based Paradise FM—to them I say well done.

I also want to spare a thought for some of our locals in the Lismore caravan park who lost their homes, their vans. I have spoken to some residents and, like the rest of the community, I am trying to help. The Northern Star newspaper is also running a community campaign to get them assistance. I have written to the Prime Minister, the Premier, the federal housing minister and the state housing minister asking them whether they could work through this with me and the local government to find a solution to their predicament.

I have also had some success with the local chapter of the Australian Macadamia Society. The CEO came to my office saying that they were excluded from the up to $15,000 cash grants available under flood recovery because they have lost a lot of their crop through wind which came as a result of the flood. I was able to successfully advocate to the state minister in this case, Ian Macdonald, and the guidelines were broadened to include our horticultural industry under this package. This is good because macadamia farmers have had three seasons where some of them did not have a sustainable income due to a range of extreme weather events from frosts to hailstorms, to floods and then wind damage from the flood.

I want to say ‘Well done’ to the chair of Casino Beef Week, Stuart George, to the committee and to everyone else. Casino Beef Week went ahead as planned, not even one week after the flood. It was hugely successful. It has been running for 27 years. I also say ‘Well done’ to Northern Co-operative Meat Company, one of our biggest employers in Casino, for donating breakfast for over 4,000 people.

Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare, Women and Youth) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One thing we need to be mindful of when we vote on budget bills and pass legislation in this House is the impact it will have when each of us are long gone from this place, when other members will be making decisions, future generations of Australians who will be living through the impact of our decisions and, in some cases, as is the case with this budget, paying for it.

We have seen this current government, the Labor Party, spend $10 million an hour for every hour since they were elected, and of course two-thirds of Labor’s debt is a product of their own new spending commitments. They have saddled every man, woman and child with a debt of $9,000. In Victoria, my home state, where the state Labor government has contributed its own debt, that debt for every man, woman and child is $15,000. We have now seen the revised debt figures, and debt is expected to rise to as high as $315 billion. This figure, if recent history is anything to go by, is likely to increase. These are not figures that are just thrown around; these are conservative figures from the farcically self-labelled economic conservative Prime Minister. These are real figures that will have a real impact. They are unprecedented figures.

This says to young Australians, ‘Not only are you going to live through a time of increased unemployment but we are also going to burden you with this debt.’ Why? Because this government panicked. This Prime Minister panicked. He was not experienced enough. He could not find another way to spin his way out of the poor public perception of his management of the economy and so he just threw more money at it. That is what we expect to see from this Prime Minister. If there is another crisis or another problem, he will put even more debt on the credit card.

Madam Deputy Speaker, even though I am not a betting woman, I would wager a significant sum on the fact that it will not be this Prime Minister who will be responsible for making the very difficult and complex decisions that will result in this debt being paid off. We have had a look at the budget papers, and they assume above trend growth for six consecutive years, followed by trend growth for another six years. It is assuming an unprecedented 12 years of uninterrupted growth at or well above the historic trend. This is not believable; most people do not believe this. We want to think the best but we also have to be utterly realistic. The Prime Minister, when questioned in the House, said that all net government debt will be paid off by 2022. Again, that is an extremely optimistic figure and there has been nothing in a very real and professional way to substantiate that particular claim. The government continue to refer to figures that are not in the public domain. That is a key flaw in their whole approach to the budget and to explaining what is in the budget.

There are some groups that are already being hurt as a result of having to pay for the government’s panicked spending. For instance, we have had significant discussion in the House on changes to the youth allowance. The Deputy Prime Minister has mocked the current system and has claimed that the Liberals, as she put it, support the current system and those on salaries of $200,000, $300,000 and $400,000. This is to say that the current system of youth allowance is not needed by those families of young people who are currently taking a gap year and who were relying on the youth allowance. There would not be the protests and the expressions of anxiety and consternation right across rural and regional Australia if this were not a real issue. This has been seriously misjudged by the government and the Deputy Prime Minister, and they ought to look at it again and this punitive policy which is punishing young Australians for the poor economic management of the government and the debt it has incurred in this budget.

But they are not the only ones. Some $908 million, or 32 per cent of funding, will be cut from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry next year and 312 jobs, including 60 graduate research positions, will be lost. Rural and regional members have banded together and lobbied for the extension of exceptional circumstances support for drought affected farmers. I trust that the government will continue this valuable program. If we want to have the capacity to grow our own produce, we need to ensure that whole industries do not close down. It is far too expensive and often almost impossible to restart these industries once they have disappeared. It is in the national economic interest to sustain the agricultural industries through these difficult drought conditions. And some more money has been scrapped. We have seen more than $35 million cut from biosecurity and quarantine, leading to the loss of a further 125 jobs. That means export markets will incur a 70 to 80 per cent increase in fees, and that will have serious applications for those industries.

Water is a key issue about which there has been much discussion. As someone whose electorate contributes significantly to the Murray-Darling Basin, I am always aware of the problems on the ground and keen to see where water policy both nationally and at a state level takes us. The budget reveals that the government will ignore 600 billion litres of annual water savings in Australia. This government has failed to deliver the vital water infrastructure that is needed to improve the health of the Murray-Darling Basin for all those who rely on it. That is a very sad state of affairs. In essence the government is spending vast amounts of money on buyouts rather than on replumbing rural Australia.

We have seen all sorts of supposed commitments to infrastructure. In the limited time remaining to me, I want to mention the Nagambie bypass project in Victoria. The bypass will be 17.4 kilometres in length, and 21 per cent of traffic on this part of the highway is heavy vehicle traffic. In 2007 the coalition pledged $288 million to immediately complete the bypass, which represented 80 per cent of its estimated cost. The Labor Party have followed that with an election commitment of $216 million. So far they have provided funding of $8 million—$5 million for planning in May 2008 and $3 million in December 2008.

After the release of the budget on 12 May, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government put out a media release in which he listed a number of works to be funded across the states. This included a reference to the Nagambie bypass. But there was no mention of the amount of funding to be committed by the government. The only information included was that work would start in 2009-10 and that the project is scheduled for completion in 2012. Minor work has in fact already begun, so in substance the minister’s pledge does not mean much unless he can guarantee that major work will begin this year.

When my office asked what commitments have been made by the government for subsequent years, the minister’s office refused to ‘speculate’. They said the $37 million for this financial year is all that has been published. The government have forward budgeted for other projects. They have included paid parental leave in this year’s budget even though they are delaying it. The people of Nagambie have been waiting long enough. They deserve a cast-iron assurance from the federal government that the money will be provided so that major works can begin. Either the minister’s office has given inaccurate information to my office and there has been forwarded budgeting, or the government has not forward budgeted for the Nagambie bypass. I ask the government to clarify this.

We have seen other announcements by the government, and they fall short of actually fulfilling some of the government’s infrastructure commitments for rural and regional Australia. We have had significant debate on private health insurance rebates, and the government knows full well it has broken its promise; it knows full well that its changes to the private health insurance rebate will have significant impacts on the public health system and, overall, will reduce the quality and availability of health care right across Australia. Even in my electorate of Indi, just over 33,000 people have private health insurance—37 per cent of the population. We have seen that 56 per cent of all surgical procedures are performed in private hospitals, and it is estimated—the government can dispute it to cover its decision and its broken promise—that premiums will increase. For many who are on the margin, that will have a further impact on the affordability of private health insurance.

At this point, in the limited time available, I would like to focus on a few key portfolio matters relating to my shadow ministerial responsibilities. We have seen in this year’s budget the Labor Party’s failure to deliver on its promise to build 260 new childcare centres. Their plan for early childhood promised to ‘make child care more accessible by establishing 260 new long day care centres on school, TAFE, university and community sites’. But after 18 months the government has budgeted, at a cost of $114½ million, for 38 centres. Of those 38 centres, five or six are at any type of planning stage and not one is yet completed. We on this side of the House have repeatedly called on the Rudd government to answer these questions: who is going to pay for the other 222 centres. Where will they be built? How much will they cost? Will they contribute to the problem of oversupply? And exactly when will the promise be delivered in full? These are very pertinent questions. We found out on budget night, on page 24 of the Deputy Prime Minister’s ministerial statement, that:

The remaining up to 222 early learning and care centres will be considered when the childcare market is settled and based on the experience of the priority centres.

For an issue which formed such a significant part of their early childhood policy, it is certainly an important backflip and an admission that the assumptions on which the policy was based were incomplete and flawed.

The government’s unwillingness to release childcare vacancy data to provide real information and direction to the industry is absolutely inexcusable. The reason the government gives for not delivering its promise to build 260 childcare centres is that it wants to wait, as the Deputy Prime Minister said, until ‘when the childcare market is settled’. The collapse of ABC Learning has highlighted all sorts of demand and supply issues within the childcare industry. In order to have some certainty in the childcare market, the industry’s main requirement now is to have some idea where demand hotspots and chronic undersupply are actually located. The government has itself contributed to this uncertainty by refusing to release the childcare vacancy data. This data was last released publicly in April 2007, under the previous government.

So the government will reconsider this promise to build the remaining 222 childcare centres when there is greater certainty in the childcare market. But it is the action of the government itself, by refusing to release the vacancy data, that is actually contributing to uncertainty and instability. The mind boggles about which direction the government is taking child care and early childhood development, because there is a lack of transparency. You have ask why there is a lack of transparency; why will the government not ask the questions. It is because it is all turning into a big bureaucratic mess.

It gives me no pleasure to have to raise these issues, but as the shadow spokesman it is my responsibility to do so. The paid parental leave scheme to which the government has committed is supposed to provide 18 weeks leave at the adult federal minimum wage and commence in January 2011. The minister for families, housing and community services said on 11 May:

We’ll put the legislation into the Parliament before the next election.

I ask the question: how can Australian families have confidence that the government will fulfil this commitment when it has squibbed out of so many other commitments, when it has squibbed on the private health insurance rebate, when it has squibbed on the promise to deliver 260 childcare centres. The Prime Minister provided an out clause when he said in his press release on 10 May:

The scheme will come into effect when the economy is expected to be recovering and the economic outlook improved.

With all economic indicators pointing towards the country slipping deeper into recession by the time this scheme is due to commence, Australian families have to question whether this election commitment will fall by the wayside too. We have seen the budget papers show that by 2010-11 there will be one million people unemployed, there will be a record deficit and the interest bill will keep piling up to $8 billion in 2012-13. Families, individuals, older people, seniors in our community are paying and will be paying for Labor’s reckless spending. In two years time who is to say that Labor will not renege on this promise, in just the same way as previous Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating reneged on his L-A-W law tax cuts, which were legislated for but never delivered.

My time is coming to a close. In concluding I would like to say to the people of my electorate and to the people of Australia that we are living in difficult times, unprecedented levels of debt, as a direct result of the actions of this government that will burden future generations. I hold serious concerns, particularly for the younger people of this nation. Recalling the impacts on youth unemployment of the last Labor recession we had to have, which effectively put young people’s lives on hold for many years, I certainly hope that is not the result of this recession.

Steve Gibbons (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The economic crisis continues to reverberate around the world, affecting both developed and developing countries and economies. Of course, Australia is not immune from the impacts of this global recession, and new figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics have confirmed the impact of the downturn on the business investment and construction industries. Capital expenditure fell by 8.9 per cent in the March quarter and businesses are scaling back their investment plans for the coming year. This is not surprising in the face of the worst global economic conditions in 75 years, and that is why the Rudd government has taken decisive action to provide incentives for private-sector business investment through small business and general business tax breaks.

This investment allowance was increased and expanded in the budget to provide additional help for small businesses to invest in building their future capacity. Businesses with a turnover of less than $2 million can claim an additional tax deduction of 50 per cent of the cost of a new asset, and those with turnovers of more than $2 million can claim up to an additional 30 per cent deduction. But in the current economic climate, we cannot rely on the private sector to keep investing and supporting jobs. That is why the government is taking action to stimulate economic activity at a time when the private sector either is reluctant to invest itself or cannot raise finance because of the freezing up of global credit markets. This action will result in thousands of Australian businesses, large and small, getting government contracts to supply goods and services. This will keep thousands of Australians in jobs who would otherwise be unemployed and unproductive.

In 12 months time there will be about 35,000 individual construction projects around the country, including the largest school modernisation program ever. All of these will be boosting local economies and small businesses right across Australia. They will be keeping contractors, trades men and women, truck drivers and small businesses working and employing Australians.

We have just seen again the impact of the Rudd government’s actions on retail sales, with consumers spending a record $19.4 billion in April. This was a 0.3 per cent rise in the month and followed a 2.2 per cent increase in March. Retail sales are now running at an impressive 4.8 per cent above the levels for November last year, when the government’s first stimulus payments began to flow. The government’s response to the global economic crisis has been decisive and it is working, but there are still risks ahead for the country, and among the biggest risks are the parties opposite. Their continued ideologically driven scare campaign to undermine the government’s economic strategy puts at risk Australia’s ability to weather the global economic recession. They are putting much needed investment in the country’s failing infrastructure at risk and they are putting Australian jobs at risk.

A few days ago we saw a disgraceful attempt by the coalition to claim that the government’s funding has not been directed to rural and regional Australia. I represent a regional electorate and one that includes towns with some of the lowest scores in Victoria on the socioeconomic indexes of the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Since the election of the Rudd government my electorate of Bendigo has received funding of around $145 million—$145 million of essential investment in Central Victorian schools, hospitals, roads, railways and other community infrastructure. We started by delivering on our election commitments, with $5 million for the new GP superclinic in Bendigo, almost $2 million for Bendigo’s Chinese precinct and $500,000 for a complex care unit in Maryborough. We have also honoured a $15 million commitment for the Central Victoria Solar City project. Then there was $10 million for a shared trade training facility for Bendigo’s secondary schools, $2.4 million for computers in schools, $500,000 for a rural health unit at Elmore and another $500,000 for respite care.

Then we came to this year’s budget. Almost $60 million will fund the construction of the La Trobe University’s Northern Victorian School of Rural Health in Bendigo. This is great news for Central Victoria and I am delighted that the hard work by La Trobe University and my office on this project has paid off.  The tireless support for this project of La Trobe University’s Vice-Chancellor, Paul Johnson, demonstrates his personal commitment to the university’s regional campuses, and this funding must be particularly gratifying for him and his colleagues. It means that Bendigo’s entire health education precinct is now fully funded and construction work can start almost immediately.

This will help stimulate economic activity and support jobs in Bendigo, both during the construction phase and later, when the precinct is in full operation. The health education precinct will also include Monash University’s School of Rural Health and the Bendigo regional clinical school, the existing Monash University Primary Care Research Unit, the proposed GP superclinic development and the chronic disease management and education unit. New jobs will be created and the influx of new healthcare students will be good for Bendigo and regional Australia, because studies clearly show that students who study at regional campuses are much more likely to work in regional locations after they qualify. Once again, Labor has demonstrated its commitment at both federal and state levels to addressing the healthcare needs of people living in Central Victoria.

Also included in the budget is $3.2 billion of funding to improve regional rail services in Victoria. This project includes duplicating the existing tracks in the western suburbs of Melbourne to speed up access to Southern Cross Station. This is great news for V/Line passengers travelling to and from Bendigo and other stations in my electorate, as it will remove the congestion that country trains currently face when they get to the Melbourne suburbs. At the moment, V/Line trains often get stuck behind metropolitan trains on their way to Southern Cross Station, leading to delays and frustration for country passengers. Journey times and reliability will be improved because country and metropolitan trains will for the first time run on separate lines to the suburbs. This will be the first new rail line in metropolitan Melbourne for 80 years, and it not only helps bring Melbourne closer for Central Victorians but it brings Central Victorians closer to Melbourne. Businesses in the region, including those involved in tourism and hospitality, should get a boost from this significant Commonwealth government investment.

With this funding Labor is again showing its commitment to rebuilding transport infrastructure for the benefit of regional Australia—transport infrastructure that the coalition ignored for almost 12 years while they were in office, with the exception of course of the blatant pork-barrelling by the Nationals, in particular, who were desperately trying to shore up their declining vote by targeting marginal Labor held electorates.

Central Victoria has already shown its commitment to clean energy technologies with projects such as the Central Victoria Solar City and the establishment of Solar Systems’ $10 million research and development facility at Bridgewater just outside my electorate. The budget is now offering the region a fantastic opportunity to confirm its leadership and the use of renewable energy. The City of Greater Bendigo is sponsoring a community oriented team to prepare a bid for the $100 million national energy efficiency initiative announced in the budget. There is widespread local interest in this proposal and several local organisations are keen to participate, including the Bendigo and Mount Alexander sustainability groups, the Central Victoria Solar City group, Bendigo Bank, Bendigo Business Council, Bendigo Media, Powercor, Regional Development Victoria, Bendigo Regional Institute of TAFE and La Trobe University.

The government is offering $100 million in the next financial year to one regional city of at least 25,000 people. Winning this new funding would enable Bendigo to create a modern renewable energy network that integrates a smart grid with smart meters in homes to significantly increase energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The smart grid technology uses sensors to monitor electricity supply across the distribution networks and makes it easier to integrate renewable energy like solar and wind power into the grid. The budget is giving central Victoria a fantastic opportunity to confirm its leadership in the use of renewable energy technology and there is no reason why Bendigo should not be able to compete successfully for this funding.

The government’s $800 million Community Infrastructure Program is the largest ever one-off federal investment in local infrastructure across Australia. Almost $15 million of funding under this program has been allocated for projects in my electorate. These include $3.3 million for Maryborough’s station domain, a new community precinct which is the most substantial infrastructure component of the Central Goldfields Community Action Plan; and $5 million towards a new sports and aquatic centre at Kyneton to replace an outdated 50-year-old outdoor pool. This project includes a new 25-metre eight-lane pool, a learn-to-swim pool, an exercise pool for physical rehabilitation and four new synthetic tennis courts that will help conserve water in a drought affected town. This investment will also go some way towards rebuilding the community spirit after the recent bushfires.

There is $2.2 million to fund enhancement works at Castlemaine Botanical Gardens to refurbish the significant heritage infrastructure and improve pedestrian access. In addition, a further $4.2 million has been allocated for a myriad of smaller infrastructure projects as part of the Rudd government’s initiatives to boost central Victoria’s economy during the global recession. Community infrastructure, including footpaths, community halls, libraries and sportsgrounds will be upgraded while generating construction activity and supporting local jobs.

The Rudd government has invested $26 million in schools in my electorate, $9 million of this through the National School Pride Program and a further $17 million for primary schools under the Primary Schools for the 21st Century program. These programs are delivering much-needed investment in school facilities and funding for school maintenance. Importantly, they are also supporting local jobs by creating demand for tradespeople in communities across the region.

The construction of 32 social housing units will also create work and support jobs in my electorate. Funding of $6.7 million for these has been approved and construction will start shortly and be completed by June next year. Another $1 million has been allocated for road safety improvements in my electorate under Black Spots Program funding, and five high-risk rail crossings will get new boom gates and warning lights.

The opposition has been running a scare campaign in regional areas about the changes to student income in the budget. There has been a considerable amount of misinformation about these changes which mean some 68,000 additional students, including many from regional and rural Australia, will now qualify for the youth allowance. The scare campaign by the opposition has been about one element—the workforce participation criteria for independence—and it has done nothing to help parents and students understand how the changes will affect them. In working out how their children will be affected parents need to take into account all of the changes to student income support and not just the changes in the workforce participation criteria. From 1 January next year more regional students will qualify for youth allowance under changes to the parental income test. They will receive full allocation if their parents earn up to $42,559, up from the current threshold of $32,800.

Youth allowance payments will only start to reduce if parents earn more than this threshold, and many regional students will receive some allowance up to a much higher income cut-out point based on their family circumstances. For example, a single child aged under 18 living at home will receive some allowance until their parents earn $74,419 instead of the old cut-out of $58,288. If that child lives away from home, the cut-out point increases to $90,974. And for families with more children, the limits are even higher. For those with two children aged 17 and 21 living away from home, the cut-out will not be until their parents earn $139,388.

Any student who receives at least part-payment of youth allowance can also receive a range of other support, of particular benefit to regional students and their families. These include the Student Start-Up Scholarship of $2,254 each year, higher away-from-home rates for youth allowance payments and relocation scholarships of $4,000 in the first year and $1,000 for each year thereafter. More students will also qualify for youth allowance as a result of changes to the age at which they are considered to be independent from their parents. At the moment students are not considered to be independent until they are 25 years old, unless they can demonstrate their independence in other ways. This age limit will be progressively reduced to 24 years in 2010, 23 years in 2011 and 22 years in 2012.

Some students undertake paid work to demonstrate independence from their parents, but the Bradley review found that many students who qualified for youth allowance in this way came from better-off families. More than one in every three students came from families who earned an income of more than $100,000, almost one in five came from families earning more than $150,000, and one in every 10 students came from families earning more than $200,000. The Youth Allowance was designed to help less well-off families give their kids a decent education, not help those who can well afford to send their children to university. The government’s tough decision to tighten the workforce participation criteria for independence means that more support will go to students who need it most, including many from rural and regional Australia.

All central Victorians have welcomed the $32 a week increase in the single age pension and $10 a week increase for couples that was announced in the budget. This is great news for older Australians, many of whom are finding it hard to make ends meet in the current economic climate. In December last year, the Rudd government made lump sum payments of $1,400 to each single pensioner and $2,100 to each couple, payments that did their bit to support retailers, as I mentioned earlier. I estimate around 17,000 central Victorians will benefit from the increase to the age pensions, and this will inject an additional $15 million into the local economy. Of course, this pension increase is just one step Labor has taken to reduce the impact of the global economic crisis on pensioners’ budgets.

The Rudd government’s other initiatives to help older Australians include reviewing the value of investments following the recent dramatic falls in share markets, twice lowering the deeming rate to take account of lower investment yields and tax bonuses of up to $900 for self-funded retirees who paid tax on their investment income last year. As you can see, the Rudd government is not neglecting regional Australia and it has certainly not been neglecting central Victoria, with $145 million invested in the region in its first 18 months of government.

So how would that compare with the coalition’s record when they were in government? Their record has to be the very definition of neglect. With the exception of the Calder Highway duplication, which they had to be dragged kicking and screaming into funding, in almost 12 years of coalition government we saw only a tiny fraction of investment in my electorate compared to the Rudd Labor government’s massive boost, which is designed to cushion the impact of the financial crisis we inherited. While the Liberals and Nationals were pork-barrelling unviable projects in their own electorates under their discredited Regional Partnerships program, the infrastructure of central Victoria was left to crumble and decay. Of course, the story was the same under the coalition state government of Jeff Kennett: schools were closed, hospitals were shut, rail services were terminated and road improvements and maintenance were neglected. It has taken Labor governments in Melbourne and Canberra to start to restore the infrastructure of regional Victoria, and this year’s Commonwealth budget is Labor’s latest commitment to the regions. Central Victoria will enjoy a major uplift in its schools, health care services, transport infrastructure and community facilities from the Rudd government’s latest budget. I congratulate the Treasurer on bringing down a budget that is appropriate for the economic circumstances that we face as a nation and I commend the budget to the House.

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to address the budget bills. Let me start with a personal story. Some two years ago, when I was campaigning to be elected to this place, I was out doorknocking. Many times I would come across good Liberal supporters who would say to me: ‘We can’t let the Labor Party get into power here. If the Labor Party get back in, within a term we will be back in $100 billion worth of debt.’ I would nod my head sagely and agree with them. In my heart I never thought that this could possibly be the case. It is an extreme disappointment to see not only that occur but a far worse situation.

Here we are with a budget of unprecedented peacetime debt and it is only early days yet. How can we believe the government when we have had a full year of budget and growth revisions? Remember that just 12 months ago the Treasurer told us that, because of his incredible fiscal rectitude, he was delivering a budget surplus of $23 billion, that delivering a surplus was the most important thing that he could do for the Australian economy and that only he and Kevin Rudd could save us from hyperinflation. All that happened just before the economy was hit by a truck that the Treasurer did not even see coming. Make no mistake: this Labor government is unlikely to ever deliver a surplus of any sort.

How long ago it seems. All year the Treasurer and the Prime Minister denied that the budget would run into deficit, then that Australia would have to endure a recession, and then came the excruciating display, as we all tried to get either of them to tell the unpalatable truth—$315 billion debt. I wrote in my last newsletter that the government had been deliberately trying to fudge the difference between millions and billions. I heard a great example the other day: one million seconds is equivalent to 11½ days; one billion seconds is equivalent to 32 years. That is the difference between a million and a billion. No wonder the Prime Minister could not mouth the words. He knows exactly what that debt means. The net debt means that, by 2016, every man, woman and child in Australia will owe in excess of $10,000. Considering that less than half our population is in the active workforce, and that ratio is moving the wrong way, a young person starting work in 2016 is quite likely to be responsible for a Commonwealth debt of $20,000 plus. To that you can now add state government debt, which is likely to double that amount, and then you can add interest to all of it. It is not a very appetising thought, is it?

Let me go to the subject of interest rates. Following the Prime Minister’s claim that debt will be retired in 2022, it is worth examining the assumptions in the budget which plan for a government bond rate of 4.75 per cent over that period. It also assumes a very gallant 4.5 per cent growth rate for the two years coming out of the recession that the government did not think would happen, followed by growth averaging four per cent over the next four years. Those estimates have been discredited by almost all in the financial sector, but let us just assume for a moment that this perfect world scenario can be achieved. Does anyone seriously believe that, with growth exceeding four per cent for more than six years, interest rates will remain at less than five per cent? We need some honesty about this debt level and the interest rate debt risk.

The problem is that many on that side of the House actually believe the hyperspin being fed to them. Following the delivery of the budget, I attended an in-house dinner at which an appraisal of the economy was given by KPMG. There was an opportunity for questions and, as we had not been able to get an answer out of the Treasurer in parliament that day, I asked when he expected to pay off the debt he was accumulating on behalf of the Australian people and when he though the government would retire that debt. The telling point, however, came from a near neighbour, a Labor backbencher, at the table I was sitting at, who muttered, ‘In 2016; why don’t you read the budget?’ In 2016! Clearly he had not understood the difference between deficit and debt. The deficit is expected to disappear in 2016, not the debt. That is just when we can start paying off the by then $210 billion of net debt. In any event, I did not get any better answer from the consultant than we had received from the Treasurer on the day in the House. However, speaking to some of the presenters later I found that they were of the opinion privately that the government has no intention of retiring the debt. Mark this space: the Australian people are being prepared for permanent debt. I predict that if this government is allowed to stay in office the language will change. We will be informed that it is responsible for governments to carry debt. Remember that Australia’s unprecedented growth in employment and wealth was generated in a low-tax environment engineered by the no-debt policies of the previous government.

John Howard once said that the times would suit him. Now I think the times are indeed suiting this Labor government. The global financial crisis has given them an excuse to do what Labor governments have always done: spend other people’s money. In this case, it is our children’s money. As they are spending this money, they are positively gloating over their contribution to Australia. We have heard all the lines: ‘building Australia’s infrastructure for the future’, ‘addressing the backlog’ and ‘an education revolution’ et cetera. This is all being put on our children’s credit cards, and it is being done with an attitude of impossible smugness. If this government had paid for just one thing as a result of its own tough decision, we could maybe give it some respect; but it is doing things on money saved by the previous government or borrowed from future generations. It is a disgrace.

There are some signs in the economy of an early recovery. If this comes to pass, the government will claim it was all because of their good management. However, much of the good news is generated by a still strong export industry. Nothing in any of the government’s packages has been aimed at stimulating exports. In fact, some of the decisions have impacted negatively on it. If exports are to lead us out of the gloom and if we have already bottomed, Australians will ask in the future: ‘Why did we continue to rack up debt after the turning point? Why are many of these super-spending programs ramping up in the second and third years of the budget forecast when even the budget papers expected us to be back in a strong growth phase?’ They will ask: ‘Why did we keep spending, and did we get value?’

Yesterday in the House I raised the question of hyperinflation in the school building sector and gave the example of a school in my electorate that has seen its construction program cut by more than half. This is because in the last two months the buildings that it was expecting to buy had more than doubled in price. A huge cash splash in small sectors of the economy will always create distortions. Companies know that, if a government department has money that it has to spend or if it has an unrealistic time line, they have a chance to top slice, bottom slice and middle slice. I do not think this example is isolated. I have been approached by members from both sides of politics and they are seeing exactly the same thing in their electorate. This is not an isolated example. I have had a number of schools tell me the same story. The taxpayer is being ripped off by state government departments and corporate builders. The program needs real management, and it is not getting it. In the end, $14 billion may well buy $7 billion worth of poorly planned, slapdash school buildings—too much, too fast, with not enough thought and in too narrow a sector.

Let us look at some of the specifics of the budget. Nothing could upset me more than slamming the door in the faces of regional and rural students who are trying to access tertiary education. The changes to the youth allowance regarding the qualifications for independence have effectively spelled the end of the gap year. I have recently released a discussion paper on this topic which suggests measures to address what has for years been an inequity. The system we had was far from perfect. However, the budget changes are about to make things worse. It costs around $16,000 a year more to have a student at university who has to leave the family home than one who can live at home. This is over and above the normal costs associated with attending university. One of the few ways that country students have been able to get some assistance is by getting a good paying job in the gap year, often doing seasonal work. Things are tougher now and jobs are harder to find. The budget tells us that we are heading for a million unemployed. Now kids are being told that they need a job for 30 hours a week and for 18 months over a two-year period. Those jobs are just not there.

The new stipulation requiring a two-year qualification period for students to apply for the independently assessed youth allowance effectively ends the gap year. It has left thousands of students in limbo who have taken the year off in order to qualify. Unfortunately, these moves will make tertiary education unattainable for many, and it will not be just parents saying, ‘You can’t go to university.’ Well-advised children—children who are in touch with their family situation—will make that decision. They will say: ‘No. I really don’t think I want to do that. I’ll go and do something else instead.’

The government’s attitude to agriculture has been confirmed in this budget, with the funding cuts to the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service being fully exposed. The export industries, which I touched on earlier, must thrive if Australia is ever pay off its debt. However, the government is withdrawing $40 million from the quarantine service. The government says that industry must carry the full weight. Many of the inspection protocols, which are driven by political agendas in other countries, impose higher levels of examination than our competitors have to deal with—in effect non-tariff trade barriers. This is part of the uneven playing field presented to our Australian producers, and the government is saying, ‘You’re on your own.’  At the same time, it is claiming credit for strong exports.

Further, the agriculture minister has acquiesced to another $12 million being ripped from his department as an efficiency dividend—the only department this is being required of. He is overseeing the closure of Land & Water Australia, and the cutting of a further $12 million from the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation—all of this at a time when we are telling our farmers that they need to adopt new technologies to survive in a low-carbon world.

Now let us have another look at the government’s extravagant promises. Take broadband: prior to the last election, the Prime Minister promised a $10 billion fibre-to-the-node network to 98 per cent of Australians, with private enterprise picking up half the cost. To achieve this, the government ratted the $2 billion telecommunications fund put in place to provide for future technological changes in rural Australia. That is the one thing the government has achieved in its broadband revolution: it has grabbed the money. It is pretty good at that.

When this deal collapsed due to lack of support by the private sector, you would have thought that the government would have been just a little bit crestfallen, a bit embarrassed. No! It was a victory—a victory for spin if nothing else. The Prime Minister proudly announced that, because of the failure, they would now build a fibre-to-the-house network costing $43 billion. Of this $43 billion, half again is to come from private enterprise. I wish someone could explain to me how, if private industry could not work out how to make a profit out of a $5 billion commitment, they will—with exactly the same number of customers; not one extra—make a profit out of spending four times as much. But not to worry—if private enterprise does not come to the party, the taxpayer will fund the lot. And guess what? What is in the budget for all this? $54 million over the forward estimates. That should do it! What a joke. The extra $42.963 billion is yet to show up in the forward estimates. And, to add insult to injury, if this network is ever built 10 per cent of Australians, rural Australians, are to receive the second-class highway. They will get a first-class bill—they will get their full share of the $43 billion debt—but they will get second-class service.

Depressingly, the overall message from this budget is one of oppressive debt—a message that Labor are, once again, intent on playing Father Christmas with our grandchildren’s credit cards; that they do not understand the long-term implications that higher debt and interest rates have for the whole nation; and that they do not understand what sucking $300 million out of the economy, plus the state debts, will do to long-term interest rates and the ability of the economy to grow in the medium term. This is a reckless budget: a big taxing, high spending Labor budget—a traditional Labor budget. It is a budget which most of Australia will regret in the longer term.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with great pleasure that I rise to support Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2009-2010 and cognate bills which are before the House today, and to address some of the context within which we enter the budget period and debate the outcomes of that budget today. In some ways it has been quite frustrating for me to listen to what I would consider to be the very basic level of economic debate from those opposite on the issues which confronted us in the budget.

What is the context of this budget? The context of this budget is a global economic crisis, with the full implications rolled out at the end of last year when the international financial markets started to understand the implications of the subprime crisis in America and how the spread of that debt throughout more complex financial arrangements had actually brought into danger many in the financial sector across the international economy. Not surprisingly, and very sadly, financial entanglements and collapses then flowed through to the real economy, and we saw what has now become known as the global economic recession. That is an unprecedented series of circumstances. In 75 years, we have not confronted, at an international level, that degree of challenge for economies. But you would think all that had never happened if you listened to those opposite in this debate.

The reality is that we are faced with a challenge that is significantly different to those that faced us at the budget last year. Anybody with a fundamental view of how an economy and fiscal policy should be run and what being an economic conservative actually means would understand that it means running an anticyclical policy. That is, when the economy is going boom, when it is going downhill at a speed of knots, you put the brake on. You act countercyclically in your fiscal policy.

When I first came into this place in 2004, I said in my first speech that I was a little bit concerned that we were a bit like the people at the party who had imbibed a bit too much and had lost our capacity to assess whether it was actually time to go home. Why did I say that? Because I was starting to talk to organisations like St Vinnie’s and the Smith Family in my area who had said to me they were getting a lot more people coming through from suburbs where they would not normally see people from, people who were seeking assistance because they had so loaded themselves up with personal debt that when one thing went wrong, such as an illness at work that required an extended period of time off work or a car breakdown which required buying a new car, their house of cards collapsed. Their financial circumstances would not stand up to an incident like that. It made me particularly concerned that as a government and a parliament—obviously I was in opposition at the time—we were sending out a message to people: ‘This is fabulous. Times are booming. We’re riding on the wealth of the nation. It’s okay to go out and hock yourself up to your eyeballs on credit cards. If you can’t pay the bill, take another credit card. Pay off that one with a new credit card.’ I was really concerned—to some extent, I said in my first speech, I was worried that I would be considered a bit of a wowser—about the level of personal debt.

When those opposite talk about the debt that they inherited and the surplus we inherited what they fail to inform the Australian public is that the debt that they were talking about before the 1996 election was the foreign debt. Our foreign debt in terms of trade continued to go downhill under the previous government. Indeed one of the great achievements, I think, of the Rudd Labor government is the fact that we actually have a good terms of trade now. Again this week we have had good results on that. That is what builds long-term sustainability, not telling the Australian population during a minerals boom that it is okay for everybody to drown themselves in debt and not to consider what they will do when times get tough or hard decisions hit their families and how they will have the capacity to survive during that.

So what this budget does is acknowledge the context within which the budget is written, which is the fiscally responsible economic conservative thing to do. It acknowledges the global financial crisis, the global economic recession and the need in this circumstance for the government to put the foot on the accelerator. As private money withdraws from our communities we need the government out there putting money in to replace that. That is the debate we should be having. We should be hearing from those opposite arguments about how we are putting the foot on the accelerator. Are we putting it on in the right place? Should we put on the accelerator in different places? What exactly is going on?

The member for Grey, to his credit, entered into some level of debate about that with his concerns about the way the school infrastructure rollouts are occurring. He actually, I thought, put a reasonable debate around the nature of the spend. I do not agree with him. I actually think the hyperinflation he is talking about would be true if government money were competing with private investment in building in communities. I do not know about his community, but in mine my Illawarra Mercury was full of pages of private investment pulling out of building in our area, major construction projects being put on hold, tradespeople and contractors not being able to engage in their work because the private sector was not doing the building. There were pages of projects listed as cancelled or suspended. We are putting that building money in to compensate for the withdrawal. So I do not agree with his assessment about the hyperinflation issue. But at least he engaged in a debate that had some economic viability, that was actually about—

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could I remind the honourable member for Kennedy that it is not accepted practice to take mobile phone calls in here, please. The honourable member for Cunningham was still speaking.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I apologise.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the honourable member for Kennedy’s apology; it was a bit distracting while I was trying to make my speech. The important thing is to understand that this budget is within the context of the government actually having to get out there into our communities and put activity on the ground to ensure that we get through as best as possible in these difficult times. I will tell you what would be the worst possible thing. The first range of interventions, stage 1, if you like, was the cash injection—the bonus payments which those opposite like to dismissively describe as the ‘cash splash’. There is nothing worse for a community when hard times hit than small businesses going to the wall and being unable to sell your house because there are no people out there with the money to buy. You walk around your community and what do you see? Boarded up shops, streets with ‘For Sale’ signs out for months on end, and the people react by saying that things are in crisis and withdrawing themselves. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. That sort of image and message means to people that they had better bunker down and not spend. Then you see more businesses go bust and more houses for sale that cannot be moved.

The injection of that cash money was critically important as the first stage of the government’s strategy during this difficult time. You only have to look at images of periods like the Great Depression. If you have a look at photos of the suburbs in my area from that time, that is exactly what you see—boarded up shops and boarded up ramshackle houses that people were not able to sell. That is exactly what our first injection of cash into the economy was about at that time.

The other thing that really infuriates me is that I think there is a huge slab of sexism in the criticism of cash bonuses. Whose jobs did the cash bonuses support? Retail and hospitality workers—by and large, women and young people. Are their jobs not as worthy of underpinning by the government as the tradespeople who are involved in the construction industry? Of course they are. But their jobs are dismissed by those opposite as a ‘cash splash’ and wasted money. I know in my area my local businesses tell me how important this measure has been. One manager of a retail store came out of his office when he heard I was in the shop to say to me, ‘Tell Kevin Rudd that made a real difference to me and I was able to keep staff on because of it’.

This particular budget sets up the nation-building infrastructure as the third arm of the government’s response. We had the first cash injection, and then the second was for quick, short-term building projects that you could roll out to get workers back into the workplace, as the private money was withdrawing from building, by getting the involvement of local tradespeople and all the associated workers around the trades. It was a case of doing something in the period that it takes you to plan and get established the larger projects. It is a flow-on effect through three stages. The third stage is the budget.

I want to put that context around it and make some reference to my own area. In my electorate there are some very important budget initiatives. The pension reform will be very welcomed in my area. We have an interesting population mix in my electorate; we have quite a good coverage of all the demographics. There are still 21,900 pensioners in my electorate who will benefit from the pension increases. This is the most significant reform of the pension system that I can remember. Perhaps to these pensioners my lifetime is not particularly impressive but I chatted to my grandfather, who is in his 90s, and it is the biggest increase he can remember. It is important to acknowledge how important it is not only to do the one-off payments and say ‘If we can afford this at the next budget will give you another one and we will assess it every year to see whether we can afford to give it to you’ but also to actually make some structural improvement to the pension system. That is very welcome.

The $43.8 million for the University of Wollongong is a tremendous initiative. This is to establish the Australian Institute of Innovative Materials. It is an arm of the university that will take their research and turn it into generic prototypes. It is important for Australia to be competitive in the elaborately transformed manufacturing sector. People say to me, coming from a manufacturing seat, that manufacturing is dying in Australia. I say to them, ‘Only if you let it.’ The reality is that manufacturing is growing but we will compete in the clever, problem solving, smart end of manufacturing, not in mass production. That is exactly what this investment at the university is about.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You’re not serious!

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is true, Bob. I will give you an example. In my area, D&B Gears, which was previously a mass producer of gears in my electorate, is now an extremely successful exporting business. Why? Because they gave up the mass production of gears and now produce large-scale individual key projects for places like ports, where they go in, assess the needs, develop the gears, manufacture the gears and install and provide after-sale service. They do that very successfully. That is what we should be encouraging. The university wants to be part of that and I commend Gerard Sutton and his team for getting this allocation.

Most importantly, as I have outlined, there are 61 schools in my electorate, with 87 projects going on, a total of $36.11 million of work. I am a bit biased on this. Not only is it important to jobs but, as a former teacher, I believe the quality of the place you send your kids to gives them a very significant message about how you value their education. If you continue to send them to buildings which are run down and leaking, I think you are saying something to them about how important their education is. Infrastructure in schools is critically important to young people.

As chair of the Standing Committee on Education and Training, I want to finish on the change to youth allowance. Having two students studying at tertiary level, I think it is very important that we understand that the parental income has been raised, that many young people who have been expressing concern may actually now, for the first time, be eligible for youth allowance under the parental income test and not have to defer, to take 18 months off to gain independence status. If those opposite are genuinely interested in helping young people, I encourage them to look at the full suite of reforms under the youth allowance system to see whether individuals can now go straight on to university and do not have to take time off. I commend the budget. I think it is the right budget for difficult times. I encourage those opposite to engage in a more informed and constructive debate about how we deal with the times we face.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I agree with the previous speaker’s remarks about the opposition  talking about debt. Remember the debt truck the last government had running around Australia, saying how terrible the ALP was, when the debt was $194,000 million? When they had finished with the Australian economy, the debt was $678,000 million. Whenever Mr Costello said he had balanced his budget, I could not help but scream out—and I know it is very bad form—’You balanced your budget but you sure didn’t balance the budget of this country. It’s a pity you didn’t spend a bit more time looking after the country instead of looking after your own political profile,’ because that is what was done. Having said that, with all due respect to the last speaker, we have the lowest manufacturing base of any country. I am sorry: I flare up when they say that we are going to be the smart country. Let us be brutally blunt about it; we think that, because we are Anglos, we are a little bit smarter than everybody else—that is what is in our heads.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Bird interjecting

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are talking about countries that produce motor cars which halve the amount of petrol consumption. The Prius is so brilliant and clever. You are talking about a country like China which puts a satellite up into the sky every second week. Are we going to compete against those countries? Good luck to you but I have to say that the statement is not only wrong and simplistic but it is also very dangerous and contains a certain amount of racial arrogance. I am sorry to say that, but that is my belief.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Bird interjecting

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I said the statement; I did not say the person.

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Would the honourable member for Kennedy please—you withdrew?

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw the remark and apologise.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would appreciate it, because my comments were nothing to do with race.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are withdrawn. Thank you.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I apologise and withdraw. For the edification of people in this place: we have the lowest manufacturing base in the OECD, except for Turkey. So there are two turkeys out there—us and another country called Turkey. People coming in here and seriously saying that we are going to do this are insulting the intelligence of all of us, and they are people who obviously do not think about these things. Our manufacturing base has been destroyed because in every other country governments regard it as their responsibility to get behind and to back up their industries. We give them a lecture on free markets and say how they should be tough and be able to compete against the rest of the world. In the real world, you try competing when other farmers are given a 49 per cent head start. That is the average subsidy and tariff level in the world—49 per cent. Australia’s is four per cent. You try competing when your competitors have a 49 per cent start. You are running a 100-metre race and you are giving your competitors a 30-metre head start. I could beat Linford Christie over the 100 metres if I were given a 30-metre head start, I can tell you. You are setting us an impossible task. It is worse in manufacturing. When we get behind our industries, look at what the results are.

This government has talked about nation building. There are two items in this budget, neither of which I might add are costed out—which means they are just a wish list. They are not actual items in the budget. One is the tunnel to the Tamworth coal. That is nation building. It will enable coal to flow and it will enable us to open up the coalfields of western New South Wales. There is also the proposal to put the transmission line into the north-west mineral province, which I represent, and into the Pilbara region. We thank very much the minister, Martin Ferguson—a minister doing an excellent job—for his initiatives in these two areas. They are not line items in the budget, so I do not know whether I am being a little bit hasty in thanking the government for them.

Nation building is not about insulation batts in the roof. It is not about cutting the wait time for motor cars in the big metropolitan areas. It is not about making a bigger classroom. With all due respect to the last speaker, making classrooms bigger is not going to create any jobs for Australians. The government policy will mean we will end up in three years time with no jobs and no money. I have applauded the government, and I just cannot believe the attitude of the opposition in this place. I would like the representative of the opposition to tune in here. The opposition are either economically illiterate—as they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about in criticising the government for borrowing money—or, alternatively, they are being extremely politically mischievous and irresponsible. In an onrushing depression you have to spend money. There is absolutely no question about that. There is not an economist on earth who would agree with having a balanced budget when you have an onrushing depression. If you cannot see an onrushing depression out there then you must be one of those blokes standing on railway lines and saying: ‘No, no. Those lights are going away from us, not coming towards us.’ What if the opposition happens to get into government and carries out these policies?

Those of us who read history books—and there are very few of us in this place who do—will recall that in 1932 the people of Australia had a choice in backing Ted Theodore. He, along with Bjelke-Petersen, was named one of the two great Queenslanders in the state’s history. I would say in Theodore’s case he was easily the most important person in Australia’s history. He created your labour movement, Madam Deputy Speaker Saffin. He was the person who created that movement. One in 32 of us went down the mines and never came back up again. People died a terrible death from things like miner’s phthisis or were killed in dreadful accidents. All that was changed.

When we talk about nation building, we think about ‘Red’ Ted Theodore, who built the sugar mills in Queensland. They were built with government money. This is horrific heresy for the opposition—and, I regret to say, also for the government because the government also is still officially and formally, in spite of some rhetoric from the Prime Minister, very much a globalisation, free-market government. The policy of this government is marketism, the same as the policy of the last government. What do you need to convince you?

You know your country has no manufacturing. The honourable member for Gippsland must know that agriculture in this country is collapsing and he must know that there was $200 million of debt when the Howard government came in and $700 million of debt when they went out. Where did that debt come from? It came from the fact that we could not trade anymore in this country. We have asked our farmers and manufacturers to compete on the most unlevel playing field in the world. Barack Obama in the last few months has said that every single government job will use American steel. I am sure every American said: ‘Good on you, Barack. We’re in there barracking for you.’ Are we likely to get that sort of result in Australia? When President Bush was there he said, ‘We’re not going to stand aside and see our steel industry collapse,’ and he bunged in intermediate tariffs. Is there any intermediate tariff coming in to protect Pacific Brands? No, there most certainly is not.

Let me return to the concept of nation building. In this place we praise greatly the Minister for Resources and Energy, the member for Batman, for his initiative with this and the tunnel into the Tamworth coalfields, but, with all due respect, these are very small items in a budget of $270,000 million. The $43,000 million for nation building went to putting insulation batts in roofs, building bikeways and making classrooms bigger. I am reminded by the member for Throsby, who has just come in, that nation building is about Senator Button providing $370 million to restructure the Australian steel industry. He was a very great Australian. This is one of the outstanding success stories of postwar Australia. Our steel industry was reconstructed so it was the most efficient steel industry on earth. One man in the Australian steel industry produced 700 tonne of steel. That is nation building.

Nation building is ‘Red’ Ted Theodore building most of the sugar mills in Queensland with government money. Nation building is Ben Chifley building the Holden plant with government money. We were producing our own motor cars in Australia, until this stupid, brainless marketism was introduced by none other than Mr Keating and continued by the last government with great aggression and happiness. It halved the number of National Party members in this place because we never agreed with those policies. True Country Party men never agreed with those policies. They were an anathema to us. We believe that governments should build dams, factories, power stations and railway lines. The National Party of today are proponents of marketism, as opposed to developmentalism. Let me continue in that vein.

As I have said in this place many times—and I can never say it enough in this place—Bjelke-Petersen built a giant railway line for which there were no customers. Would there be any National Party person in this place who would agree with that? No way, Jose. They are marketism men. He built a giant power station for which there were no customers. He was vilified in the media, as was Ted Theodore when he built the sugar mills and as was Ben Chifley with the Snowy Mountains scheme and when he built the Holden plant. They were all vilified, but they were men who believed in nation building. And John Button, quite frankly, was sacked for what he did. He would never bow and bend his knee to marketism. He believed in developmentalism. He would not bend his knee, so he was sacked. When I said that to him one day, he did not say yes or no, but burst out laughing. I think he was very pleased that someone had been watching.

It is not good enough to come into this place and criticise; you have to put forward something positive. It is in the budget—and it was proposed by the member for Batman—that we will be going to a true national grid. We will put the iron ore region of Australia, the Pilbara, and the hard metals area of Australia, north-west Queensland, onto the national grid. That means instead of paying between $100 and $250 per megawatt for electricity, which accounts for one-quarter of our mining costs, we will only be paying between $40 and $60. And there are three major mines in north-west Queensland that will close unless we get that cheaper electricity.

The honourable member for Batman is going to go down in the history books, because there happen to be five clean energy projects along the transmission line from Mount Isa to Townsville. There is the huge solar energy project in Cloncurry. The latest edition of National Geographic features the plant at Acciona, in Nevada. That is going to be duplicated at Cloncurry, which is the hottest place in Australia. So at the first town along the transmission line there will be a giant solar energy initiative. The Queensland government has already put $23 million into this initiative and the Rudd government has committed $150 million. If the government comes good with the money for that solar energy project then we will have 70 megawatts of electricity.

There is a problem which I understand will be shown on 60 Minutes shortly. In the biggest ever environmental holocaust in Australian history, six million hectares of native flora and fauna has been completely destroyed. The bilby, a famous little hopping animal that we have in the Julia Creek area, along with some other native flora and fauna, is threatened with extinction by the terrible prickly acacia tree. This tree covers six million hectares, or about three per cent of the surface area of Australia, and it is spreading rapidly. It is proposed that the prickly acacia trees be burnt to create power. During the day we will boil a fluid at the solar energy plant, but during the evening they might burn the prickly acacia trees. This is a geothermal target area, so maybe we will boil the fluid of an evening with the geothermals. So there is a project at Julia Creek, along that electricity line, for 50 megawatts of electricity from the prickly acacia tree.

At Pentland there is a major biofuels project to produce 1,000 million litres of ethanol per year. That project has been around for a while and it has been discussed at the highest levels of government in Queensland. When you harvest sugar cane, the sugar cane fibre that is left behind produces a gas when it is burnt. We are burning most of that gas in our sugar mills in Australia just to get rid of it, but we should be burning it to create electricity. If the government gives us a little bit of assistance—I do not want to speak for other areas, but $60 million or $70 million should get us through in the northern third of the industry—we can convert all of our sugar mills. In Pentland a 300-megawatt power station will come on stream and burn the sugar cane fibre. And, because there is a high dam at Hell’s Gates at the back of Townsville, it will have 100 megawatts of hydroelectricity as well.

So we have all this renewable energy along this corridor—it hits the coast between Ingham and Townsville—and if the four sugar mills in the greater Ingham area convert there will be another 200 megawatts. So there will be nearly 1,000 megawatts of electricity, all clean renewables, in this clean energy corridor along the transmission line which is the brainchild of the member for Batman. So we must go out of our way to pay very great tribute here.

During the Great Depression, Australia decided to do what the opposition have recently been advocating. They are criticising you people for borrowing money. If they were criticising you for misspending the money, I would enthusiastically agree with them, but they are not—they are criticising you for borrowing the money. During the Great Depression, Australia took the advice of Otto Niemeyer from the Bank of England, and we had the worst depression of any country on earth. There are three books by Schedvin in the library—anyone can borrow them. He is the leading commentator on the Australian depression, but no commentator will tell you anything else except that Australia had the worst depression of any country on earth, because we were the only country on earth that decided it would balance budgets—actually we reduced budgets—in the middle of a depression. That is what the opposition want to do now. Did Britain do that? No way, Jose. They got Otto Niemeyer and threw him out a window. Winston Churchill said the worst mistake he ever made was to take the advice of Montagu Norman and Otto Niemeyer. He said, ‘It is a disgrace that both those people are still employed by the government.’ John Maynard Keynes attributed the Depression to Otto Niemeyer.

But the Niemeyer prescription is being advocated by the opposition. Don’t they read economics books? The Americans brought in the New Deal economists. Britain brought in John Maynard Keynes—they did not have a depression; America did. America acted very late, but they did bring in the New Deal economists. They built the wonderful Tennessee Valley Authority project, which is probably the most magnificent project of its type anywhere in the world. And they did it all for free because the workers were on the dole, so the wages cost them nothing.

Japan and Germany had great prosperity. Some people say, ‘Germany was re-arming.’ I say, ‘Read your Nuremberg trials.’ There was no re-arming until the end of 1937 and Germany was one of the most prosperous countries on earth by 1937. Hjalmar Schacht, the architect of it, was a very brave man. He was the only German who spoke out publicly against the persecution of Jews and he ended the war in Dachau death camp, as did his priest, Pastor Niemoller. They just printed money in Germany; they did not worry too much about it. The British were a bit sophisticated: they took the interest rates right down to 0.6 per cent, held them there for six years and borrowed the money at 0.6 per cent, effectively off themselves. In Japan, Takahashi Korekiyo issued treasury bonds and gave them to the central bank and the central bank gave them the money, so there was a debt, but I do not think the central bank of Japan, owned by the government, was going to foreclose on the government. That is what those governments did—they were very successful. We did not and we had a horrific depression. (Time expired)

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can always learn something from listening to the member for Kennedy. I rise to speak in support of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2009-2010 and the two cognate bills. These bills effectively put into place the Rudd government’s 2009-10 budget. We live in extraordinary times. We are faced with the duel crises of an economy that has collapsed under the weight of uncontrolled spending and growth and an environment that is under threat because of the same uncontrolled consumption and growth. Many analysts warned that the global economic crisis we are faced with was inevitable and predictable, yet those warnings were ignored, just as many, including several members of the coalition, are today still ignoring the warning signs relating to the environment. To dismiss the overwhelming body of scientific advice on climate change as misinformed scaremongering, as some opposition members are doing, is as bewildering as it is irresponsible. Sadly, the consequences of serious mismanagement of either the environment or the economy can be devastating, as we are now seeing with the collapse of the world economy. Likewise, the economic cost of environmental disasters such as the Victorian bushfires, the Northern Australian floods and the mismanagement of the Murray-Darling Basin is a stark warning of the magnitude of the economic fallout of associated with environmental disasters.

The combination of a global economic downturn and climate change make these truly extraordinary times. There is no precedent quite the same that one can look to for guidance. Extraordinary times require extraordinary responses from governments. But with extraordinary challenges also comes opportunity—the opportunity to set new directions and to rebuild, restructure and regenerate the nation. The Rudd government is seizing that opportunity and acting decisively with a budget that supports today’s jobs whilst investing in nation-building infrastructure for tomorrow, nation-building infrastructure that communities have in many cases waited decades for and had held little hope of ever getting.

Bringing forward nation-building infrastructure spending is the right thing to do for both today’s generation and for future generations. Bringing projects forward creates jobs now whilst saving future generations tens of millions of dollars because the infrastructure is built at today’s prices. It makes financial sense. In addition, that infrastructure will lift Australia’s productive capacity, strengthen Australia’s economy and ensure that Australia will emerge from the economic downturn a much stronger and more prosperous nation.

It is my view that it is not unreasonable to spread the cost of long-lasting infrastructure across the generations who will benefit from it. The Rudd government’s economic stimulus strategy combined with the 2009-10 budget provide the right framework to cushion the Australian economy from the global economic recession and to build tomorrow’s infrastructure at today’s prices. There is ample evidence that the Rudd government’s strategy is working. That is why the opposition is running a desperate, dishonest, debt campaign and talking down the economy. Let me refer to some of the evidence which indicates that the Rudd government strategy is actually working. I refer to a story in the Adelaide Advertiser of 1 May this year. It said:

Business confidence has rebounded sharply into positive territory as South Australian corporate leaders sense early signs of an economic recovery, a BankSA survey has found.

…            …            …

BankSA’s State Monitor, conducted three times a year, surveys 300 consumers and 300 business owners or managers.

…            …            …

The business index rose to 113.4—up 17.1 index points—in May following five successive falls to an eight-year low of 96.3 in February.

That story followed a previous story only about a week earlier, on 26 April, which said that cafe spending in Adelaide had increased by 3.8 per cent compared with the same period last year. The cafe sector in Adelaide generated $100 million worth of spending for the month of March. There are a lot of people employed in cafes not only in South Australia but around the country.

I will add some national figures to that. We heard only yesterday that the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures showed that the current account deficit fell by 27 per cent or $1.7 billion in the March quarter. That was one of the most significant falls that we have seen for a long time. We also saw yesterday that the number of homes approved for construction in April was just over five per cent higher than the previous month. And we saw retail figures which are now running at about 4.8 per cent higher than they were in November. These figures tell a very clear story, and that is the story that this government’s strategy is actually working.

Let me highlight what some of the government measures are which form part of this strategy. I would remind the House that 70 per cent of the stimulus package that the Rudd government has put out is on infrastructure spending. We have already seen that repairs and maintenance on more than 1,300 houses nationwide have been completed. Work is underway on 183 of the 802 houses for our defence personnel around the country. Twenty apprenticeships are being subsidised by defence housing. Of these 20 apprenticeship positions, five will be offered in Adelaide.

Every school in Australia has now been allocated between $50,000 and $200,000 for maintenance and repairs. Nationally this amounts to 13,172 projects in 9,490 schools, with total funding of $1.2 billion. Of that, South Australia has 1,171 projects in 788 schools and has received funding of $102 million. Under round 1 of the Primary Schools for the 21st Century program, early work has commenced on more than 300 sites around Australia. Construction work for 105 public primary schools has been allocated to builders in South Australia to begin site inspections.

Under the stimulus plan’s energy efficiency program, more than 20,000 homeowners have installed ceiling insulation and more than 20,000 homeowners have installed a solar hot water system. We have now seen 78,000 first home buyers assisted by the first home owners grant since it was boosted earlier this year.

These are real projects creating or supporting real jobs for real people. These are jobs that are appreciated by the people with whom I speak. These are projects that have lifted the morale of teachers in so many of the schools I have visited in recent months, that will make our roads safer, that will add to the nation’s housing stock and that will create hundreds of apprenticeships and training opportunities for Australians.

Let me summarise what some of this investment has meant for the seat of Makin, which I represent. There is a total of $52 million in funding for 102 school projects in Makin. There is $2.38 million in Black Spot funding and $6.4 million for community infrastructure spending. The four councils that have an interest in the Makin area have collectively been granted $3.64 million for community projects. An amount of $2.7 million was provided for the upgrade of the Waterworld swimming centre in the Tea Tree Gully Council area. There are 20,700 pensioners and people on disability support pensions who will benefit from the increase of $32 to the single pension and $10 for couples. Again, that was announced in the budget. In addition there are people who will benefit from the carer allowance and carer payments.

Finally in highlighting issues that affect the Makin electorate, $69 million was allocated to extend the O-Bahn busway into the Adelaide CBD. The O-Bahn was constructed almost 30 years ago, but it stopped short of the Adelaide CBD by a couple of kilometres. Why it was ever constructed to stop short of the CBD bewilders me; nevertheless, it does. It means that the last two kilometres, the most congested part of the journey, take almost as long for commuters as does the rest of the journey. The O-Bahn busway is effectively the major transport node between the north-eastern suburbs of Adelaide and the CBD. It is a project that I have discussed with my counterparts in the state parliament on several occasions. It is a project that I certainly welcome funding form, and I know it will be welcomed by the tens of thousands of commuters who use it every week, because will make their travel times in and out of the city much shorter.

The Rudd government budget strategy is clear, responsible and strategic. Not surprisingly, it has widespread expert endorsement. On the contrary, what is the alternative budget framework from the alternative government, the coalition opposition? On Thursday 14 May the Leader of the Opposition, in his exclusive opportunity to articulate his alternative government strategy for securing Australia’s future, delivered 30 minutes of empty rhetoric criticising the Rudd government but offering the Australian people no alternative. Not once did he mention the coalition’s debt figure or how he would respond to the $210 billion revenue shortfall over the next four years. The breathtaking response of the opposition leader to the most severe economic downturn since the Great Depression was to raise the price of cigarettes.

The parliament was extended and reconvened, at considerable cost to taxpayers, to provide the Leader of the Opposition an uninterrupted opportunity to tell the Australian people what he would do differently. He offered the Australian people nothing as an alternative. Noticeably, for an opposition running a fear campaign on debt, the bottom line to the opposition’s budget response is almost identical to that of the government. Where was the opposition leader’s honesty on the opposition’s debt figure?

In fact we got more honesty from the opposition shadow finance minister and the member for Warringah. The member for North Sydney, the opposition shadow finance spokesman, whom one would expect would know what the opposition’s debt figure should be, said that it would be around $25 billion less. The member for Warringah said it would be around $21 billion less. The reality is that when you analyse what was put as the alternative budget by the Leader of the Opposition, the bottom line debt figure of the opposition’s budget strategy is very close to that of the government’s.

This is a budget framed in the context of the global economic crisis that we are confronted with, framed in the context of the environmental issues that face this nation and framed in the context of the nation building that this country is well and truly overdue for—nation building that has been neglected for so long by the previous government. When we talk about debt, it is just as much a debt to leave infrastructure for future generations—whether it be hospitals, roads or schools that are absolutely run down—as it is to leave them with a debt in terms of a bottom line dollar figure. Both of them are debts and the reality is that it makes much more sense to provide that infrastructure right now. This is a budget that is responsible, balanced and appropriate for the times. I commend this budget to the House.

Danna Vale (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2009-2010 and cognate bills. In my speech in the 29 May 2006 budget-in-reply debate, I spoke on the magnificent milestone of the coalition eliminating the $96 billion of debt that Labor left to the Australian people when it was last voted out of office in 1996. Now, after only the second Rudd Labor government budget, the numbers are much worse; in fact, it has been an extraordinary fiscal turnaround. When the coalition government came to office in 1996 it took over 10 years to pay off Labor’s $96 billion black hole and yet it has taken Labor less than 18 months to give Australia a new debt of even greater proportions. This is no small feat for a Prime Minister who once described himself as a ‘fiscal conservative’.

While we are all aware that we are in challenging times and while there may be an argument for appropriate stimulus spending within the Australian economy, this budget and previous cash splashes are expected to leave us with a $58 billion deficit for the 2009-10 financial year. The Prime Minister and Treasurer have finally admitted that we are going to end up with at least a $315 billion debt. Given the size of all the spending and the size of the debt it will create, it would be neglectful if such spending were not rigorously scrutinised by the opposition. After all, as one of the important mechanisms of our government, vigorous scrutiny is exactly what an opposition is about. Yet this government constantly criticises us for it.

There is a case to be made that restrained and targeted government spending in certain economic circumstances is a responsible approach but the concern I have with this budget and the previous cash splashes is that I am not convinced that it is at all restrained or in the least targeted to achieve the desired economic outcome. In these challenging times, the objective of government should be to strengthen the economy, particularly through the creation and preservation of jobs. After the 2007 election, with a $20 billion surplus, the Rudd Labor government had an excellent opportunity to provide productivity capacity upon which to build future growth. Yet in just over 18 months this Labor government has squandered this opportunity at an alarming rate. All we will end up with—or should I say all our children will end up with—is another monstrous Labor debt.

One of the curious aspects of this budget is that the Labor government has borrowed not just for investment but for consumption. Once the one-off handouts are spent they are spent, and many of the recipients have not spent their cash handout but, understandably, have used it to pay off a household debt, thus thwarting the government’s hope of stimulating the economy.

It was disturbing to read the latest retail turnover figures published by the ABS on Monday. If we compare April this year with April last year, fuelled by Labor’s deficit, spending on alcohol has surged to an incredible 19.3 per cent. Also, if we compare the five months since December 2008, the period when the stimulus package kicked in, with the same five-month period the previous year, across the nation expenditure on alcohol has increased a truly incredible $460 million. The only conclusion is that the reckless spending of the Labor government has financed the greatest booze-up in the nation’s history, with this extra $460 million being spent on alcohol. And now, all that those Australian working families will be left with is one mighty hangover of debt that will last for generations to come.

How is this government going to explain to future generations when they ask why we do not have the hospital services or the infrastructure that we so badly need? How will the Labor government explain that in 2009 the Prime Minister, in a great cash splash, sent out free money to all, and $460 million of it ended up being merely splashed against the wall in a massive surge of alcohol sales? We can see the cash splashes were not about fiscal rectitude or sound economic management. They were really about the next election, which will probably occur sooner rather than later. They were also about keeping people dependent on government in a grand return to big government, Labor style.

Looking further into the breakdown of retail sales, the failure of this government is plain to see. They came to office with a fanfare and a promise that they would take action to lower supermarket prices; all they have delivered is the farce of GroceryWatch—$13 million of taxpayers’ funds frittered away on a stunt. What has really happened to the supermarket prices? According to Craig Kelly, the President of the Southern Sydney Retailers Association, the price at the supermarket checkout continues to go up while the price paid to our farmers continues to go down. If we compare the five months since December 2008, when the stimulus package kicked in, to the same five-month period in the previous year, across the nation expenditure in supermarkets has increased by $2.5 billion. As a nation we are not consuming $2.5 billion in additional quantities of food; simply, the supermarket duopoly has jacked up prices and siphoned off a significant part of the stimulus package. This, according to Mr Kelly, has left small business, the backbone of the economy—especially in the retail sector—behind the eight ball.

So, while the liquor stores and the big supermarkets rake in billions, thousands of small cafes in my electorate of Hughes and across the nation, and thousands of small business retailers of furniture, floor coverings, footwear, newspapers, books, stationery and recreational goods, are experiencing a decline in sales as compared to last year. For the small businesses of Australia the stimulus package has been a failure. In 2009 it is the people who run small businesses who are the real workers in Australia. They risk their capital, often their own homes. They work over 100 hours a week, often on weekends, and rarely take holidays. Most importantly, they employ many fellow Australians. Yet it is these small businesses, these working Australians, who are going to pay the highest price for Labor’s debt.

I was interested to read the Wall Street Journal article ‘Canberra budget blowout: a record deficit won’t buy economic growth for Australia’. This article took a particularly negative view of the Rudd Labor government’s budget. It said:

This is an extraordinary fiscal turnaround from a year ago, when Australia turned in a budget surplus of $19.7 billion. The country entered the global economic downturn with historically low unemployment, muted inflation and very little debt, thanks to an uplift from strong global growth—especially from China—and prudent fiscal management by the former Liberal government and its treasurer, Peter Costello.

Tuesday’s sea of red comes largely courtesy of Labor’s political agenda, not the global recession. Over the last fiscal year, the Rudd government has announced a spree of cash handouts, infrastructure programs and pet projects.

Also, according to an article in the Australian, it seems that Reserve Bank director Professor Warwick McKibbin had some concerns. The article said:

Reserve bank director Professor Warwick McKibbin has warned that global government spending to stimulate the economy is being dominated by political agendas that will saddle future generations with debt and slow economic growth.

In stark contrast to the Treasurer, the Leader of the Opposition in his contribution to this debate talked about how Australia should have a budget that marked a path out of the current downturn, offering confidence and hope for a better future. He also emphasised the importance of small business in its crucial role as the engine room of our economy.

The coalition’s plan for recovery is built on four key principles to help Australia recover and grow: (1) protecting and creating jobs for all Australians, (2) keeping debt as low as possible, (3) targeting spending at jobs and economic infrastructure, and (4) supporting private enterprise and small businesses, the drivers of economic growth. The coalition’s plan for recovery puts forward measures that are practical, affordable, pragmatic and job focused and that would greatly assist the economy in this difficult period. They include a tax loss carry-back for businesses, new insolvency laws, cutting red tape and encouraging training.

The coalition believes that if businesses make operating losses this year or next year they should be able to carry them back against previous years’ profits and recover up to $100,000 of taxes paid by them over the past three years. This tax refund would bolster cash flows for businesses struggling in the current market. New insolvency laws like those in the United States would provide fairer rules to deal with troubled businesses. A change to our laws to emphasise the reconstruction of troubled businesses could save thousands of jobs that would otherwise have been lost. Also, the coalition strongly believes in cutting red tape and making it easier to do business with government. The coalition would reduce this burden to the lowest in the OECD and join state and local governments to deliver a one-stop online portal for filings.

But I believe that there is even more that we can do to help small businesses. Other major developed economies protect competition and consumers from the evils of geographical price discrimination. In the United States, the home of free market capitalism, they have section 13(a) of the Clayton Antitrust Act, which states:

It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce … to sell, or contract to sell, goods in any part of the United States at prices lower than those exacted by said person elsewhere in the United States for the purpose of destroying competition, or eliminating a competitor in such part of the United States;

Any person violating any of the provisions of this section shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined … or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

This has been the law of the land in the United States of America since 1936 but, regrettably, for Australian small businesses an equivalent provision remains missing from the Australian Trade Practices Act.

Any Australian housewife is well aware of the current situation as she shops for her family. She is aware that the Australian supermarket sector has degenerated into a state of hyperconcentration, with small business denied a level playing field, forcing them out of the market, leaving just two giant firms acting as gatekeepers to more than 80 per cent of Australia’s supermarket shelves, a level of concentration unparalleled anywhere else in the world except perhaps for North Korea. This level of concentration has been to the detriment of and harmful to small businesses and the Australian farmer but also it has been harmful to the average Australian family, those working families who have suffered with the developed world’s fastest accelerating supermarket prices.

We have crossed the tipping point. We need a complete rethink on the Trade Practices Act and competition, and we should start with geographic price discrimination. All Australian consumers, all those Australian working families who are Australian consumers, deserve to enjoy the full benefits of competitive markets regardless of where they live. It should not be acceptable in Australia, the land of the fair go, for a large retailer with hundreds of stores to charge higher prices in areas where they face no competition and then leverage profits to lower the prices of their goods in certain communities where they face competition from small business with the intent to destroy and make unprofitable the businesses of their smaller competitors. Such a system or practice is so manifestly unfair and unjust, not only to small business competitors who are directly driven to ruin or bankruptcy by such practices but also to Australian families.

The present Trade Practices Act must be supplemented by making this particular form of discrimination a specific offence under our law. Such an effective law to deal with the evils of geographical price discrimination will enable small businesses to invest in the knowledge that they can set up shop and succeed or fail on merit without fear that a larger competitor might drive them from the market using the anticompetitive practices of geographic price discrimination.

What is the government doing to restore competition to the supermarket sector? Indeed, what is the government doing to take pressure off working families and to provide equality of competitive opportunity to small businesses? It does not appear to be doing anything. Perhaps the Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs, Mr Bowen, could start looking at his own backyard rather than continuing to waste taxpayers’ funds on the stunt of GroceryWatch. As Channel 9 news demonstrated last week, right under the nose of the competition minister, within a stone’s throw of his electoral office at Fairfield, which is not far from my electorate, a major supermarket chain had used geographical price discrimination to destroy competition and to exploit consumers. As soon as the major supermarket chain had destroyed competition, forcing their more efficient small business competitors to shut their doors, they jacked up prices almost 100 per cent. All this happened right under the nose of our competition minister.

An effective prohibition on geographic discrimination is needed. It will provide a fair go—a level playing field. It will restore competition and it has the potential to create an entrepreneurial boom and to drive Australia’s excessive grocery prices down across the nation.

In conclusion, the coalition is committed to responsible spending and to ensuring future generations are not burdened by mountains of debt. The government of the day has a moral responsibility to ensure that any deficit spending is invested wisely for the benefit of future generations. Unfortunately Australians are now paying the price for Labor’s reckless spending. Australia needs a coalition government committed to keeping debt low, encouraging small business, securing jobs and ensuring a bright, debt-free future for all Australians, and that can only be based on a solid economic foundation.

Darren Cheeseman (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2009-2010 and cognate bills. These bills, along with the previous stimulus packages, are transforming my electorate and Australia. These bills have the DNA of Labor all over them.

Labor is the nation-building party. We always have been and we always will be. Labor is the party of job creation. We are the party that builds the infrastructure for the future. We are the party that has put in place great institutions that last. Labor is the party that makes the changes that stick—the changes that are untouchable and that become part of the character of the nation. Labor has instituted things like Medicare, the fair go, superannuation, a nationally run system of quality higher education institutions and the signing of the Kyoto treaty.

Labor has always been the party that makes the big changes that come to define the nation. We are the party that shows decisive leadership, and that is what these bills are all about. This budget and Labor’s decisive response to the international financial crisis now form an important part of Australia’s social and economic history. Through these bills the party is building an education revolution. Labor is undertaking the biggest school modernisation in this country’s history. Through these bills Labor is building a sustainable future for the next generation of Australians—a sustainable future for our kids.

Labor is making thousands of Australian homes more energy efficient and making our world a more environmentally friendly place. Through this bill and related bills we are rebuilding the levels of social housing that the Liberals tore down. We are providing secure housing for the less well off and the disadvantaged. We are investing in community recreational facilities, providing opportunities for communities to come together in healthy pursuits. Through these bills we are rebuilding entire regional transport systems, public and private, for passengers and freight. We are making roads safer and more efficient.  Through these bills Labor is investing massively in nation-building road and rail projects. We are improving our ports and we are linking up our rail, roads and ports into a complex matrix that will make our exports more competitive and will make commuting a safer, more efficient and less polluting experience for Australians. These initiatives are happening in my electorate and right across the nation.

I will make some comments now about what is happening in my own electorate of Corangamite, but first let us look at the magnitude of our national investment. Madam Deputy Speaker Burke, as you know, there are some truly massive investments in this budget. There will be a huge future investment of $12.7 billion into schools. And there will be nearly $4 billion to help improve the energy performance of Australian homes and reduce energy waste and greenhouse gas emissions. There will be $6 billion for the states and territories to fund construction of approximately 20,000 new social housing dwellings across the nation. These are the big building blocks that will make Australia a better place tomorrow.

Every child in every primary school today and in future generations will have the benefit of this budget. A child born today will walk into a primary school of unprecedented quality in six years time. My son, Isaac—not yet two—will have a great choice of schools to go to in large part because of these bills and their investment. Isaac will have better schooling choices than I think previous generations have had, and I am very proud of that. But I am just as proud of something else. I am proud not just of the lasting investment we are making in infrastructure for the future but also of the immediate impact of these bills, which will be the creation of jobs. The immediate effect of these bills will be to provide work for thousands of builders, tradespeople, retailers and Australian manufacturers who would otherwise have been thrown out of work due to the current global financial crisis. Thousands of electricians, thousands of plumbers, thousands of carpenters, kitchen manufacturers, plasters, painters and, importantly, apprentices will get work through these bills.

Through these bills we are saving thousands of Australian jobs. It has been calculated that there will be approximately 200,000 jobs as a consequence of the 35,000 projects that federal Labor is investing in. I want to make this point, which I think is important. It addresses the opposition’s cheap, opportunistic response to what Labor is doing. Let us look at the Liberal Party’s logic: ‘Do not invest in infrastructure for the future. Allow unemployment to rise. Pay out more people on the dole. The market will fix it.’ I find that proposition ludicrous. At the end of the Liberals’ economic strategy are longer unemployment queues, higher dole payments, no infrastructure and, of course, debt. Theirs is a debt strategy without infrastructure, and that leads to the demoralisation of families and workers. It makes no sense. It makes a huge amount of sense to invest in infrastructure—creating jobs today and leaving a lasting legacy.

I would now like to spend a bit of time talking about the practical effects of this budget and the government’s associated economic strategy in my own electorate and my own region. As I said at the start, Corangamite and the greater Geelong region are being transformed by this budget and the Rudd government’s economic strategy. Let us go through some of those impacts. Right now the bricks, mortar, tarmac, railway sleepers, wooden trusses, bearers and joists are being laid to open up my region to the world, to create a better city and a whole new region. As part of this budget and our decisive stimulus plan, we are building a whole new transport system, more connected towns, better schools and a healthier, more liveable environment. Never in our 200 years of recent colonial history has the greater Geelong region seen such investment on this scale in infrastructure.

Importantly, these are not one-off infrastructure investments in isolation. A strategic linking of investments is the result of years of thinking by local business, political and community leaders. We are backing that vision with this budget. The vision is being significantly driven by federal and state government road and transport commitments of around $4 billion. Funding is committed to all of the Geelong Ring Road, and this massive transport project is now nearing completion. The Geelong Ring Road will link seamlessly onto a duplicated Princes Highway through to the Surf Coast and through to Colac once the project is funded—again on a duplicated Princes Highway. A $50 million investment to upgrade rail links to the port of Geelong will connect our rail system to the major export facilities in western Victoria, which will make our region much more competitive—competing, of course, with other parts of the economy. While this has until recently been a primary producers’ export destination, this port can play a significant strategic role within the Victorian context.

Opportunities both for commuters on public transport and for rail freight will also greatly be expanded with a new $3.2 billion Geelong to Melbourne fast-rail link. We are investing in important arterial roads like the Colac Lavers Hill Road and other roads under the Roads to Recovery program as well as addressing several dangerous black spot rail crossings throughout my electorate. All of these transport infrastructure initiatives will subsequently improve car and rail usage across the City of Geelong, increase road transport efficiency and reduce commuting times for all. With reduced costs and more efficient transport, new businesses, industries and jobs will come to Geelong, with people following.

Social infrastructure is also being completely modernised, with hundreds of millions of dollars being ploughed into my region. Every school in our region is being upgraded as a consequence of these appropriation bills. New community and regional-level recreational facilities are being planned for Torquay, Bannockburn, Geelong and Armstrong Creek, and the borough of Queenscliff gets new recreational facilities as well. Bannockburn is getting a new $2 million sport and recreational facility and a community hub. Torquay gets $4 million for sports facilities for football, soccer, cricket and netball. Torquay is also getting an upgraded senior citizens centre and community house. The Grovedale, Waurn Ponds and Belmont communities get a new state-of-the-art water recreation facility via the new Leisurelink centre. Colac has its pool precinct upgraded and improvements to the botanic gardens are taking place, with new tourism infrastructure in the Otways and down through Apollo Bay. There is a new GP superclinic funded for Belmont. The Great Ocean Road Renewal Program has been funded, to the tune of $1 million, to attack weeds, assess the impacts of climate change and protect Indigenous cultural sites along the Great Ocean Road. As I said earlier, the social infrastructure in our region is being renewed via this budget. That is of course all creating jobs. The Geelong region is being transformed in a way that few thought possible a few years ago. This is the mark of the commitment of federal and state governments to regional Australia and a continuation of the historic fact that Labor is the nation-building party. I commend these bills to the House.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This budget was an act of intergenerational theft because in one year the government spent the surplus from the last year, they spent the accumulated assets from the last decade, they spent the income from the current year and they placed a debt and a deficit on an entire future generation. Let me run through two things today: firstly, the numbers about this budget and, secondly, the problems with the particular environmental programs. When you turn to the numbers, they speak for themselves. The deficit in 2008-09 will be $32 billion. The next year it will be $58 billion. The next year it will be $57 billion. The next year it will be $45 billion. In the fifth year it will be $28 billion. All up what we are looking at over those five years is $220 billion worth of debt. But that is for those five years alone. We see that it will run out to 2016 before the expenditure begins, on a best-case scenario, to slow down.

So we are looking at a national gross debt of $315 billion, and that has to be paid off. In order to pay that off, we will see that, on $315 billion, if we assume five per cent interest, we are talking more than $15 billion worth of interest every year. That is an extraordinary figure, and that is money that would come from our hospitals, roads, schools—from our children and our grandchildren. That is the work of one year. If we had said prior to this year that, in one year, in a fit of panic, Mr Rudd would mortgage the next generation to the tune of $315 billion, who would have believed that possible? We would have been dismissed as incredible fearmongers. And yet we see that the minimum debt that this nation will face on a gross basis will be $315 billion.

That is a scenario that relies upon these fundamental assumptions: it relies upon record growth for a record period; it relies on record low expenditure for a record period, after we have seen the fastest-spending government in Australia’s history—in other words, a complete turnaround in character, complexion and intention on the basis of the projections in the budget; and it relies upon having to pay low interest rates for the bonds which have been dealt out to those who have taken up Australia’s government debt. These are the three fundamental assumptions just to get the best-case scenario of a $315 billion debt. That is why this budget in this year is an act of intergenerational theft. For one year’s madness in extraordinary expenditure the next generation and beyond will pay for it. That is why I worry.

There may be worthy individual project within this, but what we see is this: when you choose the entire menu, when you choose everything that is on it, then you have forgotten the notion that a budget is about living within your means, it is about making difficult choices, and it is about ensuring that one generation does not impose an act of intergenerational theft upon those still to come. That is why I have deep and profound reservations.

Even with this mass expenditure, there are serious programmatic flaws on the environmental side. Firstly, let me turn to the issue which I have just been dealing with—the management of Australia’s natural reserves and of our riparian areas by groups such as the Desert Uplands Build-Up and Development Strategy Committee—the desert uplands committee. The desert uplands committee is a perfect example of the problem that we face the way in which the Rudd government is acting. They are based in Central Queensland and represent an upland or a highland of desert area that is Australia’s No. 1 biodiversity hot spot. It used to receive about $800,000, the vast bulk of which—over three-quarters—came from the previous coalition government. Their work involved chronicling endemic species at risk; identifying strategies to deal with them; and putting in place riparian care, maintenance and management, which means protecting the headwaters of streams which run down to the coast, up to the Gulf, or out towards the Lake Eyre region. Yet we see that the care and maintenance which they have undertaken has been completely rocked, taken away and destroyed in this budget.

Why? Because instead of friends groups, local environment committees, Landcare and catchment management authorities getting funding, the money has been ripped away to supplement state Labor treasuries. State premiers have taken the money in a direct transfer, through Mr Garrett, from these small groups—Landcare, friends, catchment management. These groups have had the heart torn out of their work—and real work done by organisations, such as the desert uplands committee in Central Queensland, is being lost. That is important, that is real and that is profound. That sort of thing occurs throughout this budget.

The second example I want to give is in relation to water. What we have seen is a complete distortion of the plan which Australia needs. We need a plan to re-plumb rural Australia, not to buy the farmers off the land. Under us there was $5.8 billion set aside for re-plumbing rural Australia. For every $4 spent on re-plumbing there would be but $1 for buying water back—and only then after we had seen the re-plumbing. The ratio has been not only reversed but overwhelmed under the current government. In the budget papers we see that there is $75 million a year—that’s it—allocated to on-farm irrigation, to re-plumbing our farms, to fixing channels, dams and pipes, and to fixing up irrigation with a drip irrigation or modern centre pivot irrigation. We also see in the budget over $2 billion for buying out farmers, for selling out Australian farms and farmers, and for destroying jobs, as has been reported by one of the local mayors in the wake of the Twynam buyout.

The result will be very simple: we will lose our food security and our water productivity and waste 600 billion litres of water. Farmers in Queensland, in Bourke, Dubbo, Parkes and Condobolin in New South Wales, in Kerang, Swan Hill and Mildura in Victoria and in the Renmark and Waikerie districts in South Australia have said: ‘We’ll make 600 billion litres of savings if you invest in us and if you invest in the land.’ But that money has been transferred to buying out farms and farmers. That is a tragic outcome. Instead of the once-in-a-century re-plumbing of rural Australia, we lose this opportunity. It is a great blow and a massive waste of 600 billion litres of water.

This brings me to the final systemic flaw and it is for the environment. We see on greenhouse emissions the wasting of 85 million tonnes of CO2. The waste coalmine gas sector has set forward the prospect of saving 85 million tonnes of CO2 between now and 2020. It will also generate hundreds of jobs in outback Queensland and outback New South Wales. It will do this by harnessing the waste methane gas from fugitive emissions in coalmines. If it is not harnessed, we will see it being wasted directly or the opportunity for generating electricity lost.

Because of a simple flaw in the government’s emissions trading scheme, the entire government expenditure of $4 billion to save 50 million tonnes through energy efficiencies is overwhelmed by more than 50 per cent. It is completely wasted. There is $4 billion to save 50 million tonnes, yet with the stroke of a pen we could save 85 million tonnes. Instead, 85 million tonnes of CO2 is lost. This could be easily resolved. It makes the $4 billion of expenditure a complete waste and irrelevant.

It is time to move beyond mere symbolic action, to concentrate on real things which will save water and emissions and help groups such as the desert uplands committee. That is what sensible environmental management is about. This budget fails, firstly, the profound intergenerational test. It fails our responsibility to the next generation by saddling them with a minimum of $315 billion worth of debt. If but one of the three fundamental assumptions proves to be anything less than the most rosy and optimistic of the forecasts then the debt will blow out far more. Secondly, where it does implement expenditure it makes the wrong choices on water, it makes the wrong choices on energy efficiency and it makes the wrong choices for groups such as the desert uplands committee, who will be out of business. This will put endemic species at risk and instead the money will go to state premiers. That is why I respectfully but regretfully believe that this budget fails future generations and ultimately constitutes an act of intergenerational theft.

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

I rise to speak today on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2009-2010 and cognate bills. Australia is facing its greatest economic challenge in our lifetime. These are the most challenging global economic conditions since the Great Depression. This budget is about ensuring that we keep stimulating the economy by investing for the long term and supporting jobs while also ensuring that we restore the budget to a surplus after the global recession is over. The Rudd government has stepped up to the plate to tackle this unprecedented crisis.

I would like to outline what this budget and economic stimulus funding means on a local level to a community such as the electorate of Hindmarsh, which I am honoured to represent. On 20 May a local newspaper in my area, the Guardian Messenger, had a story about local construction companies and the contracts that they have been winning to build new libraries, halls and classrooms under round 1 of the federal government’s Primary Schools for the 21st Century program. As the story stated:

Dozens of jobs will be supported in the southwest over the next two years through major construction projects at Adelaide primary schools.

The article went on to outline the proprietors of these companies saying how many more people they have been able to retain and employ to undertake these school building projects and that they are very optimistic about winning further contracts employing more people in the near future. Another story in the Guardian Messenger ‘Trade jobs boost for south-west’ outlines a similar positive story about apprentices. A spokesman in the paper, Mr Atwell, who is an apprentice broker, said:

… the $15 million in the federal grants for major building works at local primary schools … coupled with such projects as the … desalination plant would help maintain demand for building, carpentry, plumbing and electrical apprentices in the region.

He went on:

It [the stimulus funding] is giving the smaller construction companies confidence to take on an apprentice because they know there is going to be a lot of work.

Youth Employment Alliance general manager, Martin Threadgold, said in the same article that construction was driving demand for apprentices in the south-west and he backed Mr Atwell’s prediction that the industry would continue to flourish as major infrastructure projects commence. These two examples are exactly what the economic stimulus package funding is all about. It is about supporting jobs and providing infrastructure for the future, and those are small examples of exactly what is taking place in my electorate.

I will go on to outline the more detailed economic stimulus plan funding in my electorate of Hindmarsh. The Building the Education Revolution funding has supported a total of 70 projects in 41 schools with funding of over $22 million. This is comprised of the National School Pride Program, supporting 59 projects in 41 schools with funding of nearly $6 million, and the Primary Schools for the 21st Century program, supporting 11 projects in seven of my schools at over $16 million. These projects not only support the great schools and school communities in the area but also provide local jobs and support the local companies that are taking those contracts.

Another area is social housing. In the electorate of Hindmarsh 19 social housing units to the value of $5.3 million have been approved. Construction for those housing units will commence in 2009—that is, this year—with dwellings to be completed by 30 June 2010. On top of the 19 social housing units, 22 social housing units in Hindmarsh will undergo repairs and maintenance to the value of $1.8 million. Again, that will create local jobs in the area. From a previous announcement, 65 new affordable rental homes will be built in the electorate of Hindmarsh for low- and middle-income families under the National Rental Affordability Scheme, including 58 Adelaide workmen’s homes in Richmond. I will have the pleasure next week of going to a function to celebrate the commencement of those units in my electorate. This is an excellent outcome for households in Hindmarsh on low to moderate incomes, including for key workers who meet the eligibility requirements to rent these affordable rental homes. The National Rental Affordability Scheme aims to improve affordability in the private rental sector by requiring that the rent charged is at least 20 per cent below the market rate. Offering incentives for new homes to be built for rent to Australians on low and middle incomes is a win-win situation for tenants as well as for people working within the construction and building industry. Low to moderate income workers such as those in child care, retail and hospitality who live in properties built under the scheme will be able to afford to live in the area where their skills are needed.

There is also the Black Spot Program. The Black Spot Program targets dangerous sections of local roads through funding safety improvements such as traffic signals and roundabouts. The following local projects will be delivered during the 2009-10 year, with funding totalling nearly $2.234 million. Every council in my electorate has received funding. The City of Charles Sturt is gaining $844,000, the City of Holdfast Bay $271,000, the City of West Torrens $438,839 and the Corporation of the City of Marion $680,683—giving us a total of $2, 234,000. There is also support for local communities through the Community Infrastructure Program. The $800 million Community Infrastructure Program is the largest ever one-off federal investment in local infrastructure across Australia. Every local council is receiving funding from the program for projects of their choice. This totals $1.157 million in my electorate. Again, the City of Holdfast Bay Council is receiving $196,000, the Marion City Council $325,000, the City of Charles Sturt Council $386,000 and the West Torrens City Council $250,000—giving us a total of $1.57 billion that will be spent on small projects in the electorate of Hindmarsh, which will create local jobs.

Pensioners also benefit from this budget. Pensioners will benefit from reforms the Rudd government has put in place. The Rudd government’s budget has ensured that local single pensioners will receive the increased support that they deserve. Single pensioners in the electorate of Hindmarsh will receive increases of up to $32.49 a week as part of the government’s secure and sustainable pension reforms. We all know that pensioners thoroughly deserve this extra support. It is great that, even in the hardest of economic times, the Rudd government has delivered for pensioners.

The reforms will improve the pension system by making it simpler and more sustainable into the future as the population ages. Having one of the seats with an older demographic, I welcome these changes—they have been a long time coming. They deliver a stronger and fairer pension system which will serve pensioners and Australia well into the future. Pensioners in Hindmarsh can look forward to these increases from 20 September 2009. In my electorate, this will mean increased support for 19,695 age pensioners, 5,540 disability support pensioners, 8,793 families in receipt of family tax benefit part A and 750 people who receive carer payment.

Another measure I have been very pleased to see in this budget is support for the Export Market Development Grant scheme. I had the pleasure this week of hosting a forum in Adelaide with exporters from my electorate. At a meeting in the electorate last week exporters—some of them successful recipients of those grants—met with the Minister for Trade, the Hon. Simon Crean. The former government promised to make this scheme easier and then failed to fund it. The Rudd government has delivered an extra $50 million this year to help small- and medium-sized exporters through the global recession. The extra $50 million will provide a much needed stimulus to exporters, to protect jobs and increase market share. The extra funding will be paid to an estimated 1,800 Australian companies, which employ more than 34,000 workers across the country.

Minister Crean has stated that Australia’s recent trade performance has been one of the very effective cushions enabling Australia to weather the global financial crisis far better than others. World trade has not been a cause of the global financial crisis but it has been impacted by it. The most recent prediction is that there will be a drop in world trade by approximately 11 per cent. I am advised that Australia has continued to put in an important and strong trade performance with eight consecutive monthly trade surpluses. It was not until the government came to office that we highlighted the importance of focusing on service exports.

At this point the opposition have no plan to deal with the global recession and they are out of touch with the effects it is having on working families and their jobs. The opposition are opportunists who, in the midst of this global recession, are putting their short-term political interests before the national interest. We saw examples in my own electorate of jobs being created and contracts being won, and builders and contractors talking about the infrastructure projects and the school projects, saying how they have created jobs and ensured that their companies have plenty of work for their employees looking into the future. One of the companies is to employ extra staff because of the infrastructure programs and the school programs. Yet the opposition refuses to listen and is looking at political opportunities to talk the economy down, instead of talking it up and getting it back on track. When put under pressure about whether they would increase taxes or cut services, they admit that they would borrow for the $200 billion collapse in revenues.

This government’s stimulus package is working and the quotes from builders and contractors in my electorate proves it—I am sure thousands of others in electorates all around Australia say the same. It is working and that is one of the reasons Australia is doing better than most other developed countries. In the December quarter of 2008, Australia contracted by 0.05 per cent. However, we grew through the year by 0.03 per cent. This was a much better result than for 10 comparable countries. Japan had a negative growth of 3.2 per cent in the December quarter of 2008 and the US had a negative annualised growth rate for the March quarter of 6.1 per cent. Retail trade remains 4.5 per cent higher than it was in November 2008 before the stimulus. This compares to falls of 3.1 per cent in Japan, 2.5 per cent in the US, 1.7 per cent in New Zealand and 3.1 per cent in Canada. As an example, Westfield’s results show an increase in retail sales of 1.5 per cent in the March quarter. By contrast, Westfield’s sales in the US fell by 3.2 per cent. While unemployment is increasing in Australia, we are still travelling far better than any other developed country. In the UK the unemployment rate is 7.1 per cent, in Canada it is eight per cent and in the USA it is 8.9 per cent.

To prevent the full burden of the global recession falling on the shoulders of Australian families and small businesses during economic downturns like this, the government must act decisively and step in to stimulate the economy and support jobs. The global recession has wiped close to $200 billion from our revenue, and the main cause of this deficit is the end of the mining boom. It has meant a collapse in company tax and mining royalties.

The Rudd government remains committed to returning the budget to surplus once the crisis passes. Budget estimates show a return to budget surplus in six years. The government’s borrowings are responsible. The Commonwealth Treasury has estimated that, without our efforts to stimulate the economy and support jobs, up to 210,000 more jobs would have been lost. While some decisions are not popular, the Prime Minister is putting our national economic interest first. This is a decisive and sensible budget that will support jobs and small businesses today by investing in nation-building infrastructure while charting a course to return the budget to surplus once the global financial crisis is over.

This is a nation-building budget focused on roads, rail, ports, clean energy and universities across Australia, including in my electorate of Hindmarsh, as can be seen from the articles in the paper that I referred to earlier, quoting builders, contractors and apprentices. The budget will enable Australia to recover from the global recession faster than most other advanced economies. It stimulates the economy and helps cushion Australia from the full impact of the global recession while also laying the foundations for a stronger and more prosperous future. I commend these bills to the House.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Water Resources and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this evening to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2009-2010 and related bills. After 18 months of Labor government, the coalition’s $22 billion surplus has dropped to a whopping $58 billion deficit. The government has now acknowledged that the gross debt figure will reach $315 billion, and unemployment is predicted to double. Perhaps not surprisingly, regional Australia has been hit the hardest by this budget. It is a touch of perverse irony that today’s balance of trade figures were enhanced by exports from regional Australia. While Australia might not be riding on the sheep’s back once more, certainly in the last 12 months of economic tough times worldwide the agricultural sector in regional Australia has showed its worth and solid nature by carrying the rest of the country through these tough times.

But there was very little at all in the budget for regional Australia. Twelve million dollars and 312 jobs have been slashed from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, while $460 million is sent overseas to help foreign farmers. The key research agency Land and Water Australia is being abolished and $12 million stripped from the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. We have not heard much from the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry on this. Just out of interest, in a recent survey of Australian farmers 70 per cent voted the current minister for agriculture as the worst minister for agriculture that Australia has ever seen. It is this lack of understanding of what potential lies in regional Australia that I find particularly depressing about this budget. We need to support the agricultural industry, not bring it to its knees. Another hit on regional Australia is the scrapping of the Regional Partnerships program, costing communities an important source of funds for local infrastructure and community projects. So many communities in my electorate have benefited from this program, which was instigated by the previous government.

Unfortunately, at the last election, Labor committed to expanding the role of the area consultative committees and rebranding them as Regional Development Australia. According to Labor’s election policy, the ACCs were to play a leading role in facilitating development in the regions. This has not been the case. The restructuring of the ACCs has pretty well made them useless as far as seeking development projects for regional Australia. The entire ACC network will be closed down from 30 June and 150 employees do not know what their future will be. The government will no longer have any direct connection with the regions or any mechanism by which advice can come direct from the regions to the federal government. They are going to absorb them into a state government structure.

I might comment on the recent funding from the Community Infrastructure Program. My electorate got one project. The people of Mudgee were very pleased to get $4.6 million for their sports complex—the Glen Willow Sporting Complex. I congratulate the Mid-Western Regional Council for the work they did on the proposal. However, that is a mere shadow of what the former Regional Partnerships program used to deliver. I wonder how the good citizens of Lightning Ridge, Walgett, Boggabilla or Mungindi are going to benefit from a sporting complex in Mudgee. When you have an electorate that is 107,000 square kilometres, an eight-hour drive from one end to the other, having one regional development program in one town, while it is beneficial for that town, has next to no impact on surrounding areas.

There was also the legislation on Monday night—and we have just had some discussion in the other place about this—to take the name ‘regional’ out of the Regional Strategic Roads program and shift the Black Spot Program to have its funding directed onto the major network. That Regional Strategic Roads program has delivered great results to areas in my electorate. I quote the Wellington to Narrabri road, which incorporates road 353 out of Wellington, and the Grain Valley Way between Mullaley and Boggabri. The sealing of this road has given a great alternative route to the Newell Highway, but also fixed up a lot of safety issues and given access to markets to people that operate properties on that road and also access to education for their children.

I go back to the fact that if regional Australia and agriculture at the moment is carrying this country through this economic downturn, why would a government cut back money and services that would enable these businesses to grow and expand? Everything the Australian people buy on the supermarket shelf starts on a local road. In my electorate I have multimillion dollar businesses that cannot deliver produce to market with as little as 10 millimetres of rain. I have large, successful properties that cannot find staff because people will not live where they cannot get their children to school, or young families do not want to go out there because they are worried about how they are going to handle the issue of childbirth when you live 200 or 300 kilometres from your nearest birthing centre. As we are looking to regional Australia to carry the country through this economic time, instead of nurturing it and encouraging it and helping it to grow, we are cutting it back. It is taking all the funding. We are putting Pink Batts in roofs and we are giving $900 to people to put through the pokies, but we cannot manage to put a bit of bitumen or a bit of gravel on a road that might carry 100,000 tonnes of produce a year.

Parts of my electorate are still in drought, but in 2010 the exceptional circumstances funding will cease. Indeed, many of my areas have been declared by the minister a fortnight ago as no longer in need of support—we have changed the word ‘drought’. Now, thanks to the minister, we now cannot say ‘drought’; we have to refer to ‘dryness’—and these people are wondering how they are going to survive.

People are managing in parts of my electorate because the season has changed, but they are still in dire straits. What is on offer for them? I will tell you what is on offer. These people, who are professionals and who are recognised as the most efficient farmers and food producers in the world, are being given a couple of thousand dollars to undertake a TAFE course to improve their management skills. But, in order to receive any of this funding, they have to fill in their climate change strategy. I challenge anyone to fill out a form identifying their climate change strategy. I was a farmer for 35 years. There are variations in the climate. I am not talking about climate change per se; I am talking about the vagaries of climate. Climate can vary markedly. Teaching a farmer to adjust to climate change is tantamount to teaching your grandmother how to suck eggs. It makes no sense.

We are giving the farmers a fair rap here. Where else can we cut back on government expenditure? I know: we will take away the youth allowance for regional kids so that they cannot go to university. We will change the rules so that they can no longer go off grape picking or melon picking or working at Woolies over Christmas. They now have to find a regular job and work 30 hours a week, for 18 months. Mr Deputy Speaker, where in regional Australia does that sort of employment exist? And when someone has been out of the education system for two years because they have been working, how do they get themselves back to university? Previously, they would earn the $19,000-odd that they needed over a 12-month period by working very hard—they would work in very unpleasant, very hard jobs to earn that money—so that they could go to university at the start of the second year. The payments for youth allowance would then come through to them by mid-year. They cannot do that now. Universities will only defer a course for 12 months, so these young people will have to reapply as mature age students. Already the chances of a child from regional Australia getting a tertiary education are about half those of their city cousins. So how are the regional areas of Australia going to grow and prosper when the people who live there have fewer academic chances than their city cousins?

Then there is the issue of health. It is close to a fortnight from the time when the Prime Minister said that the bucks stops with him when it comes to regional health. In my largest town, Dubbo, the area health services still owe millions of dollars to local suppliers. It is indeed true—I know it as a fact—that the nurses have been sourcing bandages from the local vet. They have been buying test strips for diabetes.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a lot of nonsense!

Mark Coulton (Parkes, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Water Resources and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is absolute fact. I have testaments to that. The member for Lyons might like to visit western New South Wales and speak to the nurses—nurses that his government is supposed to be supporting. They have been left high and dry. Over the last week, the work in my electorate office has involved nurses, school principals and Aboriginal communities. They have been deserted by this government in this budget.

Another issue is the government’s propensity not to look at infrastructure for the Murray-Darling Basin but instead buy water back willy-nilly. There is the government’s recent purchase of the Twynam Pastoral Co’s water and what that means to the community of Moree. The local Chamber of Commerce estimates that the sale of that one property will result in the loss of dozens of jobs, and they will never come back. We will go from a drought that was induced by nature to a permanent drought—a government induced drought.

We have had a go at the students and we have had a go at the nurses. How about the teachers? We have been hearing a lot about the great ‘building the education revolution’ fund. Guess where my work has been involved over the last couple of weeks: school principals, like the Deputy Principal of Warialda High School. This school is recognised as one of the leading vocational educational high schools in New South Wales, if not Australia. It is also the home of the Gwydir Concert Band. Warialda High School has been in desperate need of a school hall for the last 25 years, but it cannot have one. It can have another science lab, but it already has two science labs. The school does not want that; it wants a school hall. The primary school can have a school hall but the high school cannot.

In Mungindi, a central school with a large Indigenous population of 100 students only has, unfortunately for them, 48 students in the primary school; therefore, they cannot have an assembly hall. The Catholic school down the road has 52 students. They can have one. So the Indigenous students that go to the state funded school—the so-called ‘education for all’—are now going to be further disadvantaged, but the Catholic school up the road—good luck to them—will have a new hall. So the gap in public education widens. Where is the fairness in that? I forgot the Aboriginal community. We had the apology to the stolen generation with much gnashing of teeth, crying and wringing of hands 12 or 18 months ago. So what will we do? We will do away with the Community Development Employment Program.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was yours! That was your policy!

Mark Coulton (Parkes, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Water Resources and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is not who is doing away with these programs now. I can tell you that the Gunnedah CDEP, Gunidah Gunyah Aboriginal Corporation, was formed by a great old gentleman called Dick Talbot. He brought his own lawnmower down and started organising jobs for young people mowing lawns around Gunnedah about 30 years ago. In the last two years it has found 140 jobs. I have letters in a stack that thick from local businesses decrying its demise. It undertakes mine restoration and looks after pensioners. It is one of the most highly regarded organisations in that community, and it has gone.

I have written to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Ms Macklin, politely pointing out that this needs to be rethought. If you want to help the Aboriginal community, why not keep something that is working? Nindethana Aboriginal Corporation in Moree have 50 people that they have had to put off. If their young people do not turn up for work, someone goes and gets them out of bed. They mentor them one on one. It is an amazing program. They have contracts with the New South Wales RTA and the local council and yet they are going. I could understand it if this was an oversight by the minister, but there is no flexibility. On all these things that have come through from this government, government knows best. Do not let the local community decide what they want to do—government knows best! The level of unrest in regional Australia is high. I say in conclusion that the only thing that the people in my electorate got their fair share of out of this budget was the debt.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Parkes is very lively today. He is a very honest member of the House who is very upset because—

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No good being good to him now!

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not going to be nice to him because I am just about to point out why he is a bit fiery today. The Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government has pointed out in a press release put out in the electorate of the member for Parkes that he was in the House and voted against money for black spots in his own electorate. He voted against money that would have saved lives in his electorate of Parkes. The member for Parkes has been caught out in his own papers about what he did.

I have been listening to the criticism of this Labor government in what the Labor government is doing to try to avert the complete meltdown of this country. There is, of course, a financial crisis happening in the world. People are nervous and are not spending in case they lose their jobs. They are buying less and companies are not renewing or expanding as they would normally do. They are waiting and are a bit nervous. Some companies, in the worst instances, are going out of business, especially those that have not renewed and kept up with changes in process or their markets. Those who study history may know that this scenario of a world financial crisis has happened several times before to varying degrees. Governments have reacted in different ways in the past—deep cuts in spending, pensioners’ incomes cut, people laid off from the public sector, countries putting up tariffs to increase protection and credit being denied. All this occurred as countries tried to isolate themselves from the continuing world crisis going on around them. It became crisis management and everybody brought the shutters down and attempted to wait it out.

This, of course, made the situation worse and, since the Great Depression and Wall Street crashes, economists have attempted to find the answers to keep economies stable in turbulent times. It should be understood that this could happen and has happened again. What happens in the international money market is not under the control of this nation. The question is: how do we, in Australia, deal with it? I have had a look at how we have traditionally developed our budget in Australia. According to Owen E Hughes in Australian Politics, 3rd edition, 1998:

Finance is the essential commodity of government; being able to direct the flow of government money is the single difference between government and opposition …

as you always know when you are in opposition. Following traditional lines through the budget process, what they call ‘stabilisation’ has been the key point in dealing with current economic times. Hughes goes on to point out that stabilisation policy is where the government aims to improve the overall economy through budgetary process. All government spending and taxing decisions have a marked effect on the private sector as well. So, by varying these policies and the aggregate levels, an attempt can be made indirectly to influence the health of the entire economy. Of course, since 1945 governments have really accepted at the federal level the responsibility of promoting full employment, price stability, economic growth and a stable balance of payments. I do not think anyone on that side would disagree with us on this point. Spending and taxing have economic effects of their own and the net balance between them—the deficit and the surplus—is of major importance.

Keynesian economic theory argues that if the budget is in deficit the overall effects are multiplied, so that the whole economy can be stimulated. If the economy is overheated, then government can in theory budget for a surplus, which will slow the economy. This is the traditional position most Western countries have adopted to keep stability. There have been changes and moves away from the pure Keynesian position, to try to allow for the market to be involved and for government to take a backward step. When the economy is in dire straits and threatening to free-fall, as in the US, urgent measures must be taken. We now see the US government playing a role in the recycling of some of the major auto industries in that country.

Once the Great Depression was on us, the state governments in Australia tried to stimulate their economies. Some of the schemes in the past were make-work schemes. We just need to look back to the depression of the late 1920s and early 1930s when some of our long-term infrastructure projects were born. A project often talked about still in Tasmania is the road up Mount Wellington—all done by labour that had become unemployed in the depression. There is a great story of unemployed people being given a pair of boots by the then Labor Premier to do the work. The road to the summit was constructed in the early 1930s in a relief scheme for the unemployed—an idea initiated by the then Premier of Tasmania, Mr A G Ogilvie. While the road is officially known as ‘Pinnacle Road’, it was for some time also widely known amongst residents of Hobart as ‘Ogilvie’s scar’, no doubt by the conservative side of politics. At the time the road was constructed, the mountain was heavily logged and almost bare, and the road was an all-too-obvious scar across the already denuded mountain.

Today the trees have grown again but the scar that most people see is not actually the road but a line of large rocks with no trees 50 to 100 metres above the road. The road itself was opened in August 1937 after nearly two years of work. It was opened by the governor, Sir Ernest Clark. Again in the 1970s there was the RED scheme that picked up the unemployed and tried to put them into meaningful work. This led later into Working Nation, one of the most successful work development and training schemes for the country.

It is now also a time to reskill people for the next stage in the economy. Many who were displaced from the workforce are from industries that are disappearing because technology and community expectations are changing. I can only point out the petrol driven car and its current difficulties. Governments are meant to anticipate change and look for stimulation of the economy that will provide long-term advantage for the future while keeping jobs alive and the skills that are needed in the new era. So projects such as road building, renewing rail networks, building houses, looking at new ideas and developing innovation products are all part of this. This budget is full of references to these sorts of activities. I applaud the Treasurer, the Minister for Finance and Deregulation and the Prime Minister for seizing the bear by its neck and making it pay attention to the government with these moves to stimulate the Australian economy.

This time we are increasing pensions, not cutting them. Governments all over the world are stimulating their economies. In Australia we are spending money on infrastructure, which lays the foundation for future recovery and gives us the stimulus to help jobs continue at present. What Australians should fear is unemployment going to 25 per cent, housing prices falling by 40 per cent and companies disappearing. Under the other side’s policies this was probably where the country was heading. This government had to borrow to make sure that we stimulated the economy. The simplistic argument from the opposition is that Labor has put the country into debt. But we ask: what would they do?

There are some issues I particularly want to comment on in this appropriations debate. There was some confusion in my electorate about some of the welfare measures in the pensioners area and the tertiary education area. Age pensioners currently receive a GST supplement, telephone allowance, pharmaceuticals allowance and utilities allowance on top of the base rate of their pension. Some of these, like the GST supplement, are paid at the same time as the pension, while others, like the utilities allowance, are paid separately to the pension on a quarterly basis. To make things easier for pensioners, all of these allowances have been rolled into one payment, called the pension supplement. The pension supplement will be paid fortnightly, along with the base rate of the pension. Age pensioners will no longer receive the utilities allowance in a separate payment. Instead, it will be a part of the new pension supplement. Both single and couples pensioners will be paid the pension supplement in each fortnightly payment in addition to the base rate of the pension. These changes will start from 20 September 2009. Single pensioners will receive a $20-a-week increase in the base rate of the pension, along with a $2.49 increase in the pension supplement. Couples pensioners will receive a $10.40 increase in the pension supplement, and these increases are on top of the allowances that age pensioners already received.

This means that from 20 September 2009 single pensioners will receive $1,462.76 per year, paid fortnightly, through the pension supplement on top of the base rate of the age pension. Currently, the combined allowances are around $1,320.20. This is an increase of around $142 in the total allowances paid. Single pensioners will also receive the $30-per-week increase in the base rate of the pension. For couples, the pension supplement will be $2,199.60 per year, paid fortnightly on top of the base rate of the age pension. Currently, the combined allowances paid are around $1,660.20 per year. This is an increase of around $539 in the total allowances paid. The pension supplement increases and replaces the utility allowance, the GST supplement, the pharmaceutical benefits allowance and the telephone allowance. After July 2010, pensioners will be able to receive up to about half of their pension supplement in quarterly instalments if they choose.

The government is acting to reform student income support to better help students from low socioeconomic backgrounds access university education. This reform is critical to Labor’s agenda to boost national productivity. The government will spend an additional $559.9 million over four years to increase the parental income test threshold for youth allowance. The income test threshold taper rate will be far more generous and will mean thousands more Tasmanian students will be able to access the youth allowance. Many students who previously would have had to work to gain youth allowance will now be able to access the payment automatically because of the increase in the parental income test. For example, a 19-year-old student living away from home with a 23-year-old sibling living away from home will be able to receive the youth allowance as long as their parents’ combined income does not exceed $139,388. The previous cut-out point was $75,324. This will allow an additional 67,800 students to access the youth allowance in 2010 and will see 34,600 existing recipients get a higher payment.

In addition, every student who receives youth allowance will receive a $2,254 student start-up scholarship every year they are in receipt of the youth allowance. This is a huge boon for students and will help them with the lump-sum costs of education, including expensive textbooks. Every student in receipt of youth allowance will get this scholarship for every year they are studying—that is 146,600 students in 2010 alone. In addition to this payment, eligible students who have to relocate to go to university will get a $4,000 relocation scholarship in their first year and $1,000 every year thereafter. This payment will assist with accommodation costs for students living away from home. There will be $6,254 in the first year and $3,254 in every following year of study. The relocation scholarship will be available to 28 per cent more students than currently have access to the existing Commonwealth accommodation scholarships—that is, 6,100 more students will be able to receive this scholarship.

The government are also acting to progressively lower the age of independence from 25 to 22. This will see an extra 7,600 new recipients of student income support in 2012 and give 12,100 existing recipients higher payments. The personal income test will also be lifted from $236 to $400 a fortnight, allowing students to earn more before their payments are reduced. For the first time, this rate will be increased in line with the consumer price index. This measure will also allow students to take on more casual work without losing their entitlements, and this will mean students have more take-home pay. This measure comes at a total cost to the budget of $287.3 million over three years.

These extra initiatives have to be paid for. The government will save $1.8 billion over three years by tightening the workforce participation criteria for assessing independence under the youth allowance. The workforce participation criteria that allow students to access youth allowance if they earn $19,532 over a period of 18 months will no longer apply. This is in line with recommendations of the Bradley review of higher education. It was never intended that school leavers should be considered independent under youth allowance because they take a gap year, live at home or work casually to earn this money. This is not an appropriate assessment of whether a student is independent of their parents.

The opposition have taken liberties with what has been developed in this budget and they have been disingenuous. We all know that we have to borrow money to put safety nets in place. While the opposition always takes liberties with the truth—I guess oppositions have a right to do that—they will also be judged at the next voting day. I support the budget. I support these bills and I certainly think that the country can avoid the worst of the recession with a budget as good as this. We can begin to haul back and get our economy back in balance again.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2009-2010 and related bills. Much has been said already in this place about the direction the Rudd government is taking our nation with its high spending, high deficit and long-term debt. While debt is something that many Australians have come to expect from Labor governments, the magnitude of this debt—up to $315 billion—exceeds all other efforts. There is a growing fear within my electorate of Gippsland that Labor has lost control of our nation’s finances and that this unchecked and reckless spending with borrowed money will take decades to repay. I do not suggest for a second that everything in the budget is bad, but I am prepared to say that the focus needs to be on making sure we have value for money in the future.

It is hard to believe that in the massive spending spree that has occurred since the Rudd government was elected there are still people who have missed out. The winners and losers under this government are there for all to see. The government has turned its back on regional areas. It has cut programs in agriculture and rural and regional health throughout Australia. It has stranded regional students currently in their gap year. And even the programs that are designed to support regional jobs, such as the $14.7 billion schools program, are not living up to community expectations.

Let me begin with the cuts to benefits for students who are on their gap year, intending to attend university in 2010. It is hard to believe that just a couple of weeks after the fiasco where the Treasurer and the Prime Minister would not say the word ‘billions’ in public, we have the Minister for Education and the Minister for Youth avoiding the words ‘gap year’. In response to a question in the House last week, the Minister for Education could not bring herself to say ‘gap year’, and this week in a matter of public importance discussion the Minister for Youth was happy to claim that I was scaremongering on this topic, but she was too scared to say ‘gap year’ as well. I must admit that being attacked in the chamber by the Minister for Youth is a bit like bumping into Bambi in the forest. She tried to kick me around, but her heart really was not in it. She is no Labor attack dog. Even Bambi knows the government has made a blue in this case and she knows that young Australians are being treated unfairly by a government that likes to talk about social justice.

Both ministers are accusing the opposition of scaremongering on this topic, but I fear the government may be giving us way too much credit. Do the ministers really believe that I am so well connected in my local community that I could find 3,000 people to sign a petition in just 10 days—that I can scare principals, teachers, students, parents and representative groups into writing all the emails and letters which have landed on the ministers’ desks? I am flattered that they believe I have so much ability, but the truth is that this is not a scare campaign in any sense of the word. These are people who are genuinely worried, and they have every reason to be concerned.

In what I believe was a well-intentioned effort to stop the misuse of the independent youth allowance, and in response to the findings of the Bradley review, the government took steps to change the workforce eligibility criteria. The government also increased the income thresholds, in a move which I do not believe anyone has criticised—not to the best of my knowledge. The problem for the government is the students who are left stranded in their gap year. The students did the right thing. They took advice from their teachers, their principal, their careers advisers and even from Centrelink officers. They were told that, if they took a year off and achieved the eligibility criteria, they would be in receipt of $371 per fortnight. With these changes, the government has pulled the rug out from under their feet midway through the year. It is no wonder these students in particular are disenchanted. I fear they will not ever become engaged in the political process.

Do we really want young people leaving school to have their first experience of this great Australian democracy being that the government pulled the rug out from under their feet as they were preparing to go to university? I believe the young people in my community have a great deal of energy and enthusiasm to offer as young leaders of the future. How are we going to get them engaged in the democratic process if their first experience is one of complete disenchantment with the way they have been treated in their gap year? The minister talks about new thresholds and scholarships but will not admit that students right now in their gap year, who would have qualified for a full independence allowance, will be financially penalised. This is not a scare campaign. I must say to the minister, before she jumps on that white horse and charges down the hill to see the opposition on this issue, that it would be prudent for her to stop and take a look over her shoulder. When she yells out, ‘Charge!’, she might find the cavalry is running the other way.

I have been stopped in the corridors of this place on three separate occasions this week by Labor backbenchers. They have urged me to keep up the fight. I understand that finally some of the backbenchers found their voice in the party room meeting this week. There is a gap running down the middle of the Labor caucus on this issue. Those who live in regional areas or care about issues of social justice are on our side, and the others are with the minister. My message to the minister is to take the time to read the letters from regional Australians. Just in case the minister or her advisers did not have the time, they could listen in now to some of the quotes from people who have contacted my office over the past two or three weeks. The Bairnsdale Advertiser is a well-respected local newspaper in the Gippsland electorate. On 22 May, 2009 the headline read, ‘Country kids are the losers.’ The minister has the opportunity to make sure that the next headline will read, ‘Minister comes to her senses.’ Let me quote from the principal of Lakes Entrance Secondary College, Mr Craig Sutherland. I know Craig very well. He happens to be the principal of the school my daughter Morgan attends. Craig does a wonderful job in increasing the ambition of young people in the Lakes Entrance area. He is bitterly disappointed that the students he has coached in the last two or three years, in aiming towards the gap year process, have now had the rules changed midway through the year. Mr Sutherland was quoted in the newspaper as saying:

As for the government’s stated intention of making university more accessible—well this behaviour just raises the question of whether they have thought through their strategy—it should not be at the expense of participation by country kids. Access is always harder for country kids.

Minister Gillard has called such criticism scaremongering—but it is not so—the whole issue raises questions about universal access to university and the way young people can develop pathways to independence—how we allow them pathways to adulthood.

There are many more people out there who are keen to make the same point. Mick Murphy, the executive officer of the Baw Baw Latrobe Local Learning and Employment Network, says:

This policy discriminates against rural and regional students and has taken a city-centric view of further education. Sadly, this new policy is going to make university less attainable for many local people, which will have long-term ramifications for the social and economic fabric of Gippsland.

I know Mick well. He also is not in the habit of scaremongering. Phil Whiteman from Churchill wrote to me:

These kids who have done the right thing and planned their future want to study and better themselves but are now left in limbo. I do not agree with this change at all, but why does it have to be introduced without warning for this new wave of students. Surely students should be given sufficient warning that this policy is changing and then be able to plan their income and studies. This change should exempt country kids at best or at least not be introduced until the next financial year.

I understand Peter Jennings has also written directly to the minister:

These changes further disadvantage students from rural areas who must leave home in order to undertake university studies, unlike their urban counterparts who can live at home. From personal experience, I can inform you that accommodating a student in Melbourne costs in the order of $18,000 per year. In addition, with a two-year absence from studies, there is a greater risk that young people may remain in the workforce and not seek higher education—an undesirable outcome, I am sure you would agree. I urge you to abolish these changes and give country kids a fair go.

And finally from Sophie Jennings, a student from Gippsland who is now studying in Melbourne after completing a gap year, there was this comment:

Coming from Sale, staying at home while studying was simply not an option for me. I was so pleased and lucky to gain access to Queens College that I took a gap year in 2007 at the end of year 12 in order to earn enough to gain youth allowance so I could pay for my college fees. Many of us also have brothers, sisters and friends who undertook gap years at the start of this year, understanding that their hard work would be worth it when they became independent and gained access to financial services required to move to the city and study at university. Of course these young adults are now not assured of that.

There are many, many more. In fact, I believe I have sent at least 30 letters to the minister on this topic.

The minister has the title of ‘social inclusion’ among her portfolios. Surely she can understand that young people and their families in regional areas are feeling excluded. They are disenfranchised and they are angry about this decision and the impact it will have on them as they complete their gap year. They had plans which they made in good faith and in consultation with respected members of their school community. The minister needs to take action and guarantee that no student currently on their gap year will be worse off as a result of these changes. I accept that these are difficult economic times but our students should not be paying the price for Labor’s spending and record debt.

In the time that I have left I would like to turn my attention to another education issue of great significance, and I refer to the government’s Building the Education Revolution program and some serious concerns that are being relayed to me by schools across Gippsland. If you listen to the minister, again, it is all rosy. But on the ground it is a very different story. There is a growing sense of frustration as schools realise that they are not going to be able to build a project that they want to complete, and in many cases local builders have been restricted from tendering for local projects. Many smaller schools will be receiving portable buildings instead of engaging local builders in construction projects.

I am not going to debate the merit of the Building the Education Revolution program. That debate was had and won by the government. My concern now is making sure that the people of Gippsland get value for money out of the $14.7 billion that has been allocated. I have written to the minister to raise my concerns about the lack of local jobs flowing from this program, but the minister has chosen to plough on regardless.

Many Gippsland schools can look forward to a truck turning up with a relocatable building on the back. It is the ‘portable education revolution’! This whole program was meant to be an economic stimulus to create local jobs, but there are not many local jobs involving a few portables being taken to some of my smaller schools. I have grave concerns about the veracity of this program and making sure that taxpayers will receive value for money in the future.

The Victorian government has an appalling track record of cost overruns and a failure to deliver regional infrastructure either on time or on budget. As I have told the minister, it would make more sense to get this money to the local school councils themselves and get them to administer the local contracts to help ensure that employment is generated within the local community. The schools in my region are very good at leveraging off any funding assistance. There would be opportunities to employ local traders and to deliver projects that are actually required within their schools, rather than the situation which is unfolding at the moment.

Schools are being pressured into accepting state government templates for projects that may or may not meet their needs. I have spoken to at least 10 principals in my electorate and they are angry and frustrated with the way the program is being conducted. In their desperation to shovel the money out the door, the government has set unrealistic time frames and is pressuring schools to accept whatever is on offer. I have been told by the schools which are entitled to receive up to $250,000 under the government’s guidelines that all they will receive is one portable building. That is hardly a revolution.

Other schools which are entitled to much larger sums of money—up to $2 million—are being pressured to accept template designs which do not meet their individual needs. The school principals and the school councils know that they could build better and cheaper buildings using local contractors, but they are being ordered to take what they are offered and do not dare waste time complaining. It is galling to listen to the minister in this place, spinning her lines about jobs in every community when the reality on the ground deserves much greater examination. I will give the minister the benefit of the doubt in that maybe she is not aware, given that there are so many projects under way across Australia, of exactly what is happening on the ground in Victoria. There must be greater commitment to achieving value for money for the Australian taxpayers, who will be paying off this government’s debt for decades to come.

For the benefit of the House and the minister, let me outline a scenario which was presented to me by a local builder in Bairnsdale. I will not name the firm because I fear that there are people who are vindictive enough within the system to compromise the builder’s chances in the future. The scenario goes like this. The firm is a significant employer in Bairnsdale and has completed work for the education department in the past. It was offered the opportunity to tender for three projects in Gippsland. There is nothing wrong with that, you might say, and members opposite would probably agree. But the three projects were located in Foster, San Remo and Wonthaggi. Those towns are all two to three hours away.

Meanwhile, there was a multimillion-dollar contract available in Bairnsdale that the firm has been excluded from tendering for as part of the stage 1 process. What genius in Melbourne in the education department came up with this plan and why won’t the minister intervene to ensure that local traders have the opportunity to tender for all local projects? It defies logic and is completely contradictory to the minister’s comments that local jobs would be supported in every region of Australia. Once you get an out-of-town firm coming into a small regional centre to complete these jobs, there is a complete distortion of the local market. You will end up with workers being taken from existing local firms. It will destabilise the local workforce, and the profits of course will head straight out of town.

This system of packaging projects and offering them for tenders is convenient for the government and may suit the time frames, but it will not deliver value for money or support local jobs in the longer term. Keep in mind that this is only round 1 of the program, which involves 20 per cent of the total funding pool. When the next round comes online with tenders for 40 per cent of the work, local builders fear they will miss out completely. I also fear that the next round will be dominated by major city companies and the locals will not even get the chance to tender because the packages will be priced out of the range that they are qualified to undertake. It is a very real concern for small country builders.

As an economic stimulus, the Building the Education Revolution program is starting to shape up as the biggest con job this government has delivered. The undue haste to roll out this program is showing no regard for the needs of the local education sector or the capacity of the local community to undertake the work. When the Prime Minister talks about it being ‘shovel-ready’, it means: ‘Shovel the money out the door and cross your fingers that some of the projects actually hit the mark.’ I am not complaining about the nature of the program, in the sense that the government has made a commitment to spend that money, but it is up to the government now to ensure the money is spent wisely and fulfils its ambition of being an economic stimulus in creating jobs right throughout Australia. There should be a more strategic approach to this program, and local communities should have more control over when the money is spent, what it is spent on and which local firm is hired to get the job done. By putting locals first and supporting local small businesses, which are the backbone of the Gippsland economy, the government will achieve a lot more than it is achieving at the moment.

In the limited time that I have left I would like to refer to a topic that I have raised previously with the Minister for Health and Ageing on behalf of the health service providers throughout my electorate and the concerns over the rural retention grants. As feared in the lead-up to the budget, the minister has realigned these zones and there are many concerns within the health sector in Gippsland. In Sale, for example, the health sector has now been included in the same zone as Pakenham and classed as ‘inner regional’ in terms of any retention grants or government assistance. It is a bizarre decision which will make it harder to attract health professionals in the future to regional communities. It is an issue that I will be pursuing further on behalf of the health professionals in my region because the changes appear to fly in the face of every effort that has been made in recent years to encourage health professionals to practise in regional areas. In Gippsland, there has been some outstanding work done over the years with the rural medical school and the Monash University courses designed to given medical students a taste of life in a rural and regional setting, and I fear that these changes are completely contradictory to those moves.

As I said at the outset, Gippslanders are concerned with the way this government is managing our nation’s finances. I share their concerns as this government’s spending priorities are increasing the gap between city and country residents, and I do not believe we are receiving value for money on the borrowed money that is being run up in this budget.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children's Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The world’s economies have been turned upside down over the last 12 months. Old assumptions that we relied upon just a year ago have been swept away and replaced with a new uncertainty. It is in this context that I heartily believe that the budget is a budget for tough times. It is a budget for the future. It creates and preserves jobs. It commits money for long-term infrastructure. It supports needy people on low incomes. It is a budget for a time when bad economic news from overseas continues to cast its long shadow over the Australian economy.

But it would appear that some in the opposition seem unaware that we are living in the midst of a global financial crisis. The economic downturn may not be affecting some of the leafier electorates represented in this House, but it is definitely being felt in my electorate of Maribyrnong. I believe those in the opposition critical of the budget are conning their electorates by pretending that the global recession does not exist and are simply trying to blame the Rudd government. How can the opposition ignore the OECD forecast of the first global recession since 1945? How can the opposition ignore that 30 major banks worldwide have collapsed? How can the opposition ignore the major US car makers are fighting bankruptcy? Many of our major trading partners are in recession. Japan’s economy shrank 3.3 per cent in the December quarter. The United States of America’s economy shrank 6.2 per cent whilst our economy only shrank 0.5 per cent in the December quarter. In the United States, unemployment has risen to 8.2 per cent and, in China, more than 20 million people have lost their jobs. I do believe that some in the opposition know so little about what is happening in the world economy that I expect them to say that swine flu originated in Moonee Ponds rather than Mexico—and certainly blame it on the Rudd government.

What we do not need is an opposition engaging in opportunistic policies, continually talking down the Australian economy and failing to offer alternatives to government policies. The coalition ignores the fact at the opening of my address that the world has changed in the last 12 months in a manner not possible to imagine 12 months ago. We cannot simply coast on Chinese demand and the mineral boom anymore. The budget handed down by our Treasurer on 12 May needed to be about vision and needed to be about preserving jobs today and ensuring prosperity tomorrow. Indeed, that budget passed that test.

It should be remembered that since the 2008-09 budget the predicted tax revenue over four years has dropped by $210 billion, equal to the federal government’s hospitals and health expenditure over that same period. If the opposition wish to win the respect of many, they should admit that any government would have to run a deficit in these circumstances. To have retained a surplus, we would have had to have either raised our taxes much further and faster or cut services. Both of these options would have been bad for working families. The temporary budget deficit was the most responsible course of action. Australia’s debt is the lowest of any major advanced economy. Australia has retained its Standard & Poor’s AAA rating and in fact the IMF, the International Monetary Fund, says we are in a better position to repay our debt than any other major nation except Chile.

Unlike the opposition, we do not simply have some sort of naive faith that the invisible hand of the market and the wisdom of merchant bankers will provide a solution in every case. Quick, decisive, responsible, thoughtful action by the government can cushion the worst impacts of the global recession on Australia. Government spending can effectively preserve jobs and businesses until the global economy recovers. This is not a radical position. All governments are doing it and the International Monetary Fund supports this proposition. The global economy is in a financial emergency, the economic equivalent of a car crash or, indeed, a heart attack. In a medical emergency the first thing the doctors must do is stop the bleeding and stabilise the patient. World leaders, including our own, have done this by guaranteeing bank security and injecting money into the financial system. Our Prime Minister’s bank guarantee reflects this policy. The next step is to get the patient back on their feet and well enough to leave hospital. We have done this through the stimulus packages, by putting money into the economy to preserve jobs. We took quick and decisive action whilst the opposition simply opposed. They were happy to leave the patient to quietly expire or go on a diet whilst on the operating table rather than do anything.

But now we have moved on to the next stage of recovery—rehabilitation. Long-term investment—that is, overdue investment, investment long sought after by the citizens of our nation, investment vital for the arteries of our economy—in roads and rail, ports and broadband will lay the groundwork for a strong economy and provide jobs for our children. For instance, in the west of Melbourne, including in my own electorate, the government is going to contribute $3.2 billion to the dual rail link from Werribee to Southern Cross Station. This is the greatest investment in rail in the history of metropolitan rail in Victoria since the 1920s. This project will be a major benefit to one of Melbourne’s fastest-growing areas to come and, indeed, one of the most important economic centres in the nation—the western suburbs of Melbourne. Spending on infrastructure will preserve jobs in the short term and make our economy more competitive in the long term.

Indeed, led by our Deputy Prime Minister, there is $1 billion of investments to improve our schools by providing new libraries and centres of knowledge. Many tens of schools in my electorate have already started to receive the benefit of millions of dollars in what is the most significant federal government investment in school infrastructure that our federation has ever seen. The knowledge economy makes investment in young minds crucial. I think we can recognise the wisdom of going into debt temporarily to pay for an asset which will increase in value. What greater asset do we have than the future of our children? The American economist Mark Zandi calculates that for every dollar spent on infrastructure we will see a boost of $1.59 to the nation’s gross domestic product through the multiplier effect. This is money spent in Australia on providing jobs for Australians, especially tradespeople, who otherwise would be beginning to struggle. This is a vital assistance to small business, ensuring the opportunity to work on projects which can start straightaway.

I think this is one of the main differences in the philosophy of the opposition and the government at this most significant period in the economic history of our federation. Labor has become in this government, as it has in previous governments, the party of hope. What we see is that we will not give up on jobs. By contrast, the opposition remains the party of pessimism, of fear and uncertainty. We in Labor understand the damage that can be done to people and families suffering the curse of unemployment, the human cost of a recession: families struggling to pay off their mortgage, young people unable to find work, older people having their work careers prematurely shortened. What we seek is the preservation of jobs. We have seen the Treasury estimates which indicate the many tens of thousands of jobs that have been supported by this budget and the previous stimulus packages which formed the earlier chapters of which the budget is the latest. We understand the long-term value of keeping people in work and ensuring that small businesses are viable.

Cash flow is king to successful businesses, be they large or small. The opportunity to have government work which ensures an ongoing income flow through a business is what will make the difference this winter and this spring for many organisations and businesses working on one of the 35,000 infrastructure projects, great and small, across the nation triggered by the Rudd government. However, what we have also been able to do is ensure that in a time of great economic hardship the Labor fundamentals of social equity are not discarded.

What a remarkable effort it is in this budget that, despite the incredibly complex and difficult economic circumstances, led by senior Minister Macklin and indeed the Treasurer, we have been able to keep our promise to pensioners. We will no longer have the annual one-off bonus debate which the previous government would pay and then not put in their forward estimates. What we have done is increase the single age pension in this budget by $32.49. We have increased the couple’s age pension by $10.18. For the first time in a terribly long time, in many decades, we have started to redress the imbalance—

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Under the standing orders, I wonder if the honourable member for Maribyrnong would be prepared to allow an intervention and to allow me to ask him a question.

Judi Moylan (Pearce, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Fisher has a question. Does the member speaking wish to take the question?

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children's Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would be happy to take the question at the end of my talk but, having prepared this talk on the budget, which is an important address, I would be pleased to—

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I only wanted to check something.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children's Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

By all means. I am happy to talk to the member after I have given my speech and clarify anything which he is unsure about, and when he is speaking I would be pleased to raise a question so I can happily talk to him in his address.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So the answer is no?

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children's Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not know what part of what I said was unclear. I am sorry, Deputy Speaker.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will you take an intervention—yes or no—under the standing orders?

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children's Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. I am going through all of my talk. But I also make the invitation that, as I am here every day, I am happy to talk to the member.

This budget is pursuing our equity issues as well as the infrastructure investment to which I was referring. It would have perhaps been understandable if this government at this very difficult time had said to the age pensioners: ‘We’re sorry. This is not the year to fix up your issues.’ But we did not take that course of action, because we understand that in difficult economic circumstances those who are most needy suffer the greatest. So not only were we able to support single pensioners and indeed age pensioners but we have been able to redress the relativities between the single age pensioner and the couples age pension. Through our intervention and through this budget we were able to ensure that the single age pensioner now receives approximately two-thirds of the couple’s age pension, whereas previously it was below 60 per cent of the couple’s age pension.

Particularly pleasing for me in the portfolio of disability services was the fact that the people on the disability support pension, of which there are in excess of 700,000, have also received these identical increases. Indeed, people on the carers pension and carers allowance will also receive amounts of money. I do not pretend that resolves every issue that they confront, but it is certainly going to be a welcome addition as carers carry out their invaluable tasks and indeed people on the disability support pension seek to try and improve their position.

These were groups who were neglected by the previous government despite a strong economy. In particular, the disability pensioners did not receive a lot of the fruits of the long boom in the Howard years. This pension increase has ensured, as has previous stimulus packages, that people on a disability pension are not treated as second-class citizens as they were by the previous government. Overall, this is a budget for difficult times. The global economic circumstances indicate numbers that we have not seen since World War II and the Great Depression. Overall, this budget demonstrates a vision for the future and builds an infrastructure for the future and I commend it to the House.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do regret that my friend the honourable member for Maribyrnong chose not to accept the intervention that I was seeking to make on his speech on the appropriation bills. It is one of the standing orders in this place which I think helps encourage cross-chamber debate when honourable members are able to stand in the chamber and ask an honourable member who is speaking a question about the substance of what that member is saying. The honourable member for Maribyrnong was talking about pensions and he said that the government had indeed responded to the needs of pensioners in a way that the former government had not. Recently, we had the Fisher Seniors Forum and one of our speakers was Dr Barry Ritchie, head of the Retirement Income Research Group of the Association of Independent Retirees. While the government did receive some initial praise and some positive media coverage on the increase of $10 14 for age pension couples and the increase of $32 49 in the pension for singles, the reality is quite different. What the government has done—and the honourable member for Maribyrnong may not be aware of this—is to give pensioners an increase with one hand and then to take it away with the other hand.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children's Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That’s not right

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will explain it to the honourable member, who claims that what I am saying is not correct. The $10 14 increase for age pension couples actually works out at a $9.09 decrease when one takes into account the cancellation of the annual $500 bonus payments that pension couples have received in past years but which will no longer be forthcoming from the government. The member for Maribyrnong is perceived in the government to be a member of great influence and I would ask that perhaps he should take this matter up with the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. This may well be an unintended consequence, but the reality is that age pension couples who received an apparent $10.14 increase actually suffered a $9.09 decrease. Dr Ritchie also advised the Fisher Seniors Forum that, in addition, the $32.49 increase in the pension for singles is only a $22 87 increase when the cancelled $500 bonus factor is taken into account.

These pension figures are a major letdown not only to the pensioners on the Sunshine Coast and, I suspect, the pensioners in North Queensland in the area represented so ably by my friend the honourable member for Herbert but also to pensioners right throughout the country. Pensioners have been struggling with major cost of living increases across the board. With the global crisis that government members constantly talk about, pensioners are doing it very tough at the moment. They have waited patiently for a response from the government and they have got a response but, unfortunately, not the response that they had hoped for.

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek to make an intervention.

Judi Moylan (Pearce, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the member for Fisher willing to give way?

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am more than happy to accept an intervention, although I am not quite sure what it is.

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to ask the member for Fisher: he has explained how the government indicated that for partnered pensioners there would be a $10.14 increase in the pension, but of course the pensioners are net worse off is how he has explained it. With pensioners who are in public housing, the state government takes a proportion of their pension when they get an increase. Because they do not actually get an increase, are they even worse off as a result of that additional money that Housing and Homelessness Services in Queensland is taking from pensioners?

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member could be absolutely correct. Of course, there are state and federal Labor governments and they could be working hand in hand. It is perfectly arguable that the Bligh state Labor government could well take more money from these pensioners who are in fact receiving less. This is totally unacceptable, and I know that honourable members will accept that this, as the member for Herbert has just said, is a double whammy.

Appropriation bills provide one of those few opportunities in the House when one can talk about matters that are of concern to constituents but which are not necessarily related to the particular substance of the bills. I spoke in the parliament earlier about the unusual and untenable situation that the coastal part of the Sunshine Coast has discovered itself in as a result of changes in the budget to the region’s health district classification. The Sunshine Coast is stuck between a rock and a hard place. It is too regional to attract doctors who wish to practise in a metropolitan area, and it is too metropolitan to offer incentives for doctors wishing to work in a regional or rural area—maybe a better way of putting it would be to say that it is too urbanised for that purpose. The Sunshine Coast is one of only two places in Australia that have had their classification changed to ‘metropolitan’ under the new classification scheme. The other place is Gawler, in South Australia.

However, there is another factor that further disadvantages the Sunshine Coast. While Gawler is able to employ overseas trained doctors, the Sunshine Coast is not. This is due to its classification under the district workforce shortages scheme. The Sunshine Coast finds itself alone in Australia as a region that does not fit into either of the government’s health classification pigeonholes. I would urge the Minister for Health and Ageing to look closely into this concern and make the necessary changes as soon as possible to ensure that residents on the Sunshine Coast, a rapidly growing area with a shortage of medical doctors, do not suffer the problems that would come with an even worse shortage of doctors.

The Sunshine Coast unfortunately missed out on funding towards a much needed rail project designed to connect Beerwah, through Caloundra and Kawana, to Maroochydore and on to the Sunshine Coast Airport, at Marcoola. This would help to reduce the traffic on our roads, improve safety and provide a practical and sensible public transport system which would be a major boost to the region. This project, which has been discussed for over a decade by various local councils as well as by the Labor state government, is entirely worthy of support. In fact, the Caboolture to Maroochydore corridor study, also known as CAMCOS, was completed in 2001. Since then, little has been seen to be done, although the state government website states that the state government is acquiring land for the project.

I now turn my attention to the search for the Australian hospital ship Centaur, which was sunk in a Japanese war crime on 14 May 1943 with the loss of 268 lives. I have called on the government and the Prime Minister to fund the effort to find the wreck of the Centaur. I commend the Prime Minister and the government for funding this effort, which will bring closure to the survivors of this tragedy and also to the families of those who were lost. The Centaur was a hospital ship, Madam Deputy Speaker Moylan, and you would be interested to know that it was displaying the Red Cross and was therefore legally immune from attack when it was torpedoed and sunk by a Japanese submarine. A memorial to the tragedy is located on the shoreline at King’s Beach at Caloundra in my electorate. Memorial services are held there, as well as in Brisbane and other locations, to mark the tragedy. I commend the government for their decision to assist in ensuring that the ship is found by allocating $2 million of the $4 million budget for the search. I would also like to say that local people much appreciate the fact that at last they will receive closure with respect to this very great tragedy.

On the Thursday after the Treasurer delivered the budget we heard the Leader of the Opposition respond to the budget, and he pointed out how Labor’s reckless spending would bring about a great deal of debt. It now transpires that the debt will be $315 billion at this point in time, and the Treasurer did not even announce the fact that there was a $58 billion deficit that he had created himself. In fact, there was close to a $90 billion turnaround, given the surplus which the current government inherited from the former Howard government at the time of the last election.

Government members talk incessantly about ‘temporary debt’ and how it is okay to go into deficit temporarily—you make surpluses in good times and deficits in bad times and it all balances out. The real problem is that we are now in more debt as a nation—much more debt—than we were at the time the Howard government was elected, in 1996. The honourable member for Herbert would be interested to know that it means $9,000 for every man, woman and child in Australia.

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It’s shocking.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is shocking, as the honourable member has been kind enough to point out to the chamber. The government talks about temporary debt, but I think this is intergenerational debt. The government is borrowing to spend money now, to throw money out the door in cash splashes, to in effect squander money—to squander the sound economic management of the former government. You will find that children not yet born will be paying this debt back in the future.

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor will never pay off the debt.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor will never pay off the debt, and we will have to change the government so that a Liberal-National government will be able once again to repay the devastating result of Labor excesses.

We have a situation where the government is doing what Labor governments like to do, and that is to be a high-taxing, high-spending, old-fashioned Labor government. It really has become out of fashion for governments to build up deficits, but this government is like a pig in a trough. It is enjoying doing what Labor governments have historically done—writing cheques today without having to worry very much about when those debts are actually going to be paid. The government is completely out of control. There is an increasing level of concern in the community generally over debt. If you ask people whether they wanted the cash payments, most people would say yes. Then if you say to them, ‘But is it right that governments should be shovelling money out the door like that?’ most of them say no. We accept that there needs to be some spending, but the government has gone far too far and it has not taken into account the long-term cost of repaying this debt.

The honourable member for Maribyrnong went on about what this government has done for those people who are in receipt of pensions. The reality is quite different.

Another matter which is very relevant is the private health insurance rebate and the fact that the Leader of the Opposition in his budget reply speech suggested that tobacco should be taxed at a higher rate of excise than currently. Were this to occur, there would be a relatively small increase in the price of cigarettes, but this would mean that the private health insurance rebate would be able to continue as it currently is. The way to have a strong public health system is to have a strong private health system. The larger the proportion of the Australian community which is covered by private health insurance, the smaller the proportion of the Australian community that will be on public hospital waiting lists. If the government makes it impossible for people to continue to afford private health insurance then increasing numbers of people will join the queues for surgery in public hospitals.

Labor, of course, has an ideological hatred of private health insurance. It is sad, though, when you have a situation where the government is allowed to pursue its prejudices at the cost of the health of Australians—indeed, at the cost of the private health system but also, consequently, at the cost of the public health system. I think that the Minister for Health and Ageing should really consider very carefully the offer made by the opposition to support an increase in excise on tobacco products in exchange for making sure that the government keeps its promise, which was not to interfere with the private health insurance rebate.

The community expects governments to keep their promises. Regrettably, this government has not kept its promise to the Australian people with respect to private health insurance and changes to the workplace relations system. This government seems to do or say one thing one day and then not hesitate to tear up that promise. This government thinks its claim of changed circumstances makes it acceptable to break its promises. As I have been saying in the main chamber over the last couple of days, the government clearly has a system of core promises and non-core promises—but the reality is probably that the government does not have any promises worth keeping at all. The Australian people have lost faith in this government. The Australian people will simply not trust a government that says one thing before the election and in some cases even after the election and then is prepared to treat the Australian people with absolute contempt.

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

It is always a great privilege to have the opportunity to speak on appropriation bills, because not only can you speak about the areas of funding contained in the particular bills but you can also, as is customary in this place, range a little wider about general appropriation and some of the key issues that face the Australian people—and today is no different. The purpose of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2009-2010 and the cognate bills is to provide the funding that is necessary to implement measures described in the nation-building and stimulus plans—two essential planks in the Rudd Labor government’s strategy for ensuring Australia’s economic future and that of ordinary working Australians and their families. Today’s national accounts reflect exactly that. Our strategy, while it is difficult and will involve some pain, is having the right effect, and it is benefiting all Australians.

Indicators show that the nation-building projects are having a positive effect on the country. Unemployment dropped by 0.3 per cent in April this year in comparison to April 2008, which was well before the world financial crisis began to impact at the level that it is now. Australia’s strong position relative to other economies can be seen in the growth figures for the last quarter. As the Prime Minister said, Australia is now the only advanced country not in a recession. This is not something that should be taken lightly, nor is it something that should be deemed to have just happened by accident or chance. This is actually part of the very strategic approach that the Rudd Labor government and the Treasurer have taken to ensure that the Australian government minimises the impact of the global financial crisis on ordinary Australians.

The impact of this crisis is no different in the electorate of Oxley from that of any other electorate in this country, except perhaps for a few things. The electorate of Oxley is disadvantaged in many ways, and that shows up in national statistics. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the electorate sits in the top five most disadvantaged communities in Australia. Disadvantage is not evenly distributed throughout my electorate. There are pockets of people who are well off and who can manage to look after themselves but, at the same time, there are also pockets of individuals who struggle with day-to-day living expenses and who feel it most when economies begin to falter. It is those people whom I am concerned about. I think all of us should work very hard to ensure that these communities do not unfairly bear the weight of the global financial crisis on their shoulders. I refer here particularly to people who are unemployed, who are in the lowest income levels and who struggle to make a living—the working poor.

We are lucky in this country, but we are not lucky by accident. We are lucky by design, by strategy and by the measures that I have already mentioned. We have worked hard, we have planned hard and we have taken the tough but necessary decisions to ensure that we minimise the impact of the global financial crisis. I want to congratulate the Treasurer and the Prime Minister for having the courage in what are very difficult and challenging times to make those difficult decisions and to stare criticism in the face. The opposition merely want to destroy what the government is trying to do while, at the same time, not put forward any positive proposals themselves.

Our strategy is well documented. It is a strategy to assist families and working people. It is a strategy that included a stimulus package of $10.3 billion over the Christmas period last year to make sure that retail did not falter and that it did not feel the full shock of what was happening around the globe. The evidence today speaks for itself in terms of the impact that had. Nobody can argue about the figures and nobody can deny the outcomes of that particular stimulus package. We have gone further because we feel it is necessary to do the things that were left undone for more than a decade—the great lost opportunities that I have talked about in this House many times. We wanted also to assist pensioners with a substantial and real increase to their income levels. It is above what was deemed by many to be the threshold level of $30. We went slightly higher than that—$32.50 per week for a single pensioner—because we recognise, acknowledge and understand the difficulty that a single pensioner faces in trying to meet their cost of living. We went further to make sure that couple pensioners were not disadvantaged, and, while they did not need the same sort of increase, they still needed some recognition of the difficult times that they face, so couple pensioners got a bit over $10 per week, which was a substantial amount for them as well.

We did not stop there. For our strategy to have the broad impact that we wanted across the Australian economy—to assist families, pensioners, industries and small, medium and large business—we made sure we included packages in our automotive and manufacturing sectors in infrastructure, which is a major plan in our strategy moving forward. About 75 per cent of our economic strategy has been aimed directly at infrastructure. This does two things: one is to make sure that employment and jobs grow in skilled areas, and the other is to provide legacy infrastructure for this country—infrastructure that will benefit our children and infrastructure that will deliver well into the future for future generations and for the Australian economy.

We have also provided and ensured that there is confidence in the markets, confidence in our banking system and confidence that Australia is in a position to have enough liquidity to continue to do what it does. We had to make sure that our banking system, our financial markets and the things that underpin our economy did not falter as they have done in other places around the world. But there is a lot more that needs to be done. We do these things at a macro level, but we also do these things at a micro level—at a local level—where it affects people directly. It is not necessarily always based purely just on economic terms. There is an important element to social infrastructure and that is to look after those people that rely and depend on us to look after them because they are not in a position to do that for themselves on their own. The government has, in that vein, invested $6.4 billion to build around 20,000 social housing dwellings across the country. This will stimulate building and jobs in the construction industry. It has been estimated by Treasury that it will support some 15,000 jobs nationally over the next two years. It is a very important part of the puzzle in terms of delivering for the Australian people and the Australian economy.

In Oxley in particular, the government will be building 21 social housing units. I welcome those very much. I appreciate the work of the minister. I understand that, with 150 electorates, a lot of work needs to be done, so I appreciate any effort that is done in the western suburbs and the western corridors of Brisbane and Ipswich. We are also providing support for existing social housing through the repair and refurbishment of existing houses—281 homes in the electorate of Oxley will benefit from such refurbishments—which I think is a good way forward and delivers right across the board. The way I see it is that it is the government adding value and it is the government taking its housing responsibility seriously. For the first time in a very long time, it is the Commonwealth, once again, taking on board its responsibilities in infrastructure and housing and playing a key role in what has been shoved off to the states by the previous government for far too long.

The government is also committed to helping the most marginalised people in our community. We have already seen this through our decisive action in a variety of areas including people who are on very low incomes, pensioners and the homeless. I do not know whether it is ever necessary to say it, but we can always do better, we can always do more and we can always strive to provide in those areas where we fail. There is no doubt that housing is one of those areas where we must do everything we can to improve the circumstances of people currently living rough or without a home or who, for some reason outside their control, find they no longer have a place to live or perhaps even a family to share a home with.

The government takes very seriously its commitment to small business. We did so while we were in opposition and we continue to do so while we are in government. The government will be assisting small businesses by giving them some crucial tax breaks. I heard the calls from the Liberal and National parties when they were in government about all the things they could, would or maybe should do for small business. We did not actually see a lot of it. We heard a lot of talk.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

I hear them interjecting already. They cannot help themselves. They like to talk a lot about small business. They see themselves as the crucible, the saviours and the bastion of all things small business, but why is it always Labor governments that actually have to do the hard yards and the work? We are not afraid to take that on. We were not afraid to put forward the 30 per cent tax break and now the 50 per cent tax break. We are not afraid to take on red tape and bureaucracy to make life easier for small business. So while the Liberal and National parties merely talk about how much they support small and medium enterprises, we actually deliver. That is a key point to be made. It always comes back to us. For the decade that they were there, these are things they could have been done. What was preventing them?

I would challenge any small business owner, next time they see their member of parliament, of any creed, to ask, ‘What did happen in the previous decade?’ The GST. What happened? They got slugged with another tax. Importantly, what we have done by ensuring that we have the 30 per cent and 50 per cent tax concessions in place is encourage small business to maintain jobs and to spend money on critical pieces of equipment, making sure that we continue to grow and develop our economy. With 1.9 million small businesses across the country employing more than 3.8 million Australians, the government does recognise how important it is to support them. We recognise not only small businesses but also workers. We recognise the integral relationship they have in building and creating the wealth. We are not of the view of the previous government in thinking that they were the only ones who created anything in this country rather than small business themselves. By increasing those tax breaks, we have gone a fair way in demonstrating that.

Of course it is not the only thing we have done. We are looking at unemployment. We talked in opposition about skilling people and the skills shortage and now is the time to, as they say, make hay while the sun shines. What we need to do is ensure that we continue to up-skill people and train people when times are tough so that they will have the skills that are necessary when the economy turns around. We are committed to protecting the jobs of Australians during these tough times.

One of my favourite topics, and one that members of parliament may or may not be sick of hearing me talk about, is that of infrastructure. I cannot talk about it enough because I see it as such a critical piece of government policy that no-one else can deliver. The big infrastructure projects really are left to government to deliver. It is one of the largest areas of neglect that the previous government took upon itself to turn a blind eye to. It just left it to others to do.

They talk about what is left for future generations. Well, back in 1996 it was not possible to determine exactly where we would be in 2007, 2008 and 2009 after almost 12 years of the Howard government. If only they had realised the damage they were doing to the economy by not investing in the future, by simply waiting for someone else to do it and by not taking those revenue rivers of gold that flowed into Canberra from the mining boom and the great times that this country had. By not investing those revenues in infrastructure, we forwent a great opportunity.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

I hear interjections from two members from Queensland on the other side saying, ‘Have you seen what is happening in Queensland?’ Yes I have. I have seen what is happening in Queensland. If only the previous government, the Howard government, had had enough foresight, just a little bit of foresight, to say we should invest not in the states but in critical infrastructure for all Australians.

State governments come and go, but Australian people live right across this country. We needed the Commonwealth in the past decade to invest in infrastructure—in the Ipswich Motorway, which cost our local economy so dearly, in the Bruce Highway and on critical jobs in rail and port. We hear members say, ‘Pick me.’ You talk now about getting things done, but while the Liberal-National parties were in government, they did not deliver. They now criticise us—

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene.

Judi Moylan (Pearce, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will the member for Oxley allow a question?

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

No, I will not. One of the things we have done which the Liberal and National parties did not do is look at infrastructure beyond roads, rail and port to safety in all rural and remote communities, the ones the Liberal and National parties purport to represent. It took a very long time for a government—the Rudd Labor government—to put their money on the table, to fix up boom gates and rail crossings, to make sure that we not only invest in rural communities but that we also make them safer. The other side smirks and thinks it is all really funny. There is one great way to make sure you can drive a local economy in a small remote country town or hamlet—perhaps in Victoria or somewhere else—by investing in their schools. It has probably been over 30 years since there has been investment as significant as that made by this government. I am very proud of the work we have done, not only in managing to avoid a technical recession in this country but in maintaining jobs, investing in critical rail and road, in schools, in education and in hospitals, and in a range of other areas. We had the courage to do that in tough times, unlike the other side which, during the good times, did not have the courage do anything good at all. I commend the bill to the House.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2009-2010 and cognate bills, or rather on the Rudd Labor government’s latest budget, which will have a number of alarming effects on rural and regional Australia, particularly in my constituency of Maranoa. I fear there is nothing good in this budget for the people of regional and rural Australia. Indeed, with the deficit proposed in this coming year of $58 million there will be a $9,000 debt for every man, woman and child in Australia—every child born today will have a $9,000 debt stamped on their birth certificate, compliments of the Rudd Labor government.

Last year, regional Australians copped a $1 billion budget cut. In this year’s budget there will be some $908 million less in the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry portfolio to spend in rural and regional Australia next year. There is a massive $35.877 million cut to the government’s funding of Australia’s vital quarantine and biosecurity programs, which could well have the net effect of threatening our reputation. In the past, our robust quarantine measures have always protected us.

We have already experienced the economic destruction caused by equine influenza, which the minister spoke about briefly in question time today. And we have already witnessed—from afar, thankfully—the devastation caused by foot-and-mouth disease in England in 2001. We must prevent that happening at all costs. With these sorts of cuts to the budget, we wonder whether the minister is truly serious about quarantine and the protection of our clean and green image. At the same time as the government is cutting its contribution to quarantine and biosecurity programs, it is raising taxes for user charges on exports. Exporters have no choice but to use the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service, whose charges are going to be increased by some 1,352 per cent. That is going to destroy jobs. It is going to cost the industry dearly. The industry has no say; they are just going to have to cop it—another new tax by this Labor government.

Despite the Labor Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Tony Burke, claiming that food security is of paramount importance, this cruel government has axed the respectable Land and Water Australia and slashed $12 million from the budget of the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. What a time to be cutting agricultural research, the very industry that in the December quarter kept this economy from dipping into recession. It was the best performing sector of any export industry sector in Australia.

The Rudd government is talking up the need for the emissions trading scheme legislation being in place before the Prime Minister goes off to Copenhagen with his tribe of media advisers and of course the press gallery. He wants it in place so that when he goes to Copenhagen in December he will be able to tell the rest of the world what he wants to do rather than listen to what the world, collectively, would like to agree to. We have Minister Burke at the same time slashing research funding which could have the net effect of reducing our global footprint in the agricultural sector. But, no, the minister has already proposed to cut that agricultural research program.

Typically, Labor’s vendetta against the bush does not stop at rural research. Allocation for drought assistance has been reduced and will be terminated in 2011, after the next federal election. That is the proposition. So much for supporting our farmers and our small businesses through these very tough times. In a blow to the horticultural industry, the Rudd government has made a 50 per cent cut in funding to administer the Horticulture Code of Conduct. Agriculture was the only sector to record, as I said earlier, growth in the December quarter, yet this Labor government has a complete disinterest in this industry. That has been proven in this budget. Claiming himself a country boy, the Prime Minister paraded himself before the last federal election saying, ‘Up there at Nambour, I grew up in a country town on a farm.’ Goodness me!

This total lack of interest in regional Australia was on display when he allowed his Treasurer to abolish the area consultative committees across Australia. Labor promised prior to the election that the role of the area consultative committees would be expanded. They would be known under the new name, the new badge—we could have lived with that—of Regional Development Australia. But the ACCs, the area consultative committees, have been shut down and 150 wonderful employees—dedicated, committed, knowledgeable employees—have received their Rudd redundancy letter. They are now out of jobs at the end of this month. Minister Albanese repeatedly assured everyone that the jobs at the ACCs were secure. Well, he did not tell the truth.

Rural and remote Australians have a right to be outraged with Senator Conroy’s handling of the communications portfolio. He and his Labor Prime Minister promised to roll out new broadband services by the end of 2008. That was a pre-election commitment. ‘We’re going to rule it out by the end of 2008.’ Well, 2008 has been and gone, and there has been nothing except a raid on the communications trust fund. The Labor government wasted around $20 million on running a flawed tender process for its original national broadband proposal and then terminated it—$20 million of taxpayers’ money for nothing, squandered in a reckless way with no direction. Then, to cover up the obvious fact that their tender process was a dismal failure, they announced that they were going to build their own high-speed broadband network. But, despite their grand promise to build a $43 billion network, the budget actually provides no funding certainty beyond a planned initial investment of $4.7 billion. There is rhetoric on one hand and no action on the other. It will take some eight years and only extend, under their proposition, to 90 per cent of Australians. If we look at the fine print of the Labor government’s plan, it is revealed that this new network will not extend to towns with populations of less than 1,000, which means that nearly all of my electorate of Maranoa will be denied access to fast internet. Yet it will be their tax dollars that will be funding the debt that will be building this network. And it looks like they are going to have to wait for a change of government to get it right.

The Labor government wasted no time in ripping off rural Australia when it came to government. It gutted the communications fund which was established by the Liberal and National parties in government and was going to provide a perpetual fund for rural telecommunications. It was going to be their safety net. Now the Australian Broadband Guarantee program has become the latest victim of Labor’s economic management. This was a very popular program introduced by the Liberal and National parties to provide subsidised support for Australians living in broadband black spots. But this Labor government has announced budget cuts of $23.1 million over two years to the Australian Broadband Guarantee program and it has confirmed it will phase it out entirely. This Rudd Labor government just loves to bash the communities of the bush. It is a bush basher. That is the only way that I can describe this budget: it is a budget that bashes the bush, and it is the Labor Party that is doing it.

Rural and regional students are also being left behind by this Rudd government when it comes to education. In a slap in the face for these students, the Treasurer has made changes to the Commonwealth accommodation scholarships which will negatively impact on young people in my electorate of Maranoa. Currently a scholarship provides $4,415 per annum for up to four years for eligible country students. But this will be replaced with a relocation allowance that provides $4,000 for the first year. When you look at the fine print you see there is $1,000 for each year thereafter—another impact on country students.

The Labor government clearly do not understand the difficulties facing rural students who cannot live at home while studying. This can only be evidenced by their absurd citycentric decision to force students to work 30 hours per week for 18 months to qualify for youth allowance. This change means that students will effectively be forced to work full-time whilst studying or defer their studies for two years. The Labor Party just do not get it. A student whose parents earn a combined income of  $43,000 and who lives at home and is working 15 hours per week—that is, two days a week—to support themselves would currently be able to attain eligibility for the common youth allowance to help them through their study and to pay for their books, rent and food. That student will no longer receive the common youth allowance unless they double their hours of work.

Many students in my electorate of Maranoa take a year off after school to save up for the impending costs of their tertiary education. Once again, thanks to this Labor Party and the Prime Minister, some of these students will need to wait even longer to move to the city to go on to postsecondary education. I really do fear that there are going to be students from rural and remote parts of Australia who will opt out altogether. They will not go on to further education beyond secondary education because of that gap year being extended and the inability of their parents to support them. It is going to be a tragic circumstance for so many of the students who live in rural and remote Australia.

The coalition will be fighting for rural and regional students. We have taken action in the Senate to ensure that students currently undertaking a gap year in order to qualify for youth allowance will not be unfairly disadvantaged by Labor’s retrospective budget changes—and I repeat those words ‘retrospective budget changes’—as to the independent youth allowance. These students, who have taken a year off to save for their postsecondary studies, have been completely blindsided by this Labor government. I can assure you the coalition is out there fighting to make sure that they are not left out in the cold by a Labor government that is failing students from rural and remote parts of Australia.

I am sure the area of health is dear to your heart, Mr Deputy Speaker Washer. Not only has the Prime Minister failed regional students; he has also failed the rural health system. In fact, he has failed the entire health system. Despite his promise to ‘fix’ our hospitals, not one cent of Labor’s stimulus package went into health, and then there is their ideological hatred of the private health system. Government support for private health insurance has been reduced for higher income earners and a higher surcharge has been placed on those who do not have insurance.

This will affect not only the 60,500 people in my electorate of Maranoa who have private health insurance but all Australians. Public hospital waiting lists will only get longer as people decide to lower their level of private cover or opt out altogether. The Liberal-National opposition worked hard to deliver the rebate incentives, because for every dollar spent on them two more are saved in the health system as a whole. Mr Rudd, the Prime Minister, promised again and again before the election that he would not touch the private health insurance rebate. Yet here we have another broken promise from a callous, arrogant Prime Minister and Labor government.

In another broken promise, the Prime Minister said he would not change the safety net, but now some will face higher out-of-pocket expenses because of another promise broken by this Labor government. More Australians will face increased gap payments for pathology services. Cuts to funding in this budget will see pathologists cut the level of bulk-billing and increase co-payments for patients. This will lead to poorer health outcomes, increased rates of undiagnosed illness and poorer management of chronic conditions as people avoid going to the doctor because they cannot afford to undertake pathology tests.

In a horrific blow to rural, regional and remote communities, cuts to the Medicare rebates for surgery will mean many people in rural and remote areas will miss out on vital cataract surgery. These patients rely on specialists who fly out from the cities and from the coast to perform surgery in remote communities. Dr Bill Glasson, well known to me, who chairs the Regional Telecommunications Independent Review Committee, is an ophthalmologist who travels to Longreach three times a year to perform more than 100 procedures and 100 people are able to see again quite clearly after those very successful procedures. He relies on this rebate to pay for his equipment, the flights and other necessities in performing these important surgeries.

Another doctor from the south-east corner of Queensland flies out in his own aircraft—he has a pilots licence. He goes to Cunnamulla, Charleville and Quilpie in my electorate to perform similar cataract surgery. Yet all this will end with this cut to the Medicare rebate, and it is a tragedy. How tragic it will be for the people in rural communities to lose their sight simply because the stroke of the Treasurer’s pen is going to cut that Medicare rebate for cataract surgery.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Rubbish. Honestly!

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hear the members opposite. I wonder: have they really ever been out into a rural community? These ophthalmologists go not only to rural communities but to many Aboriginal communities. They provide a vital service. I commend those doctors. They are bringing a vital service that otherwise would not be available in those communities. To hear the scoffing from the other side of the House is an absolute disgrace. The Labor government’s reckless spending and this deficit budget means that rural Australians, like many Australians, are paying for the failure of the management of the economy by this Labor government.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to begin my remarks today by giving an account of the 2009 budget achievements in my electorate of Melbourne Ports. We often get opportunities to talk in this House, but it is most important to listen. We have listened to the Australian people. We have heard the stories, life experiences and worries of people all over this country. I believe that our investment in education infrastructure is an indication of the fact that we have been listening. We understand that Australians are fearful about the fate of their jobs. Small business owners are anxious during this period of global economic turbulence. We understand that the way out of these difficult times is not by sitting on the fence and doing nothing but by doing what the Treasurer has set out in this budget.

The government has pledged $42 billion to the Nation Building and Jobs Plan, which will stimulate local economies and invest in important infrastructure in the long term. In Melbourne Ports, the federal government has signed off on $1.1 million which has been delivered to local councils covering all or part of Melbourne Ports; $832,000 has been delivered to local councils to maintain and upgrade local roads in the Roads to Recovery program; $1 million dollars has been delivered to the six local projects which target dangerous sections of road under the Black Spot Program; and 9,200 needy pensioners will benefit from the additional $16 million substantial pension reform over the next four years. Under this reform, the government delivers an increase of $32.50 per week to full-rate single pensioners and $10.14 to couples, effective 20 September 2009. All of these measures demonstrate that the Nation Building and Jobs Plan is about building a new future, not reinventing the past.

I want to focus on the education revolution, which set aside $14.7 billion. I was very pleased to have the Parliamentary Secretary for Government Service Delivery, Senator Arbib, join me at Elwood Secondary College recently to announce the second round of the National School Pride Program in Melbourne Ports, one of the three elements of the BER. Acting Principal Andrew Nichols and parents, along with school captains Nurshat Fulati and Stephanie Langadiotis, welcomed the $200,000 grant for landscaping and maintenance on the school campus. This program will deliver $6 million to 43 primary and secondary schools in Melbourne Ports to stimulate jobs in our local community. Construction will commence as soon as possible, with many of the National School Pride projects to begin shortly. Schools in Melbourne Ports will be spending their share of the National School Pride program funds on a wide variety of projects, from upgrading the school oval at Caulfield Junior College to replacing carpeting at the Victorian College for the Deaf, while Albert Park Primary will be provided with a special mezzanine teaching space.

Four primary schools in Melbourne Ports received $8,350,000 in round 1 of the Primary Schools for the 21 Century component of the BER. Caulfield Junior College received $3 million; Galilee Regional Catholic Primary School received $2 million; and St Michael’s Grammar School, St Kilda, received $2.5 million—all allocated for multipurpose halls. Yesodei Hatorah College, Elwood, received $850,000 for a 21st century library. I am very pleased to hear from Pam Chessell, the principal of Shelford Girls Grammar, that they are going to spend their money on a school assembly hall.

The next few months will be exciting as the investment in our schools will flow through to local businesses and others in the construction industry. The third element of the BER gives high schools the opportunity to apply for a slice of the $1 billion set aside for 500 science laboratories or language centres. Although the allocation of funding under this program is extremely competitive, a number of high schools in Melbourne Ports have applied and are hopeful of being successful.

Another very worthy funding program in the budget which will benefit a number of eligible schools in my electorate is the Secure Schools funding program. Under the first round of this program, schools within my electorate such as Yeshiva Beth Rivkah College received funds for security improvements. These include security fencing, glass protection, lighting, CCTV, alarm systems and security training. Regrettably, some schools within my electorate missed out on the first round due to teething problems with the program. These problems have been acknowledged and I have been advised that the application guidelines for the program have been revised. My office has this week been in communication with the Attorney-General’s Department, who advised that all schools which were unsuccessful in the first round of funding were being contacted. These schools are being advised that they will soon receive further information about how to amend their funding applications so as to conform to the guidelines. I expect that close liaison with the department, as well as revision of the guidelines, will mean that eligible schools should not have further major problems in accessing Secure Schools funding.

The funding is integral to protect those who are most important for the future development of our nation—our children. The funding is a result of my and the federal government’s campaigning for secure schools in the community, schools which are free from threats of ethnic or religious overtones which impinge on the safety of schools, teachers and students. I welcome the government’s action regarding this issue and I will continue to campaign and support such initiatives.

I would now like to turn to something wider in this year’s budget that has not been that much commented on, outside particular things in my electorate. They include the appropriations for defence. I am very supportive of both the strategic direction of the white paper and the consequential boost to funding enforced capability that it outlines. China will over the next decades be a stronger Asian military power. Its military modernisation has been very strong—in fact in double digits for more than the last 10 years. A major power of China’s stature can be expected to develop globally significant military capability befitting its size, but the pace, scope and structure of China’s military expansion warrant concern and will cause even greater concern if China does not reach out to others to build confidence regarding its military plans. China has long-term goals joining economic growth to military power. The Japanese slogan ‘Rich country, strong arms’ was transformed into China’s 16-character policy which states, ‘Combine the military and civil, combine peace and war, give priority to military products, let the civilians support the military.’

Although any sort of conflict with China or other states in the region is unlikely and to be avoided at all costs by means of our diplomacy, a worst-case scenario for Australian enforcers means that our defence forces should be flexible enough to face all possible developments. As such, it is welcome that the white paper lays out substantial additional investment for the Navy, Army and Air Force. Acknowledging the key role of the Navy, as the Prime Minister did in his speech last year, and protecting Australia through the air-sea gap, we have the respective acquisition of 12 new and more powerful submarines, bigger and more potent replacements for the Anzac-class frigates and cruise missiles to arm our ships and submarines. Major investments in the Army will include upgraded tanks and combat vehicles, UAVs, and an increase in battlefield helicopters. Australia’s air power will be reinforced by 100 new Joint Strike Fighters as well as surveillance, refuelling and cargo planes.

Also noticeable in this white paper is the starkly different way Indonesia is viewed in comparison to earlier white papers. We can be thankful that Indonesia is no longer viewed as a potential threat to Australia and Australian interests. The changed view of Indonesia reflects the remarkable gains by that country in the past decade. I have been there a number of times, and I can attest to the vibrant nature of Indonesian democracy. It has managed a successful transition to multiparty democracy, embarked on a long journey of economic reform and been a proven strong partner for Australia in the fight against terrorism. It is likely that these positive trends will continue, and I know that the people of Australia wish the people of Indonesia well with these developments as a democratic state with improved social and economic cohesion.

I would like to conclude my remarks on the budget allocations by speaking about an element of allocations in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade budget. I recently had the opportunity to organise an international conference on human rights in North Korea in Melbourne, with 350 participants, including the shadow Japanese finance minister, the leading opposition MP from South Korea and many Australian MPs. The conference was for the most part funded by private NGOs—in particular, it was held in partnership with a South Korean NGO—and private philanthropists, although we did apply for separate Commonwealth funding. The conference has already happened, and it is relevant because two funding programs continue under the current budget.

I was successful in getting sponsorships for the conference under one of these Commonwealth programs, which is the AusAID International Seminar Support Scheme. Under the scheme I was able to sponsor a number of attendees to Australia, including the keynote speaker, Dr Vitit Muntarbhorn, the very famous Thai professor of law who was the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in North Korea. The purpose of this scheme is to allow people from the region to attend human rights conferences in Australia. It is a fine scheme, and I am glad to see it is being continued in the current budget. I also applied for the DFAT funded Australia-Korea Foundation. The raison d’etre for the AKF is to administer and fund projects and programs which will promote people-to-people and institutional links covering the spectrum of Australia’s relations with Korea. It is administered by a board.

The focus of the conference was obviously on human rights in North Korea. As I said, it was opened by the foreign minister. It had MPs, international participants, a major international art exhibition and films brought straight from North Korea that had not been seen anywhere in the industrialised world before. It was aimed at raising awareness of this issue in Australia as well as suggesting actions Australians could take to help the poor people of North Korea. The conference also involved scores of Koreans coming to Australia, including politicians, academics, religious leaders and human rights activists.

I was thus very surprised to be told that the AKF board refused to help fund the conference—particularly after the secretariat had encouraged us, saying that given the international participation and the very high profile of the participants we were sure to be supported. The failure of the AKF to help the conference resulted in a number of very embarrassing cutbacks. One cutback on audiovisual costs resulted in the malfunction of a DVD movie that the conference was watching in its final session. The civic reception at the town hall had to be cancelled. A longer-term exhibition of art of the North Korean refugee Sun Mu at the town hall had also been planned but was called off. I agreed to find funding for one of the conference’s dinners on Friday night but, as a result of the AKF decision, embarrassingly had to renege on this promise and the South Korean co-organisers had to pay for the dinner. I applied for AKF funding for the conference on 28 January and was advised by the AKF secretariat that the conference had every chance of support. However, on 13 February I was advised that the board had rejected the application. On 22 February I emailed the AKF secretariat, funded by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, a number of questions. These were:

• Will any of the other functions (sponsored by the AKF) be opened by—

the foreign minister?

• Will any of the successful applications involve 30+ MPs—

from Korea, Indonesia, Japan and Australia?

• Will any of the successful grants involve bringing more than 50 South Koreans to Australia at no expense to the foundation?
• What criteria for AKF grants did we not fulfil in this application?

On 25 February my staff sent an email to the AKF secretariat asking for my questions to be passed on to the board, and as of this moment we have still had no response. It is regrettable that a fine organisation like the Australia-Korea Foundation would not respond to requests from members of parliament. I can assure them that answers will be requested, as this organisation is funded by the federal budget under these appropriations. By hook or by crook members of this parliament will find them accountable.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on behalf of the thousands of young people who find to their dismay that this budget demonstrates the government’s total lack of understanding of or sympathy for the needs of young people across regional Australia. In fact, as I left to come to this chamber I found the member for Maranoa in the outer areas of the parliament crestfallen that he had been scoffed at by the member for Melbourne Ports because of his stern defence of regional issues in this country. For a member to scoff at a member representing a regional area of Queensland, like he did, and for the member for Maranoa to have such a reaction as to call the member for Melbourne Ports a ‘bush basher’ I thought was very unusual. I know that the member for Fowler would not have participated in any such attack on people in the bush. The budget contains a number of measures that strike at the very heart of rural electorates such as McMillan.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a chamber where people usually do not hear and do not ascribe to people terms that they have not heard themselves. I strongly object to being called a ‘bush basher’. I was not in fact called a bush basher by the previous speaker. He referred to people generally.

Mal Washer (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the member seeking to ask a question?

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would ask the member to withdraw.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for McMillan.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One such measure that is causing a great deal of concern among my constituents is the proposal to change the youth allowance and how students qualify for this support. My greatest concern in this area is the situation that 2008 school leavers find themselves in at present. Having made the decision in good faith to take a gap year in 2009 in order to work and qualify for youth allowance, they now find the rug has been pulled out from under their feet.

Many letters and emails from concerned parents and students have come into my electorate office on this matter. Rural students in Victoria defer from their course at about 2½ times the rate of city students. Students in McMillan and rural Victoria generally also face difficulty in finding 30 hours of work a week which, under the new rules, has to be done within 18 months. In country towns, especially during the current economic climate, where are kids from our area going to find that sort of employment? This tightening up of the work criteria for youth allowance is forcing students to work longer—in effect, two years. Most university courses will only allow deferral for one year. This will mean many students will need to reapply for a university place.

Despite the changes, the Rudd government has made no change to the actual youth allowance itself. We could talk about the amount of money that is available for young people; the money offered is below the poverty line. Parents who send their child to Melbourne or wherever their university placement may be find that rent can be up to $15,000 a year. The highest payment of the youth allowance is well short of the Newstart allowance for singles, at $453.30 a fortnight. This could and does work as a disincentive for young people, especially disadvantaged people, to participate in higher education rather than seek full-time employment.

The Bradley review recommends that by 2020, 20 per cent of enrolments in higher education should be filled by people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. It is difficult to see this happening for rural students under the new arrangements. The Bradley review also concluded that there is a need for an increased number of people with high skill levels in order to ensure Australia’s competitiveness into the future. This necessitates the increased participation in higher education of people from disadvantaged groups, including Indigenous people, people with low socioeconomic status and those from regional and remote areas. These people are currently under-represented in Australia’s higher education system.

The start-up scholarship of $2,254 and the relocation grant of $4,000 plus $1,000 each year thereafter are welcome additions and I applaud the government for those decisions. But the students must have first qualified for youth allowance, and therein lies the problem. A transition period for the 2008 students needs to be introduced in order for them to gain the youth allowance under the old rules and to give recognition to their hard work and determination to become independent. Students leaving school at the end of 2009 would be expected to work under the new rules being introduced from the beginning of the 2010.

For concerned members of parliament in this House there is another issue that has not been taken into account. Jason Beck, a principal who runs a great school in one of the more disadvantaged areas of my electorate, said: ‘Our teachers and career officers have provided the best information they can to our students and parents and now this has happened and they all feel like they have let down their own students. It has caused its own amount of stress within the school community.’ If that has happened in one school in one regional town I daresay every member of parliament should go to their secondary schools and ask: ‘What have you told your children? Do you feel that you have let them down in the advice that you have given them?’ Think about that—you are a teacher, you are a professional, you have done the right thing. You have offered them the best information you possibly can because you have got the wellbeing of those students and their families at heart. What do you say when they come back to you and ask, ‘What’s happened?’ The greatest letdown you can feel is when you do the wrong thing by those you have advised. Anybody who has been a teacher—not that I have—in any organisation knows how important their advice is to young students. I for one have been a recipient of great advice from people that have been so good to me over the years through the education process.

I call upon the minister to give this immediate consideration given the social justice issues involved here—and I mean serious social justice issues. I think the government has mucked this one up and they need to address it. That is just one of the budget measures that demonstrates a lack of concern, a lack of feeling, a lack of understanding and a lack of heart for rural Australia. That is why I condemn the member for Melbourne Ports for his remarks with regard to the member for Maranoa.

Also of concern to rural communities such as my electorate of McMillan is the stimulus associated with the spending on education. There has been serious concern about the government’s failure to deliver on its promises—not the amount of money but the actual process of delivery. We witnessed the massive cost blow-outs of the computers in schools rollout, and now we have rural and regional communities suffering under bureaucratic mismanagement in the Renewing Australia’s Schools program.

On 3 February the Deputy Prime Minister stated that this investment would:

… not only support jobs—it is also a down payment on the long term strength of the Australian economy.

Those are all valuable ideals. The program is ‘a $1.3 billion investment to refurbish and renew existing infrastructure and undertake minor building works’. It sounds like Investing in Our Schools, but now we have a bigger Investing in Our Schools—on borrowed money. The $200,000 for every Australian school is certainly a welcome boost in these economic times. The question is, as has been pointed out by the coalition time and time again: what is the actual impact of this spending? Initially, it was presented as a program which would boost local communities’ economies by providing opportunities for local businesses to come on board and construct the much-needed works. Bureaucratic bungling has taken over and now local businesses are being directed and dictated to as to what jobs they can tender for and where these jobs will take place.

I will describe one case in point. In round 1 of funding, a building contractor in Wonthaggi tendered for a number of schools in his immediate community but was informed that he was not eligible to tender for these projects. Instead he was given a list of projects he could tender for, and they were all well outside the normal areas of his operation and some would require travel of over 100 kilometres for all his people. At the same time, one of the contractors eligible to do the renovations in the Wonthaggi community is located 250 kilometres away in Bairnsdale. I ask the members: where is the logic in this process? How many dollars are going to be wasted in these tenders? How many dollars are going to be wasted in travelling, accommodation and other expenses in having workers transported across Gippsland when that money could be going to our students in the schools, as was the government’s intention? What value for taxpayers’ dollars are we seeing here?

This is a very disappointing outcome for local communities. In this example, the local contractor has built up a large and skilled workforce over a number of years and has successfully conducted business in the local community. On expressing his disappointment to the AAP Corporation Pty Ltd, the company responsible for issuing the contracts, he was told that the projects were allocated purely on a financial registration level with the Construction Supplier Register. The distances for the builders’ subcontractors and suppliers or their local connections with schools have not been taken into account.

He was also informed that, if local contractors declined the tenders offered in round 1 due to the cost factors mentioned already, the tenders would go to the big building contractors. Their offices can be found in the capital cities. Smaller builders would miss out. This was not the government’s intention. I hope this is unique to Victoria and not happening all over Australia, because I would not want to be the local member who has to go and tell the local contractor, ‘You’ve got to travel 250 kilometres.’ If you are in a city electorate, it probably does not matter, but if you are in an electorate as big as mine it sure does.

This is a very disappointing outcome for local communities. In addition to this, if the locals fail to accept a tender in the first round, what are their chances in round 2 of the Renewing Australia’s Schools program? They have been told they could be excluded. So much for the stimulus going to local communities, local jobs and local working families in regional areas. I wanted to drop that line in because it is very important—local working families in regional areas.

Further doubt as to the effectiveness of the education spending has been expressed in recent press reports:

Former Melbourne University dean of education Brian Caldwell argued yesterday that the program—

the $14.7 billion school infrastructure program—

lacked vision and there was a lack of transparency in the way the funds were being spent.

…            …            …

While it was appropriate that the money be spent quickly to stimulate the economy, he said the rush to build should not undermine the lasting value of what was built.

That is from the Australian, 28 May 2009. According to the report, many schools in Victoria were finding they did not qualify for the federal funding according to the templates adopted by the state education department to streamline the building process. It said:

Professor Caldwell cited the example of one school that had received funding for a new gym even though it already had a perfectly adequate one. “What they need is a top-of-the-line, up-to-date library … but the designated templates don’t allow the configuration they want,” he said.

In the Australian on 1 June there was this report:

HUNDREDS of high schools will miss out on—

the—

federal government program to upgrade science laboratories after the Government refused to widen guidelines for eligible schools.

A letter to the Minister for Education, Ms Gillard, signed by the Federation of Parents and Citizens Associations of New South Wales, the New South Wales Secondary Principals Council, the New South Wales Teachers Federation and the New South Wales Aboriginal Education Consultative Group urged a revisit of the funding arrangements ‘to enable more schools and a greater number of students to benefit’. This was rejected. For the sake of the local communities supposed to be benefiting from the stimulus package and for the schools supposed to be benefiting from upgrades and renovation, I would ask the minister to again revisit the guidelines and policy driving the allocation of taxpayers’ dollars before round 2. This demonstrates the apparent inability of this government to understand the issues confronting rural and regional Australia.

A further issue of serious concern to rural communities is the Rudd government’s decision to scrap funding for Landcare network coordinators. The fact is the government have now moved a lot of funds to larger groups of people—and I will conclude here because my time is up. This is a difficult issue. What the government have done is move to larger commitments for bigger bulk plantings that they can put a plaque on. It is a plaque inspired Landcare, rather than a plant inspired Landcare. We in the country have done great things with plant inspired Landcare. We are not interested in plaque inspired Landcare. Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you for giving me the consideration of your time in the House tonight.

Laurie Ferguson (Reid, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs and Settlement Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for McMillan seems slightly off tune. He seems to be making in some cases legitimate criticisms as to delivery. But this is at variance with the thrust of the opposition’s position, which over the last few weeks has been one of endless preoccupation with the level of national debt in this country. The opposition is trying to appeal to ignorance. It is trying to appeal to the simple-minded. One would not think that the United States has seen $1.1 trillion of troubled loans. One would not think that the United States is facing 8.9 per cent unemployment and that 539,000 people there lost their jobs last month. One would not believe that in Europe $1.4 trillion worth of debts are in doubt. Given that figure of 8.9 per cent in the United States, one would not believe that the unemployment levels of European nations in May were 7.1 per cent in the UK, eight per cent in Sweden, 8.3 per cent in Germany and 8.8 per cent in France. One would not believe that currently in this world Chrysler and GM are producing 90 million cars but are able to sell 55 million of them. One would not believe that we have seen a situation, one that at an earlier stage we would not have believed could occur, where in the United States and in the UK essentially we have governments forced to purchase banks because of this very crisis.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not here.

Laurie Ferguson (Reid, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs and Settlement Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Exactly. If the previous government had got its way in deregulating further the financial markets, the current protections for this economy would have disappeared, as they have in Europe. What we are saying is that the opposition are trying to delete the context and the reality in which this government has been forced to act. With them it is as though it is all plain sailing and the government is simply spending under a fatuous kind of nonpolicy. I thought that most of the previous speaker’s contribution was not about decrying the expenditures, as he actually seemed to be saying we should have had a better delivery of them. That is quite at variance with the opposition’s fundamental position. As I said, we have here a situation that is not as it was. There is a global economic crisis. There is a situation in which the government has been forced to act. We could cite examples around the world: Citibank, AIG and the Royal Bank of Scotland, which at one stage was the biggest company in the world. There was a situation whereby the UK government had to pump into that bank $45 billion as an emergency, taking 95 per cent of the bank, and then give a $302 billion guarantee.

That is a situation in which the government finds itself. It is a situation that many countries around the world face. There have been different reactions to it. There have been different aspects of the crisis, but fundamentally there has been a collapse of confidence, a situation where large international banking institutions have collapsed. Germany—a country that has decried other Europeans being too liberal in loosening policy—sees a possible contraction of its economy by 5.4 per cent over the next year. Going by the contributions from the opposite side, one would think that nothing is happening in the world, that the government is not being forced to act and that it does not seek to create jobs to protect employment in a crisis. An earlier speaker, the member for Maranoa, was cited, and it shows that they have a bit of a concentration on the situation of rural students. It is understandable. They are the people who are closest to them, the people they are connected with.

Unfortunately for some of us, we have different preoccupations. My electorate is 46 per cent overseas-born, and that is a situation that has certain realities. These people are in the most marginalised part of employment. They are the people least considered in the employment market. They are identified in suburbs that have the highest unemployment rates even now. I am not for a moment resiling from the government extending the first home owners scheme—the $14,000 and $21,000. Certainly there will be some people who take up that scheme who probably should not. There will be a proportion of them for whom it would be ill-advised. But we cannot deny that it has had an impact on keeping the industry afloat. I recently went out to part of my electorate with the state and federal ministers for housing to see the national public housing policy in practice. There the employer—not the union, not the workers, but the employer—said on national television that he was only being kept afloat by these measures. That is the reality in an area where there has been a long-term connection with the building industry. It has been a very high buyer. So I do not for a moment resile from that.

Nor do I believe that the major emphasis should be on the level of debt in this crisis. Twelve thousand dwellings in my electorate—because it has significant public housing—will have long-overdue maintenance. The state government over a period of time—Labor and Liberal governments historically—have been associated with neglect of this sector. There will be $4½ million going to that in my electorate. I say that it will be money well-spent. This is about people living in decent accommodation and people whose jobs doing maintenance will be protected, and it is about the crucial building materials sector. We have heard mention of Bradford Insulation with regard to some of the environmental measures. In this sector money directed to the first home buyers scheme and social housing will protect jobs. Similarly, 109 dwellings will go up in my electorate and that social housing is very worth while. It is aimed at people who are homeless and it is doing something to create employment.

We have had a very extensive infrastructure contribution in the budget. I know that some in New South Wales have decried their failure to get enough money for the West Metro—they are only getting $91 million for a feasibility study. But, quite frankly, over a period of time people in my region in Sydney have lost faith in a number of commitments on rail connections to Parramatta. If the state government could not make a proper submission then I think they should spend less time in cabinet meetings decrying their failure and more time on possibly delivering worthwhile paperwork. There will be significant work in private and government schools, with a variety of measures—refurbishment in general, painting, floor coverings, stormwater components and general building maintenance et cetera—throughout the area.

Despite the overwhelming problems that are being faced by the global economy, one can say that, while one would not be surprised if the economy deteriorated further, in the short term there are some signs that the government’s measures have had some worthwhile outcomes. We only have to look at a few figures from the last few days to see that. Consumption is up by half a per cent, seasonally adjusted. There has been 0.4 per cent GDP growth, when people were expecting a fall, particularly after the 0.6 per cent in the December quarter. I do not for a moment say that there are not going to be projects that fail, because there is a sense of urgency that things have to be done now. We are in a situation where we cannot pay 25 architects and 36 engineers to sit around for the next six years on projects. We have to make sure that things are occurring now.

Despite those problems, there are, as I say, signs that the measures are having some impact. We all know that unemployment in April, surprisingly, was only at 5.4 per cent. But government itself expects it to rise to well over eight per cent. But, as I say, there are signs that, as everyone says, the Australian economy is stronger, it has better protections in its fiduciary controls and, in addition, these government measures seem to be going somewhere.

I particularly welcome the government’s initiatives in regard to jobs—the $41 a fortnight for people who could possibly suffer long-term unemployment. It is hoped that by 2011 50,000 people will take up training and education. They will also receive training and learning bonuses and education entry payments. Crucially, we want people to engage with the system. We want people to take up opportunities. We do not want to see people get into a rut and fall into a pattern where people will not employ them because they have been so long out of the system they have lost skills or have skills that are no longer valuable. There are strong initiatives not only in regard to a very extensive infrastructure program but also in regard to attempting to make sure people do engage with the education and training scheme. I am hopeful that in the next day or so we will see that emphasis reiterated with announcements in regard to TAFE expenditure in New South Wales. Lidcombe and Granville TAFEs in my electorate have proposals. I would think that that would be another worthwhile initiative in regard to the budget.

In this budget, $25 million will go to Silverwater for a learning centre at Energy Australia. That will look at an interactive education facility designed to educate students, builders and the public about the possibilities and benefits of building green. The project will enhance the capacity of Energy Australia to conduct research and training that will support the implementation. You could not get many sites better than that. It is close to the Olympic precinct and two major roads—Silverwater Road and Parramatta Road. That is, as I say, a very worthwhile gesture. Also near to the Sydney Olympic Park, there will be $78.5 million going to boost the Bureau of Meteorology in the next generation of weather forecasting. In the area of $100 million is going to those two projects within the Reid electorate.

As well as that, I want to say that in this budget the government continues to fund settlement at a level that is commensurate with the refugee humanitarian intake. A number of organisations, particularly the Auburn Migrant Resource Centre, recently received the coming year’s SGP allocation. They are organisations that are doing very valuable work in trying to make sure that people entering this country are engaged with the mainstream and not marginalised and put into ghettos.

In conclusion, I reiterate the point that this is not in a vacuum. This is not to be compared with actions of this or that previous government. It is not to be seen as a partisan political practice. We are dealing with a very stark economic crisis. We have a situation where the government could choose to sit on its hands and wait until banking confidence increases, until trade revives and until other countries take initiatives. Or, in contrast, it could choose to do something to ensure that consumption is maintained; to ensure that the retail sector is kept afloat, thus ensuring that jobs there are retained; to ensure that money is spent on housing construction, mainly in the area of social housing and the school system, which have seen fairly distinct failings in regard to construction; and to ensure that, through all that, jobs are maintained at the same time.

Similarly, infrastructure spending is a two-way thing—making sure that economic efficiencies occur and that infrastructure is there for ports, road and rail. But, at the same time, it means that suppliers, transport, manual labour and engineers et cetera are maintained so that companies continue to operate. It is unfortunate that people have chosen to go into rather infantile remarks about what per capita debt is in this country and how long it will take to pay it off, as though this was some kind of loosely thought-out, late-at-night decision over a few grogs by the government. There is a crucial national need to maintain employment and maintain consumption in this country.

Jason Wood (La Trobe, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Justice and Public Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to speak about a number of projects in my electorate, and first of all about a great local win. I must congratulate the Berwick Lodge Primary School and in particular the principal Henry Grossek, the school council, the parents and also the lucky students. We had this ridiculous situation where Berwick Lodge Primary School was going to receive $3 million under the Building the Education Revolution package—I have spoken previously about this in parliament. What occurred is that they actually wanted a library and six classrooms, which you would think on the face of it was a very fair proposition. But, in actual fact, when they went to the education department, they were told, ‘No, you cannot have six classrooms and a library; you must have a gymnasium.’ As I have said before in this House, they have already said, ‘We have a gymnasium. We want a library and six classrooms.’

It got to the ridiculous situation where the school principal Henry Grossek had to contact me. He had been through all the right processes trying to get this ridiculous situation changed, but in the end he had to go public on this issue and seek our assistance. Then—surprise, surprise—we had the government’s cabinet meeting in my electorate at the Emerald Secondary College, and during the day Henry Grossek was able to speak with the Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard and explain the ridiculous situation happening to Berwick Lodge Primary School. Finally, some common sense has prevailed and Berwick Lodge Primary School will get their library and six classrooms.

But, more importantly—and all members from both sides should be very careful of this—even though we are supposed to have this great friendly love-in between the federal Labor government and the state Labor governments, it would appear that the state Labor government in Victoria was taking the cream off the top of the funding, because the gymnasium which they were trying to force Berwick Lodge to have was not worth $3 million. Therefore, where was the remaining money going to go? People were saying it could be in the vicinity of $1.5 million.

Berwick Lodge Primary School can now have its library and six classrooms and can also use the additional funding for whatever it needs to be used for. I congratulate Henry Grossek for going out there and making an issue of this. It is very unusual for a principal to do this, because in the guidelines it pretty much says that, if a principal goes out and speaks publicly, his application becomes null and void. I want to ensure—knowing that sometimes the education departments like to punish people who speak out against them, especially in Victoria—that nothing happens to principal Henry Grossek or any of the teachers at his school for taking this strong stance. I believe that all members of parliament, on both sides, would agree that nothing should happen to a person who has done the right thing to ensure that the money which his school was to receive is able to be distributed fairly within his school.

This is going to help all schools in La Trobe, because it would appear that there are other schools receiving federal funding where that money is being creamed off the top. We want to make sure that the Rudd Labor government, with its so-called ‘education revolution’ is held accountable for every cent it spends to make sure the programs and projects are delivered in the way they are supposed to be delivered.

Something that I know would greatly interest the residents of Berwick, in particular, and going right up to Oatlands and Timbara, is the Clyde Road. The Clyde Road goes over the Princes Highway and it goes pretty much through the main street of Berwick. Anyone who has driven along Clyde Road would know that in the morning, with the Pakenham train line in peak hour and later on in the day, it is just a nightmare to get through. Anyone who has lived down there or has driven there in peak-hour traffic will know how bad it is. Another intersection that you could say is in the same sort of state is Springvale Road in Melbourne. I would not say that the Clyde Road is quite as bad as Springvale Road, but at times it would not be far from it.

There is some good news. Under the previous Howard government we funded the Bryn Mawr Bridge, which helps residents, especially in Beaconsfield and suburbs such as Officer, by enabling them to sneak around via Kenyon Drive going past Beaconhills College. As a side issue, I do think that when we funded the Bryn Mawr Bridge the residents on Bryn Mawr Boulevard definitely suffered some local community pain for this project. What I mean by that is that they now have a thoroughfare going along their street and past their houses. I did say at the time that the residents would need to be catered for. The residents approached me and they were greatly concerned about not having privacy barriers put up. I recall that on the day the Bryn Mawr Bridge was opened I was approached by the CEO of Casey, who is good man but something went horribly wrong with our conversation. The Casey Council did a great job and funded this project under budget. I believe the whole project was allocated $10 million and it ended up being $8 million. The council wanted the remaining money to be spent on Kenyon Drive to assist with Beaconhills College, which was a very fair proposition. I did stipulate that I thought it was only fair that privacy barriers be erected along Bryn Mawr Boulevard to help the local residents. Only recently residents contacted me, two years after the event, and said that the privacy barriers had not been installed. I believe that is wrong, and I believe that the council is now going to address it.

Another issue which the local residents want addressed is the problem of motorists speeding along there. I have been there myself. It is a 60-kilometre zone but, as a former police officer, it appears to me that some of the trucks going down the road are driving over the speed limit. Even if they were right on 60 kilometres per hour it is very dangerous, especially after hours when you have got kids leaving Beaconhills College and students walking along the boulevard. I believe that during school hours that section should be made a 40-kilometre per hour zone along with all the other school zones around the state. I think that is vitally important and it is something that I will fight to achieve along with the local residents. Recently there was an accident. The residents are greatly concerned. In this accident a car went through the fence of one of the residents. Luckily, there were no children in the backyard. They do want some protective barriers—some of those guardrails—and I support that.

I will come back to the Clyde Road issue. This was one of my major commitments last election. The Howard government committed $25 million to it if re-elected. Initially my Labor opponent attacked this as a waste of money, saying that it was not required and not needed. Eventually he saw common sense and committed to the project through a Labor Party announcement. Labor said they would commit $30 million to the project. I was at the Beaconsfield community political debate during the election, where my opponent publicly said he had had meetings at the time with the state roads minister, Tim Pallas, who had committed to funding the other half of the project.

At the same time the former Howard government made a major election promise around Springvale Road, as I previously mentioned—which is not in my electorate but in the seat of Deakin—as did the new Rudd government. What is really sad and disturbing about this is that the $140 million Springvale Road grade separation project, as Minister Anthony Albanese announced in his media release on 29 April 2009, is about to go ahead. From what I hear, the works will be underway very shortly. Very sadly, the Clyde Road intersection, which was announced during the same election campaign, will not be going ahead. All we have had is the state Labor government committing $1 million for a feasibility study. This is an absolute disgrace. It is an outrage that two projects were announced at the same time but one is not going ahead. It appears that one is going ahead because it is in a Labor member’s electorate and the other, because it is in my seat of La Trobe, is not being funded. I think it is grossly unfair to all the residents in the local area, especially when the government is heading towards putting this country in $315 billion of debt.

My electorate of La Trobe is in one of the fastest-growing corridors in this country, yet I do not have a major road project anywhere. There is no rail project. On numerous occasions I have called for an upgrade of the Belgrave train line, a third line from Ringwood to Ferntree Gully and the duplication of the line from Ferntree Gully to Belgrave. That is something I called for when I was in government, and I will continue to do so. If you look around the country, in South Australia the Rudd government has committed to light rail projects. I think it is grossly unfair that the residents in the outer suburbs of Melbourne have been left behind. I think it is an absolute disgrace.

Finally, I have some good news. Fernlea House palliative care hospice was started off a number of years ago by Jan Lancaster when she purchased the property. I believe it was in 2004. It was my election commitment to hand over through the Howard government $800,000. I have spoken on this numerous times in the House. I could not believe it when, after the Rudd government were elected and heading into the May 2008 budget, they gave the residents 30 days notice that they were going to close it down. The minister, Justine Elliot, was forced—through Derryn Hinch, I believe—to come to the party and hand over $200,000 to the project. I will give Minister Justine Elliot some thanks, though, because I know it went right to the death knock. With a local campaign we put together a very strong petition. I must thank all those people from Fernlea House palliative care—again, Jan Lancaster, Ann Davis and Helen Pike—for the great and fantastic work they have been doing. All the volunteers use their own time to go and help people in their final days and make their lives very comfortable. Justine, obviously following the strong campaign, made $470,000 available. I do thank the minister for that.

In saying that, though, the poor residents and all the staff have gone through the awful experience, for two years in a row, of waiting and waiting for funding to be made available. It is one of those projects where the volunteers are doing a fantastic job. It is in Emerald, the suburb where the Prime Minister had his community cabinet meeting and, surprise surprise, the announcement came two days before. Whether that had much to do with it—I would say so. The good new is that, finally, Fernlea House is getting some funding.

Another issue raised with the Prime Minister at the community cabinet meeting was the question of the weed funding promised for the Dandenong Ranges. I initially made a $3 million commitment. Obviously, we did not win the election but Minister Garrett promised to make a strong commitment to do something. The first thing he did was cut the funding for wandering trad, funding which the then minister for the environment, Malcolm Turnbull, had committed to. This is a disgrace. On the night of the community cabinet meeting the government had no answers. It is a broken election promise. They should immediately make funding available to help the local residents, especially all the volunteers who remove weeds. Not only are weeds a  major problem in our creeks, where they suck up all the water and the platypuses are forced to go into creeks in residential areas, but the weeds, which would remain dormant in cooler temperatures, will, with climate change, now grow. I again call on the Rudd government to fund weed management in the Dandenong Ranges.

Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

From the outset, I want to say that I totally support Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2009-2010 and cognate bills and I support the government’s budget. Listening to the honourable member for La Trobe makes me think we need to go back a little bit. The member for Fowler might agree with me: I am not sure that we heard the words ‘global financial crisis’ in the contribution—not once. You would think that everything in the world is just plain sailing. That is not the case.

I am proud of this government for acting decisively in what, on the face of it, has been the worst financial crisis we have experienced world wide since the Great Depression. We have forgotten about the many banks in the UK and the US collapsing. There is a great debate in America where the federal government has effectively nationalised a number of banks. It is true to say that there was no rule book, there were no guidelines for these unprecedented circumstances, but this government took action.

Late last year the government took action with the first stimulus package. We have been criticised because a lot of that involved handing out money—to pensioners, which I think was a good thing. We do not apologise for that. In the second stimulus package, we provided up to $900 for a lot of struggling families. I think that was a good thing. What has been the result of these initiatives? We have seen a bounce in retail sales, which are up significantly. The proof of the government’s actions is in the pudding—it is reflected in retail sales.

Through our stimulus plan we have embarked on the largest infrastructure projects that I have ever seen in my lifetime. In fact, 70 per cent of the money that we have provided in our stimulus plans is going to infrastructure. What has that meant for Chifley? I can proudly stand here and say to the honourable member for Canberra that I have $47 million for my electorate. I am delighted about that. There are 1,854 projects for Chifley. Why is that important? The whole thrust of what we are doing with our infrastructure funding, particularly in Chifley, is really to ensure that our local tradesmen—our brickies, plumbers, electricians and small business people—have an opportunity, as the private sector work has dried up, to get involved in these infrastructure programs; and I am sure that they will. I repeat: 70 per cent of our economic stimulus is being devoted to building infrastructure. I think there is a growing understanding—and this is not just one of the criticisms made by the government—that there were wasted opportunities in the 12 years of the Howard government in relation to infrastructure. We are rectifying that.

More than $11 million has been allocated to provide much needed repairs and maintenance for all of the 66 schools in my electorate. I know that is very welcome, because when you visit these schools the principal, the teachers and the parents are very bubbly about what a difference it is going to make.

Annette Ellis (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are very excited.

Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, they are very excited. Eight of my primary schools have already been allocated in excess of $16 million to build new multipurpose halls and libraries, while the remaining local primary school upgrades will be announced in future rounds. So, if you have missed out, do not be upset; the first eight are out of the blocks but there is more to come.

I have never hidden the fact that I have a very large department of housing community in my electorate. I can say that 28 new social houses will be built locally and that—and I suppose this has been long overdue—1,735 of the department’s homes are going to undergo repairs and maintenance. This is huge. All up, I would have about 7,000 of those homes in my electorate. I am not sure what the maths are, but I know that a significant percentage of those homes are going to undergo long-awaited repairs. I know that there are some very good people who have been living in these homes for many a year and who have paid their rent to the department of housing regularly but who have a backlog of repairs on their particular dwelling. So they are going to see the light of day. We are talking about 1,735 houses. We are going to have some very happy tenants there.

Blacktown City Council has received a total of $2.2 million to build local infrastructure. I think that is for about 10 programs involving a whole range of different parks and gardens in Blacktown. I am absolutely delighted about that. I should mention, of course, that within that allocation there is $146,500 towards the Black Spot Program. So, all in all, you can see why I am so excited about all those projects that have been announced and that will commence in my electorate—1,854 in number.

We are building infrastructure to ensure that the federal government is actually taking up the slack while the private sector contracts. When the private sector recovers, of course, our infrastructure program will continue, but not at such a significant dimension. Why shouldn’t a government, in an unprecedented economic downturn, a global recession, the likes of which I have not previously experienced—quite frankly, no-one in this room has experienced—take the initiative? What does it mean? We are concerned about families. We are working together. We are concerned about the impact. I would love to say, but I cannot, that no Australian family or no family in my electorate will be hurt by this downturn. What I can say to them is that they have a government that is doing everything that it possibly can.

The opposition keep on talking about $300 million of debt. It is a lot of money. But I have a graph from the IMF. I am not trying to defy you on props, Deputy Speaker Scott. I cannot display it on PowerPoint. This graph shows very clearly, the member for Canberra, Australia’s level of debt as a percentage compared to GDP. At its worst Australia’s will be 13.8 per cent of GDP. In the second-largest economy in the world, Japan, the equivalent will be 140 per cent of GDP. We will hit 13.8 per cent and then we will decline. The advanced economies will hit 80 per cent. Australia will hit 13.8 per cent. The US and the UK are about the same, a bit over 80 per cent. That is, the size of their debt as a proportion of their economy will be a bit over 80 per cent. I repeat: in Australia it will be 13.8 per cent. No-one likes borrowing such an amount of money, but what these figures demonstrate is that we have a great capacity to do it.

Annette Ellis (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And a need.

Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Absolutely. Why wouldn’t you want to act? What is the price of not acting? If we did not act, if there were no stimulus package, if there were not these 1,800 projects occurring in my electorate, your electorate and coalition members’ electorates, unemployment, rather than being predicted to be eight per cent, would probably be 10 per cent or 11 per cent, with all the hurt and harm that unemployment does. I would think all members should understand the harm and hurt of unemployment, but we certainly do on our side—and we want to minimise it. That is why we have taken these initiatives. I do not apologise for it. I am happy to go and explain what we are doing, why we are doing it and how my community will benefit. I think people out there understand it. The one thing they do understand, even if no coalition member mentions the word, is that we are living in the midst of a global world financial crisis of a dimension that we have not seen before.

Indeed, it was really interesting in question time when the Minister for Finance and Administration drew attention to his counterpart’s statement quoting Herbert Hoover—not Edgar Hoover; I nearly fell for the same mistake. What did he do in that depression? What did a lot of other countries do in that depression and recession? They made it worse. We had in Australia Sir Otto Niemeyer come from the Bank of England telling the state governments and telling the federal government: ‘You can’t have an expansionary budget. You’ve got to cut back on your public service. You’ve got to cut back on your expenditures. This will save you.’ Well, it did not. We all know it exacerbates it. No-one wants to exacerbate it. We certainly on this side of politics do not want to exacerbate it. As much as we can we want to cushion the pain we will suffer.

Maybe there are some on the coalition side that say, ‘The economy will be stronger if we have 11 per cent unemployed. It will be good for the economy. Labour will be cheaper. We will be able to in the longer term prosper better from that.’ That is a pretty heartless approach to unemployment and one that I reject totally.

I again want to make the point that we did take initiatives; we are being criticised for it; and today we have seen some of the results. We are not out of the woods but we have seen the results. What happened to our economy today? It grew by 0.4 per cent. It did not contract, like all those other economies around the world that are contracting significantly. We actually grew. We are not, if you like, in a recession. Let me finish on this point about what is happening worldwide in the same quarter: the United States had a contraction of 1.4 per cent; Japan, four per cent contraction; Germany, 3.8 per cent; France, contraction of 1.2 per cent; United Kingdom, 1.9 per cent; Italy, 2.4 per cent; and the OECD on average 2.1 per cent—they are all contractions. We have grown. And it is a good thing.

On a day when the coalition knew at 11.30 that the economy had grown and not gone into recession, they put on an MPI about the government’s finances—well, it surprised me. They obviously did not have a plan B. I give unqualified support for these appropriation bills, unqualified support for the budget and unqualified support for the extraordinary measures we have taken in the interests of small business, in the interests of our economy but, most especially, in the interests of people of Australia to try to cushion the effects in Australia of this horrific world global downturn.

Joanna Gash (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, member for Chifley. You and I would have very similar socioeconomic electorates. The government come to the House seeking permission to create a gross debt of $315 billion for Australia as have finally been admitted by the Prime Minister. As if blowing a $21 billion surplus and raiding the Future Fund’s $60 billion was not enough, they want to raid superannuation funds as well. At the moment we seem to be living in a twilight zone of mixed messages from the government that regularly underestimate their predictions, which makes you wonder whether they have a handle on what is going on. More and more commentators have fatalistically accepted our record deficit and are now focussing on how we are to undo the damage that has been done.

If the government has the reputation for getting its forecasts wrong, where does its prediction of 10 per cent unemployment sit? And if you have got a job today, will you have one tomorrow? There is no disputing the fact that the government has a responsibility to intervene in the economic threat facing the country. There is no disputing that stimulatory spending by the government was needed. The question remains whether what was spent was by definition stimulatory or simply opportunistic wish fulfilment.

I have no problem with spending on schools, with spending on transport links that encourage growth and job creation, and with spending on mechanisms to improve productivity and efficiencies. There is no doubt that confidence is a critical component to meeting the challenges ahead. We entered this period with a $21 billion surplus; a legacy that this government lacks the grace to concede helped it to absorb the impact of the downturn. Some have made parallels of the Rudd government with the Whitlam government, and I can see what they are saying. The forecast of a recovery to surplus in about 2022 is wishful thinking, as is the evidence that supports that expectation. The forecast has been dismissed by industry, by the market and by almost everyone else except Treasury. It is a line being pedalled by the government but no-one believes it any more. This is what the Australian newspaper said last week under the headline ‘RBA director Warwick McKibbin has stimulus doubts’:

RESERVE Bank director Warwick McKibbin has warned that global government spending to stimulate the economy is being dominated by political agendas that will saddle future generations with debt and slow economic growth.

There is far too much politics in this budget, and that is becoming so apparent through the machinations of this government. The sad fact is that our foreign debt will consume a sizeable proportion of our annual income for years to come. Debt repayments will not go to vital social programs—the same thing that happened under the previous Labor government—that is, programs that we will need to fund to enable us to confront the challenges of an ageing and shrinking workforce in the years ahead. Yet in today’s news alone the New South Wales Labor government is signalling the end of free public health in about five years time. We have taken a huge punt on the fact that China’s future economic growth will be our saviour.

Gilmore has a chronic unemployment problem, largely because it does not have a credible ongoing infrastructure program to support its employment demand. In the 12 years under a coalition government an extra $2.1 billion was invested in the region—that is, $2.1 billion above and beyond what would have been expected in the normal course of events. There was unprecendented investment in things like the development of Main Road 92, the medical school, campuses of the University of Wollongong in Nowra, Moss Vale and Batemans Bay and HMAS Albatross. All the recent announcements were commitments made under the previous coalition government. Also there was an underwater sea lab, $35½ million for the environment, $64 million for the Princes Highway and $243 million for aged care facilities, just to name a few.

Gilmore is an area that was first shackled by the Carr Labor government and then its successors. Environmental constraints are at the fore because it seems we cannot turn a sod of soil without breaching some sort of environmental statute. We are surrounded by national parks and reserve, which box in our ability to expand geographically. Our builders cannot get enough work because there is not enough land being released to build new houses. The sensitivity of these environmental areas means that no significant activity can impinge either directly or indirectly into what has been classified as an environmentally sensitive area. Many people are attracted to relocate to Gilmore but soon discover that jobs are scarce. So the net effect is an institutionalised level of unemployment well above the national average. What is needed is a policy that strikes a balance between social, economic and environmental demands, a policy that allows our community an equal opportunity with metropolitan areas. So far it has been a policy skewed towards the environment, driven largely by the ideology of prevailing state Labor governments.

If ever there was a case for serious investment in infrastructure for road and rail, Gilmore has to be it. I am hard pressed to find any initiative from this government or its state counterpart that recognises Gilmore’s chronic unemployment problem and the chronic lack of opportunity. I remember about three years ago the local paper, the South Coast Register, ran a forum on poverty on social welfare. I use the term ‘forum’ loosely, because it turned out to be very anti-Howard government and achieved nothing and went nowhere. Despite a change of government, I am disappointed to find the newspaper’s sentiments remain unchanged. However, even the newspaper recognised there was a problem so many years ago, long before the global economic meltdown excuse became fashionable justification for inactivity.

Probably the most significant gesture by this government—if it were serious in its rhetoric about the need for infrastructure spending—would be to provide some serious money to upgrade the Princes Highway. State Labor seems reluctant to do it in any serious, tangible way. Yet while we were in government there was the incessant wail, ‘The feds should be doing more.’ In fact, I learned today that the state Labor government has actually reduced the amount of money that they will spend on the Princes Highway. But we managed to find an extra $65 million when we were in government to upgrade portions of what is sometimes referred to sarcastically as highway 1. Now it seems there will be no more money from the federal government for the next decade or two, as we pay off the debt that they have created. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and what did we get from Labor? Silence. The railway service to Bomaderry from Kiama needs attention too, but there is nothing there either except layoffs and more job losses. In fact, there is nothing exceptional that will stimulate extra jobs to any significant degree so that Gilmore’s eggs do not remain in the ever-decreasing basket.

When you look at the 2006 census figures for Gilmore, the population distribution shows a curious anomaly. The age group 15 to 24 years is underrepresented compared to the national average. In Gilmore it is 10.6 per cent, where the national average is 13.6 per cent. That is a disparity of something like 30 per cent. The reason our youth are so underpresented in the census is that they are forced to move out of the area to find work.

We also have amongst the highest prevalence of people on some form of social security support. The number of young people in Gilmore relying on social security is deplorable. Until we can find ways of opening more doors for them, we are consigning them to a welfare mindset. The Work for the Dole scheme, which was created and piloted in Gilmore, was tremendously successful. It was created as a specifically directed initiative to address the youth unemployment problem that existed in Gilmore even then in the late nineties. We actually took the initiative to address the problem. Work for the Dole opened the doors that the jobless needed opened, with an employment uptake rate of about 65 per cent. Despite this very apparent and measurable success over many years and in many localities, the scheme has fallen victim to the political ideology of this government. It has been sidelined.

While on the subject of young people, I would like to comment on the youth allowance issue. Changes to the youth allowance will disadvantage thousands of our young people. The Rudd government has dismissed the coalition’s fears, saying that more young people will be eligible for assistance. The reality is that $1.88 billion is being wiped off the bottom line of the youth allowance. It is my fear that young people from regional areas like the Shoalhaven and Eurobodalla will be the worst affected. Studying while living at home is not always an option and the absence of regular work and efficient transport compounds their problems. While a reduction in the age of independence for youth allowance payments is welcome, it is more of an election promise than a budget decision. Like many other inclusions in this year’s budget, we have here a great promise that will not see the light of day until after the next election. That is why we want a Senate inquiry into these proposed changes to examine the fine print. It is our belief that, if you want to encourage more people from disadvantaged backgrounds to study, you do not make life harder for them or turn them away from this worthy option. I have a letter from a constituent which demonstrates what our young people are confronting. This is what he wrote to me:

Dear Mrs Gash.

In brief, I have had a dream … to study agriculture at university.

I gained entry to Sydney Uni to do Agriculture Science and deferred my course to start in 2010 so that I became eligible for the Independent Rate of Youth Allowance by earning approximately $19,000 in the required time.

To achieve this, I am presently employed with the Australian Agriculture Company in western Queensland as a jackaroo working a minimum of 50 hours a week.

I am enjoying this experience greatly, especially knowing that this will assist me financially to achieve my further studies.

Casual work in the Ulladulla area is minimal but despite this I was employed casually at Bunnings for approximately 16 hours a week which is insufficient to reach the income level necessary for the Youth Allowance.

…            …            …

Also my parents income of $52,000 is insufficient to financially support both me and my sister at university.

When I go to university I will need the Independent Youth Allowance rate to help cover my accommodation costs.

So I propose that if there have to be changes they commence in 2010 so that students like myself who are midstream in the process, achieve what they set out to do.

Hey, Mr Rudd!

Don’t change the rules of the game midstream. You didn’t even consult us and we are voters too.

As unemployment is predicted to rise dramatically, why is this government imposing additional pain on the adults of tomorrow? From 1 July there will be new workplace laws in place and many employers are fearful this will increase their costs. At the end of the year the award standardisation regime comes into place and already I have employers telling me they will put people off or go offshore.

Who are the most vulnerable jobseekers? Our young people, of course, and they are beginning to bear the brunt of misguided, ineffectual policies. Do not keep punishing them. Our young people cannot afford a Labor government that says one thing and then does something totally the opposite. We are not asking for more handouts. What we are asking for is a fair deal. If we have such a high unemployment rate with limited prospects, why aren’t we getting special consideration? Why aren’t our unemployed getting the special consideration they need from this government? A clearer case cannot be put. Where are the extra job creation schemes for Gilmore? A sincere attempt under the previous government was for the establishment of a specialised technical vocational facility in Gilmore—an Australian Technical College or ATC. We wanted our youth to be given the same opportunities to better themselves that were enjoyed by their city cousins in Wollongong. But what happened? Wollongong got the ATC and now they have two and we have none—and our youth are no better off: more restrictions, more red tape, more favourable treatment for union leaders but, I might add, not for their members, many of whom are losing their jobs through no fault of their own and are still young enough to face up to the prospect of having to find work in a shrinking market until they are aged 67.

I suppose I am viewing this parochially but when small-business people come to me and ask what the government is doing what am I expected to say? Recently the Prime Minister ran another jobs summit, this time in Wollongong, but it seems no-one from outside the Labor electorates got an invite. To make matters worse, one of the state Labor members whose seat falls squarely within what is generally accepted as the Illawarra, the member for Kiama, was absent. He could not make his second jobs summit, having missed the first as well. Instead he was out with the defence minister in the Shoalhaven at HMAS Albatross, with helicopters and sailors, getting on TV. We have since written to him to invite him to a jobs forum that we are holding in Gilmore which will be chaired by the Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull. I am happy to report to the House that he has accepted our invitation.

The other irony is that, whilst the Illawarra jobs summit was pretending to be worried about jobs, the coal industry was saying the government would cull 22,000 jobs from the industry through their misguided emissions trading scheme. Is ‘farce’ too strong a word to describe this government’s convoluted efforts? It is abundantly clear to me and many in the community that the government are not serious about addressing the growing unemployment crisis, to which they have contributed significantly through their own misguided policies and which they have conceded will contribute to unemployment, rather than containing its growth. These are policies like the Fair Work legislation, which shows naked favouritism of the union movement; policies like award standardisation, which will drive up the cost of employing young people, as they are the most likely to be casually employed; and policies which featherbed electorates that do not have problems to the same degree as Gilmore. I am dismayed by this budget and, even though I speak out against it, it will be carried on the numbers. I have no argument with the necessity to maintain effective infrastructure, but what the government propose will not be effective. They want us to take the good with the bad, and that is just blackmail.

I would remind all in my electorate that Australian taxpayers will be paying for this for years to come. I have had enough experience with the city-centric behaviour of the New South Wales government over the last 15 years to know that Labor will not look after rural and regional Australia in the way it deserves to be looked after. There is a lot of lip service but no real dollars, and there will be even fewer dollars now.

This is what I want for Gilmore: I want the government to immediately sink enough money into the Princes Highway to fast-track an upgrade so that businesses will be attracted to set up their enterprises. I want the government to recall what the member for Kiama said when he was the junior road transport minister in the Iemma Labor government. He said that he wanted the feds to pitch in. I had hoped he would have stood by his sentiments, but he has not. The importance of the Princes Highway to Gilmore cannot be underestimated. It is our only effective coastal road link from Wollongong to the Victorian border. The economies of the many towns and villages along our coastal strip rely on the highway as the social and commercial lifeline. The predominant industry for our coastal region, tourism, depends on being able to get customers to our electorate to support local commerce. I want the government to sink enough money into the area to stop our young people from leaving in droves to find opportunities that are not available here. I want the government to reverse the policies that will handicap small businesses and drive up unemployment in these parlous times. It is not a big ask, but it is a fair ask.

I would like to conclude by repeating the words of my colleague the shadow Treasurer in his address to the Business Council. Speaking about Mr Rudd, he said:

Even if he could return the Budget to surpluses of $20 billion per year it will take more than a decade of continuous surpluses beyond that level to eliminate the debt.

Mr Rudd will be long gone from office before then and we in the Coalition will again be called upon to fix the nation’s public finances after this black period of Labor’s irrepressible, irresponsible economic mismanagement.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.