Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.

Let me be very clear: this is a government that just cannot be trusted. This is a government whose words mean little and whose actions bear almost no resemblance to its words before the election. Solemn commitments to the people of Australia were casually tossed aside once it got into power—none more so than the now infamous pledge that there would be no cuts to pensions, no cuts to health and no cuts to education.

What happened? The government went on to break every single one of those promises in their very first budget. We have learnt that this Abbott-Hockey-Morrison government are more interested in protecting multinational companies—instead of making them pay their fair share of tax—than they are about protecting the health of the Australian people. The government are more interested in preserving superannuation perks for very high income earners than fulfilling their commitments on hospital funding.

Today I would like to look at the axe that the government has taken to health funding since this promise was made. It is a shameful record indeed. One of the fundamental duties of a government is to look after the health of its people. But this government has been more concerned about destroying Medicare than looking after the health of Australians.

Again, in this place, we have heard Senator Abetz deny the reality of his very own budget papers, which clearly state that the government has callously ripped billions of dollars from hospital funding. And this is no small matter. In fact, Mr Abbott's $50 billion cut to Australian hospitals is equivalent to sacking one in three doctors, sacking one in five nurses and shutting down one in 13 hospital beds. At a time when the ageing population will require a robust health system, this government is doggedly set on bringing Australia's health system to its knees.

The fact that those opposite can stand there brazenly and say with straight faces that there have been no cuts to health is absolutely outrageous. Make no mistake: this is a broken promise. The government promised that there would be no cuts to health and then ripped out $50 billion from hospitals. Not only that but this Abbott government also set out to destroy the fine tradition of universal healthcare with the GP tax mark 1, mark 2 and mark 3. When the second GP tax was proposed the government denied that it would have any impact on bulk-billing.

The area where I live, on the north-west coast and the west coast of Tasmania, is home to some of the poorest communities in the country, with 85 per cent of doctor visits bulk-billed. People there are very vulnerable to healthcare cost hikes like the government's various GP taxes. So I went out to local doctors to get their perspective on what this meant, and the results of a survey that I sent to doctors told me a very different story from what the government claimed. I got a great response to the survey, with responses from doctors in close to 75 per cent of practices. And the results were extremely clear: in fact, close to three-quarters of north-west coast and west coast doctors believe that bulk-billing would decrease or end completely if the government's proposed Medicare changes were to proceed. Not only that, but they told me that the government's blatant attacks made no financial sense whatsoever, as they would discourage people from visiting the doctor until their problems got even worse and again more expensive to the health system.

So it is clear that this is not a government that is willing to invest in the health of the Australian people and that this is a government that has blatantly broken its promise that there would be no cuts to health. But that is just one broken promise among many.

In fact, after only one budget, the government have managed to break almost as many promises as they have kept, with a tally of 14 promises broken to 16 that they have delivered. While I would like it to be different, I suspect that we will see the broken-promise tally rise again tonight. But, whatever we see tomorrow, those opposite have already shown their true colours. They have proven that they will do anything they can to take down Medicare. They have shown little regard for expert opinion. And they have demonstrated that they are willing to put at risk, for their own twisted priorities, the health of Australians—the health care of people who are the most vulnerable in our society: those who can least afford it. But the health system cannot afford it either. It makes no sense whatsoever to reduce the healthcare provisions to people and to then have the back end of hospitals deal with the problems. (Time expired)

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In rising to speak to the motion to take note of answers, I take note of comments made by members opposite. I would like to deal with the issues of rhetoric versus fact. If you want to understand why the ALP is full of rhetoric at the moment, just look at the front page of today's paper, which highlights that the opposition leader has been out advocating that people rise up and oppose the measures in this budget, when the budget has not actually been issued. So it goes back to the days when Mr Shorten said: 'Whatever Ms Gillard said, I agree.' Now he is saying: 'Whatever Treasurer Joe Hockey says in his budget, let's disagree.' So you see very clearly that so much of what is being said is merely rhetoric.

Let us look at some of the facts. There are two key facts that are really pertinent to this argument: first, the structure of Australia's parliamentary and budgetary system, which appears to be completely ignored in the rhetoric that is being used by the ALP, and, second, the facts of the actual figures.

To go to the first point, we have a process that is known as the forward estimates. To take it to an extreme, if you tried to estimate over 100 years, and said, 'In 100 years time, we are going to promise you this payment or this return,' people would say, 'You're having a lend; you can't estimate what, in 100 years time, economic circumstances are going to be like, or what ore mining prices are going to be like.' So is that 90 years time, or 80 years? How far do you go out?

Traditionally, what Australia has done is: we have set a limit of four years—the forward estimates—as the time frame for which governments say we have reliable estimates about income and expenditure, and that becomes things that are funded in the forward estimates. That is the only reliable framework which both sides of politics in Australia have used to actually make reliable decisions and announcements for which they are going to be held accountable. That is why when, under the Gillard government, they started making promises of funding that went out five or six years or beyond, any serious student of Australian politics said, 'They are unfunded; those are not serious commitments, because they are unfunded. They go outside the factual basis of how governments of both persuasions in this nation have always made budgetary commitments.'

So let us look at the other group of facts, because this goes to, and completely gives the lie to, the claim that there have been cuts to health funding. I am a Senator for South Australia, and clearly I am interested in the case there. So let us look at the 2013-14 budget, which is the last budget under the Rudd-Gillard government. In it, there was $983.3 million in hospital services and $23.1 million in public health; so, just over $1 billion. In the 2014-15 budget, it is $1.07 billion to health, and, over the forward estimates, by the time we get to the 2017-18 budget, it is $2.188 billion. I did not major in maths at university, but my maths is not so bad, and, when I compare 1.07 to 2.188, it is very obvious that that is a continuous rise. In fact, the hospital funding for South Australia has gone up nine per cent in the first year, and goes up nine per cent the second year, nine per cent the next year and six per cent the year after that—sorry; that is the overall budget for Australia, for funding. So there is a total increase of some $5.3 billion, or 40 per cent, over the four years of the forward estimates.

So the argument that is being put forward, that the coalition government is cutting funding for health, is a sheer fabrication. The ALP can have all the rhetoric they like, but the facts tell us that the way we measure budgetary commitments is the forward estimates—it has been ever thus—and the facts tell us that the money which has been committed by this government is increasing, to the tune of 40 per cent, over those four years.

I make the point that this is not unusual for a coalition government. The Museum of Australian Democracy, which looks back at the key achievements of government, said that one of the key achievements of the Howard government when Prime Minister Abbott was the health minister was the record investment in health funding in 2006-07. At that time, it was $47.6 million. That indicates that, despite the rhetoric of the ALP, we, the coalition, show by our actions that we support investment in health for Australians.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of answers from Senator Ronaldson and Senator Brandis. In relation to Senator Ronaldson's answers, I want to put on the record on behalf of a number of veterans' organisations that are very interested in the particular subject of veterans becoming homeless, that I think his answer was less than ministerially appropriate. There are occasions in question time when you can have a good joust across the chamber, but there are certain questions that really do require ministerial competence when you are answering them. Bluff and bluster are no substitute for ministerial competence, and sneering denigration of the questioner and the opposition is no substitute for ministerial competence, either.

We know from the submission of the minister's own department to the 2012 inquiry of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade into the care of ADF personnel wounded and injured on operations, that between 4,000 and 6,000 personnel leave the ADF each year. The DVA cited a Defence survey stating that 60 per cent of the serving personnel had reported being deployed, with 43 per cent reporting multiple deployments. The DVA stated that, as of June 2011, there were around 45,000 surviving veterans with operational service from conflicts since 1999, with a significant sub-group of reservists—21,554—with operational service. There is a lot of community interest in this. The simple facts are that people who serve their country and have then been discharged will, in a lot of cases, eventually resurface a number of years later and get some form of assistance and payments. It would be prudent and appropriate to make contact or, as Mr Moose Dunlop OAM says, that the DVA should keep track of these people. Rather than letting them go to the bottom of an inevitable path if they do suffer from post traumatic stress or some other thing they should be contacted, looked after and, at the very least, there should be a survey to find out what is going on. The last ones to do that were the Labor government of 2009.

Returning to my well-trodden path on submarines, it is interesting that, amongst the many, many people who have now joined the voice of those calling for submarines to be maintained, sustained and built in Adelaide—lo and behold, it has been revealed after a freedom of information request that the high-level departmental advice to the government noted an overwhelming preference for the Adelaide-based, government-owned shipbuilder, ASC, to do the bulk of the work. That is what the department advised the minister. We have now had a comment from the Prime Minister in an article titled 'Abbott denies subs snub':

The Prime Minister has fended off allegations that he ignored the advice of the department for the majority of the construction of Australia's new submarines to be built in Adelaide.

Freedom of information has revealed the advice, and the advice was very clear. We now know that, along with most of the Liberal members from South Australia either in this House or in the other House, the department is on side as well. Not only is the majority of the population in South Australia wanting to maintain, build, sustain, develop and to get every bit of work that we can get out of the submarine project done in South Australia, but the only one who is on the outer is the Prime Minister and his National Security Committee.

Very clearly, common sense was prevailing. However, a chance agreement between Prime Minister Abe of Japan and Prime Minister Abbott of Australia looks like facilitating the Japanese into the competitive evaluation. We know that the Japanese are having their own meeting to see whether they will share their secrets. But the reality is that in South Australia you cannot move without being approached about this. We need to build, maintain, develop, sustain and design in South Australia.

Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to also take note of answers. It is somewhat fitting that I follow my Senate colleague from the opposite side from South Australia in talking about things that are close to me. But first of all, may I acknowledge the great work of Senator and Minister Ronaldson in the most recent Anzac Day commemorations. His passionate work is second to none in relation to veterans' affairs over the many, many years that I have been following it—with no inference. The celebration of the Anzac tradition is something we in this country are very proud of. The government's funding commitment to the Anzac Centenary program is not at the expense of expenditure on mental health services for our returned soldiers. The mental health needs of our veterans are a very significant priority indeed for the government and they certainly will not be jeopardised in any way. That has never been the language or the actions of the minister, as has been asserted quite wrongly from the other side.

Indeed, we are looking to improve both the access to mental health treatment for veterans and the processing times in which compensation claims are paid. I might remind the other side of Minister Ronaldson's performance in the role since coming to government, and the government's form in this area: we have extended access to non-liability health care to include the treatment for alcohol misuse disorder and substance abuse disorder, and we have extended access for conditions diagnosed by a GP and a clinical psychologist. So it is empty to say that we have abandoned veterans here. It is outrageous to even suggest that this is not a priority of the veterans' affairs minister.

I might also, in addressing taking note of the answers from the ministers, take note of ones which were made in reference to health and follow up comments of my fellow senator from South Australia, Senator Fawcett, with regard to diminished funding. The contention from the senator from Tasmania, Senator Urquhart, that we have diminished spending in health is a matter for, in my experience, state governments. I will give you a direct comparison to what and an extension of what Senator Fawcett said in relation to what is happening with funding in my home state of South Australia, and this is overall payments. This is to add to the comments that were made about medical.

It is the complete remit of the South Australian Labor government as to how they allocate their spending, but total Commonwealth funding to South Australia continues to increase in each and every year of the forward estimates. Total Commonwealth payments to South Australia will rise from $7.6 billion last financial year, 2013-14, to $8.2 billion this year to $9.3 billion in the last year of the forward estimates, 2017-18. This is a $1.8 billion increase over the period of time. In anybody's elementary maths book that is an increase. How you can continue to emptily say that there are cuts in health and talk about it for five minutes is unbelievable. In fact, going forward, South Australia is projected to receive $35.6 billion in total funding from the Commonwealth from the 2014-15 year to 2017-18. This figure includes $2 billion in funding for major South Australian road projects overseen by the South Australian based assistant minister, Minister Briggs. I do not know how you can say that there has been diminished funding anywhere in any of your responses to the answers from the minister. It is just hollow to suggest that you can continue to say that there have been cuts. It is like a broken record. I applaud the Treasurer's venture into helping small business and I look forward to seeing the response from the business community to his contribution tonight. (Time expired)

Chris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of answers given by Senator Abetz. It is clear that the Abbott government is continuing its dedication to take the fair go out of Australia. From yesterday's performance, it is clear that this government has lost confidence in the Treasurer as its primary economic spokesperson. This budget we are about to see is clearly about securing the jobs of Mr Abbott and Mr Hockey. This is a chaotic and dysfunctional government in which, following the leadership spill of earlier this year, we are seeing a number of names being referred to, and these names did come up during the course of question time today. No less a Liberal luminary than Senator Bernardi has speculated about the desirability of Ms Bishop going on to higher office at some point in the future. We also see speculation about Mr Morrison and Mr Turnbull. In this environment of leadership speculation, it is quite understandable that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer are looking at protecting their own positions rather than looking at advancing the interests of our country. The Australian reported that the Liberal whip Scott Buchholz told the Prime Minister two weeks ago that if the budget tanked a second time around Mr Hockey would have to be replaced as Treasurer. So the primary driver behind the settings of the 2015 budget is not about what is in the interests of the country but rather the desire to save those two jobs.

There is a perception in the community that this government is not governing for the average Australian, and from what has been released so far in the media it appears nothing has changed. Senator Abetz, in his responses today, has continued to downplay the facts in relation to the cuts to health, and a document was tabled today illustrating that there were $57 billion in cuts in health over a 10-year period. To add insult to injury, Assistant Treasurer Josh Frydenberg is still defending last year's unfair budget. He told ABC Radio National Breakfast that last year's budget was not unfair. He said he was very proud of last year's disastrous and unfair budget and lamented that the GP tax was being blocked by Labor because there would have been big savings and it is unfortunate. When Mr Frydenberg was asked about the measures the government has had to ditch, he described it as being unfortunate.

There was GP tax 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Then there are the $100,000 university degrees, which we have defeated twice. Mr Abbott went to the last election promising a gold plated parental leave scheme. He said the paid parental leave would happen over his dead body. He promised an extravagant $20 billion scheme that gave wealthy women $75,000 to take six months off to have a baby. Mr Abbott's centrepiece policy has subsequently been abandoned. In the face of our campaign he decided to scrap that signature policy, despite declaring that it was a fundamental conviction. Now he wants to cut paid parental leave and incentive employer based provided schemes. Labor is extremely concerned that nearly 80,000 new mothers will lose some or all of their paid parental leave.

I also want to talk about cuts that have affected other areas. I recently made a visit to Stanthorpe where I met with John Mahoney from the Granite Belt Neighbourhood Centre. That neighbourhood centre will have to wind back services after the Abbott government slashed $270 million from the national discretionary grant program that provides their funding. This service is the only one of its kind serving Stanthorpe and its region. It does some great work for the community, such as its upcoming forum on the drug ice and domestic violence prevention initiatives. However, this work is being put at risk due to the loss of funding after 30 June. This community centre is the lifeblood of its local area, providing speedy and comforting responses to those who are doing it tough. These cuts will mean a reduction in counselling services and for those dealing with personal tragedies. Labor will continue to stand with pensioners, young people and families and fight these cuts every day between now and the next election, and I call on Mr Morrison to listen to the community and reverse these cuts to important services. (Time expired)

Penny Wright (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move"

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Employment (Senator Abetz) to a question without notice asked by Senator Wright today relating to national security funding.

Tonight's budget will include a further $450 million for spy agencies, taking the total of the coalition's anti-terror spending announcements to over $1 billion and making spy agencies bigger and more powerful than ever before while reducing accountability. It is a huge amount of money but it will not make us safer. The fact is that the Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, is following an irresponsible but trusted formula to try and shore up his leadership by creating fear and division in the community and pressing the terror button. Despite this huge terror spend, only 3.2 per cent of the money is going to something that will in fact work and actually make us safer: social cohesion programs and deradicalisation. These are fundamental to fighting terror, yet they are grossly underfunded by this government. Why could that be?

Expert after expert in Australia has lined up to say we need to stop terrorism at its source: those young people who are vulnerable to its insidious call. It is a complex matter, but anyone paying attention knows it is crucial to disrupt the recruitment of young people. Sometimes it happens by playing on their very youth. Sometimes—ironic but, sadly, true—it plays on their sense of idealism. We know that these organisations commit atrocities, but many of these young people are motivated by a sense of injustice. Sometimes it plays on their sense of alienation—complex matters. But so far, despite all the rhetoric of government, only $1.65 million has actually reached the communities who are crying out for support and at the front line of effective action. It is small change from a government which is shovelling money to spy agencies at unprecedented levels.

The Greens want to know why help for our local communities has taken so long to roll out and why so little funding is being made available. Muslim communities have clearly warned that many more young Australians are at risk of being recruited to Islamic State and other terror groups because of the federal government's delay in funding for these deradicalisation programs. Desperate parents, troubled elders, have been calling out for help. Prevention is much better than cure when it comes to keeping us all safe from risks associated with terrorism. But, of course, that requires wisdom and thoughtful, evidence-led responses. As we know, this is too much to expect from this government. The Greens have introduced legislation to set up an Australian Centre for Social Cohesion to develop and implement best practice deradicalisation programs. I repeat our call to the government to support the Centre for Social Cohesion today, to be wise and take up the evidence that is available there from experts around the world.

A safer Australia is a more inclusive, generous and supportive Australia. Fanning the flames of fear, difference and anxiety will only put Australians more at risk. Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister, is shameless and extreme. His obsessive rhetoric about death cults has today been described as counterproductive, ineffective and doing some of the terror groups' actual marketing for them. Can we expect him to stop? I doubt it. He has said it 346 times since September and he will continue to do it because he is actually promoting his own domestic agenda. A genuine response to terrorism will not isolate Muslims by targeting them or making them the focus of surveillance. Real leadership would bring people together, not divide them. Building a cohesive, tolerant and inclusive community in Australia should be our government's top priority in the national interest and could be Australia's most powerful strategy to counteract terrorism. If the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party are serious about making Australians safer, they should invest in programs that bring young Australians from all walks of life together. Rather than implementing divisive new laws and a mass surveillance society, money should be spent on building communities. That is truly in our national interest.

Question agreed to.