Dio Wang (WA, Palmer United Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australia's 2015-16 federal budget presents a stark contrast to last year's budget, when the threat of looming economic straits was not dismissible. This time, the tone was different; but it was not a surprise to the parliament and the electorate, simply because the government had very publicly suffered setbacks in its support base and in its re-election prospects.

The current fiscal environment does not, of itself, give reason to be optimistic and, no doubt, a measure of caution is still justified in budget planning. Largely welcome are those measures that provide modest help for our small business enterprises and for young families—in combination, amounting to a commitment of billions of dollars. Humanitarian and new immigrant settlement provisions and a focus on improving youth employment prospects are also good moves that help, initially at least, to persuade us that the sky is not falling, that there is scope for investment and that, in the Treasurer's words, 'our nation's best days are ahead of us'. Compare this with his February 2015 statements, following the publication of the Intergenerational report, in which he forecast difficult times ahead; we are entitled to be just a little bit confused. This shift invites curiosity about how the budget savings have been achieved, regardless of the justification for boosting some expenditure at the cost of others. Hunting down the so-called savings, we begin to find—or, in some cases, not find—the rationale. A budget that has short-term political appeal can so easily produce unwanted longer-term consequences.

In Western Australia the combination of federal and state budget measures announced this year have led to the potential for a greater cost of living and hardship for our most disadvantaged community members. In particular, I note that the federal budget failed to address affordable housing in spite of this being a constant public topic of concern in communities across Australia. This has been on the COAG agenda for years, but with no appreciable improvement so far.

We need to better our understanding of the long-term political and societal harm that can arise from a legacy of cutting essential services and, thereby, worsening the often already-diminished quality of life of the less-advantaged members of our communities. If the cold and clinical bean-counter philosophy is applied to such policy, it invariably ends up defeating its own objective when the deeper and more expensive implications begin to surface—increased health spending and the overloading of healthcare resources leading to longer wait times and treatment cycles; elevated numbers of homeless and crime on our streets, and the cost to the judicial and correctional systems. All of this will flow from policies which inflict pain on the weakest today, at the cost of all of us tomorrow. The federal government and COAG have a duty to ensure they behave in a collaborative manner so that the double whammy does not rip a hole in the lives of the needy.

By October this year, WA will have lost at least 50 financial counsellors. They are to be replaced by a helpline 'system'—I refuse to call it a 'service'. No guidance on what should happen next is on offer from the federal government. This expert resource is vital to assist those who are so often ill-equipped to manage their financial affairs and cope with the demands of bureaucratic processes when seeking support. Increases in household living costs and the ever-present calls for help from domestic abuse victims more than justify sustained investment in these support services. Last year in WA, 13,000 calls were received on the support helpline, with many of them leading to engagement with financial counsellors. Most people seeking help want to get back on their feet after a period of financial difficulty brought on by a range of circumstances. The DSS website states that the National Affordable Housing Agreement 'aims to ensure that all Australians have access to affordable, safe and sustainable housing that contributes to social and economic participation'. But I am advised that there has been no indexation applied to the agreement over the last two years and no capital funding.

Coinciding with all this is the chain effect of federal funding reductions in support of Western Australia's remote communities. As I speak, more people from these communities are gravitating towards metropolitan Perth in search of whatever sources of living support they can find. Meanwhile, increasing numbers of homeless people are reportedly heading from the heart of Perth to the outer suburbs, away from the harassment they experience from aggressive security guards charged by business owners and councils with moving them on. The flow-on effects of ignoring homelessness, failing to sustain support systems and hiding behind desktop rationalisation arguments are immeasurable. The weak are already starting to do the heavy lifting for this budget, which is unacceptable if we value being a caring, intelligent and fair country. The Senate seems to be the last resort, yet again, for sane thinking about how missteps in policy planning can be corrected. We should carefully consider rejecting any legislation that, without amendment, continues to represent hardship layered on top of hardship.