Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Hansard source

The cries are, 'You're getting all this naval shipbuilding.' The fact is that, in the next financial year, only $319 million has been allocated for the Future Submarine project, and most of that will go overseas for the French design teams in France, before relocating Australians as part of the advance design teams to France, and for the US combat systems in the United States. Very little of it will come back to Australia.

The budget does mention $270 million for the supply ships. But guess what? That is $270 million that will be spent largely on propping up jobs in Spain—not here in Australia—and that is something that must be noted. We also must note that South Australia has the highest unemployment rate in the nation. That is something that we must take into account with this anaemic infrastructure spend for South Australia.

But I am pleased that the government is committing to some significant rail projects: $8.4 billion to the Melbourne to Brisbane inland rail and other rail projects that of critical importance to the nation's infrastructure. There must however be an absolute guarantee that we use Australian steel—structural steel from Arrium in Whyalla and rolling steel from Port Kembla in New South Wales. This is very important.

We are very proud of the work that we have done, in negotiations with Senator Cormann, the finance minister, on the procurement rules in this country being changed dramatically. From 1 March this year we have had a situation where, for the first time, Australian standards must be considered and employment, environmental and occupational health and safety practices must be considered in any procurement decision. And, for the first time, the economic impact of any procurement of over $4 million must be taken into account. These are important issues, and we intend to ensure that the government lives up to not only the words of that procurement document—the procurement rules—but also the spirit of it to ensure that we maximise Australian industry participation in these projects.

I want to mention a few other matters that relate to some big-ticket numbers, such as Badgerys Creek and $5.3 billion for the Western Sydney Airport—long overdue. I note the comments of the Wagner brothers, who developed Toowoomba airport, which is referred to as the Wellcamp airport. It is a pretty remarkable piece of infrastructure, developed privately and without any government funding, and it was delivered at a fraction of the price that it would have been if a government project had delivered the same sort of airport—an airport that can land jumbo jets, large aircraft and international aircraft. I know that one of the Wagners was on the ABC just a few days ago saying, '$5.3 billion sounds too much; we can do it cheaper.'

We must, when we spend taxpayers' money, work out the best and most effective way of spending that money so that we do not waste it. And that also goes for defence spending. I support the two per cent target, but we must make sure that we do not have the debacles of the past, such as the $1.4 billion for the Seasprite helicopters that never actually flew in service.

When it comes to energy prices, of course it is of critical importance that this country lowers its energy prices, and that is why we unambiguously support a scheme that I, and the then opposition leader, the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull, put forward back in 2009—an emissions intensity scheme. It was condemned by Labor then as a mongrel of a scheme; I note that now it is Labor Party policy, so it seems that the mongrel has become the top dog. We need to have certainty for investment in this country in energy infrastructure, and we need to tackle head-on the gas crisis in this country. With my colleagues, we have worked constructively with government for a number of measures of transparency in the gas markets. But we need to go further and have tough competition laws, and make sure we have export control so that we have enough domestic gas, and we need to get tough on the 'use it or lose it' policy, to make sure that people do not hoard their retention leases and gas is not there for the domestic market.

I also want to talk about other measures that my colleagues have expressed real concerns about. We believe that this budget has failed older Australians. It has provided no additional funding over the next four years for the massive increases in older Australians requiring aged care—in short, it has failed the over-65s. There are over 200,000 Australians in residential aged care. There appear to be no policies to help to meet the increasing need for residential places. And, even more concerning, we are only providing half the required number of places that the Aged Care Financing Authority says we need. This budget does nothing to increase the home care support that older Australians rely on to remain safely in their homes. The budget provides an incentive to the over-65s who want to downsize to contribute $300,000 from their home sale into their superannuation; however, that amount and more will be absorbed by the significant fees nursing homes charge for a residential place. So, much more needs to be done. We need a comprehensive approach to aged care that allows all Australians to live their latter years with dignity and care.

When it comes to palliative care—and I know that Senator Lambie may talk about the particular impact, the cruel impact, in her home state and in South Australia—why on earth would we slash, in effect, home palliative care in this country, where people can die at home with dignity and with their loved ones? It makes good economic sense but, above all, good social sense.

Why would we be mean-spirited at home, and also abroad by cutting our foreign aid? The ambassador for World Vision, the Reverend Tim Costello, and many others have made—