Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Certainly. Thank you, Mr President. I wish to continue some remarks that I made in relation to this spending spree of the Rudd government. One thing that has struck me is the number of people who have contacted me over the last week suggesting not just their views on why spending this money is irresponsible but also far more sensible, considered and thoughtful alternatives that the government could have pursued. I have had letter upon letter and many emails from constituents in South Australia and around Australia who have laid their views on the table, such as Miss Rebecca Watts, who said:

Long-term investments in education, health and infrastructure would instead increase the wealth and productivity of the nation.

She said this as someone who is a potential recipient of the $950 handout. She says this as someone who could receive the largesse of Mr Rudd, Mr Swan and the Rudd government, but she can see the benefit in the money going elsewhere.

The health and aged-care sectors, areas that have been totally left out of this spending spree, can certainly see that if some of it were redirected to them it could be usefully spent. Ms Joanne Stringer, who has approached me with her concerns, says she is:

… concerned and bewildered that aged care is to receive none of the proposed funding.

She goes on to argue:

We need to be able to pass on something worthwhile and tangible to future generations who will have the responsibility of repaying this massive proposed debt.

She stands not alone in thinking that there is great potential in the aged-care sector, a sector very needy and worthy of additional support in Australia. I had personal representations last week from Mr Alan Graham, the Chief Executive Officer of Aged and Community Services South Australia and Northern Territory. Mr Graham proposed that, rather than the very isolated parts of the government’s package, such as the insulation package, which I know Senator Wong will be intimately involved with, some funding could have been allocated to greening aged-care facilities—reducing their reliance on energy, reducing their energy usage and making them more water efficient. There are a raft of proposals that could have been made available to a sector that has been totally neglected in this enormous spending spree.

Many people have come forward with environmental concerns. I was particularly taken by Mr Graham Channels, a constituent from Queensland—your home state, Mr President—who wrote with a very thoughtful contribution about how the Caring for our Country program could have been extended under this proposal. The Caring for our Country program has been designed, allegedly, to replace the Natural Heritage Trust program but is seeing many environmental groups around Australia struggling to sustain themselves and struggling to access the money required to continue their good work. He makes the point—a very valid point—that bids and applications under Caring for our Country close on 6 March 2009 and that there will be many unsuccessful applicants but that these are applicants who will have programs ready to roll. These are applicants who will have applications before the government that, with additional funding to that program, could have been approved. The program could have approved applications that would have delivered sound, on-the-ground, environmental benefits and helped to employ people quite directly in their application and development. But there was no consideration of extending Caring for our Country or making up for the deficit that the government has created in that area.

Ms Heather Sizer contacted me about energy investment. She suggested:

Instead of handing out hundreds of thousands to schools of less than 50 students for rebuilding wouldn’t it be better to use the money to put solar panels for electricity generation and water heating on the roofs of all schools and feed the surplus energy into the grid? This would create jobs in the solar industry, lessen carbon emissions and save costs.

She saw it as a benefit for the schools involved, the environment and the economy. She is another good, hard-thinking Australian, coming up with ideas that are quite clearly beyond the Rudd government in their very narrow assessment of what they think might pump-prime the economy rather than necessarily provide some sorts of tangible and lasting benefits.

Unsurprisingly many, many constituents, especially from South Australia, have contacted me about water—people like Mr John Clayfield of Happy Valley, Ms Linda Knock of Broadview and Mr Philip Grudnoff of Norwood, each of whom have urged that some of this money, if it were spent, be spent on measures to revive the River Murray, on measures to see faster spending on infrastructure along the River Murray than is currently the case and on measures that could give greater water security to urban areas, particularly urban Adelaide. These are people who think that, if we were to go into debt and spend some of this $42 billion, perhaps we should be doing so in true nation-building ways—in ways that leave real productive benefit for the country, in ways that give us the opportunity to increase investment and productivity in the future, and in ways that will leave lasting benefits which will not be derived from the types of $950 handouts that the government is proposing.

Overwhelmingly those constituents who have approached me, written to me and spoken to me make it very clear that they think the handouts-driven policy of this government is wrong and that it will see, potentially at best, a blip in consumer spending or a short-term staving off of any negative economic growth for another month or two but will not avert the real challenges we face. They believe that it will leave no lasting legacy, aside from the debt that generation after generation will be forced to repay in the future.

That is why I urge the government once again to reconsider this package, to consider having less debt but consider doing tangible things that will leave lasting productive benefits for the Australian economy—benefits that future generations can enjoy, rather than debt that they will have to repay.