Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Prior to question time, I commenced my contribution in this debate on the appropriation bills. I was discussing the context in which any set of appropriation bills is presented to this chamber—that is, the government's management of the budget and the management of the Australian economy. I was running through the figures in terms of the broader economic data which demonstrate the circumstances that the government have presided over since they came to government but most particularly since their confidence-killing budget of last year.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about this year?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take the interjection from Senator O'Sullivan. I am happy to come to this year. Of course, they turned from fiscal conservatives into fiscal profligates, with higher deficits and higher debt than at any time under the Labor government, which they so roundly criticised.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have to be kidding; how can you say it with a straight face?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, it is true. I know those opposite get very grumpy with the truth, but all you have to do is look at these tables at the back of the budget papers—they are called the historical tables—and you can see all of the net debt figures, the historical figures around the underlying cash balance, expenditure, payments, tax, non-tax receipts. They make for very interesting reading and they show how poorly this government is managing our fiscal policy.

One of the most important tasks of an elected government is to set appropriate fiscal policy, to manage the Commonwealth budget responsibly, to consider the impact of fiscal policy on economic growth, to make the investments and reforms needed for a prosperous and fair society into the future, and to make the decisions needed to ensure long-term budget sustainability—and that is the approach the former government took. We did use fiscal policy to keep Australia growing through the global financial crisis. We invested in infrastructure and we did so while ensuring that finances remained sustainable. We made responsible budget savings worth more than $180 billion over the six budgets after 2008-09. And we left Australia with one of the lowest levels of public debt of any advanced economy.

What has been the approach of those opposite? They have broken every promise they made before the election. They have created uncertainty and anxiety in the community. They have sought to ram through unfair policies like the new GP tax, cuts to pension indexation, cuts to family benefits and cuts to superannuation entitlements. Their approach to the budget has damaged consumer confidence and business confidence. Who can forget Joe Hockey?

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Business confidence has never been better.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, that is simply untrue. Senator Macdonald says that business confidence has never been better. That is just not true. In fact, business confidence, by the NAB survey, has fallen 75 per cent since the government took office. That is the problem with Senator Macdonald. He does not actually look at the facts; he just sits there spouting the rhetoric—

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let's go to the polls.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Here is another one—Senator O'Sullivan. He does not want to look at the facts; he spouts the rhetoric. They claimed that they would reduce debt and deficit; they have grown the debt. So I again remind them: since their first budget was handed down in May 2014 we have seen a slowing of economic growth. As Senator Bullock rightly pointed out in question time today, the annual growth rate to the year ending March 2014 was three per cent, around trend. In the year to March 2015 it was 2.3 per cent—substantially below trend. There has been a denting of confidence, as I have reminded those opposite. They do not want to hear it.The NAB business survey shows that business confidence has fallen by 75 per cent since the government took office and consumer sentiment has fallen by 13.8 per cent. Wages growth has slumped. In the year to March 2015 wages grew by 2.3 per cent—the lowest annual rate of wage growth in two decades. Senator Cormann today interjected in question time, 'It is all fine because CPI is low'. I said to him, 'Why don't you go to the voters of Hasluck and say to them, "It's okay that you are getting wages growth at the lowest rate in 20 years, because CPI is really low; inflation is really low."' See how that works. We know this government does not make wages growth a priority; does not make increasing inequality, increasing the sharing of economic prosperity in this country, a priority. And of course the unemployment rate is up. The unemployment rate has been at six per cent or higher since their first budget in 2014. Under the Labor government the unemployment rate never had a six in front of it—not even at the height of the global financial crisis.

So slower growth, sluggish wages, rising unemployment—what this means is that Australians' incomes have fallen under this government. The latest national accounts show that the average Australian's disposable income fell by 1.5 per cent in real terms in the year to March 2015. That is worth considering—the average Australian's disposable income fell by 1½ per cent in real terms in the year to March 2015. That is what this government is presiding over. Just this week we have seen a report from PricewaterhouseCoopers which shows a growing economic problem—one that governments of both persuasions need to tackle; the difference is those on that side do not appear to be willing to—and that is the increasing disparity in economic activity around Australia. One-third of regional locations are in recession.

The government's second budget is as socially unfair and economically short-sighted as its first budget. It still includes $80 billion in cuts to local schools and hospitals funding. In question time today Senator Brandis kept talking about CPI and population growth as good bases for indexation. I am sure there are those opposite who understand the mathematics of this enough, which is that if your costs grow at a rate higher than indexation, you erode funding over time. That is what the government is ignoring. Nobody on either side of politics asserts that health costs only grow by the consumer price index. No-one who can be taken seriously would assert that. The government's approach of changing indexation for health and education funding is a cut—it cuts funding over time because we know that the costs of these activities historically have continued to rise at rates higher than CPI. You do not have to take it from me—Liberal Party ministers and governments are complaining about this. As was discussed today, the New South Wales government's own evidence is that we will see longer waiting times for elective surgery and greater pressure on public hospitals as a result of the cuts to hospitals.

What else does the budget still include, apart from the $80 billion cut to schools and hospitals? There are $100,000 university degrees, a new tax on visiting the doctor and $2 billion more in cuts to health care, with children's health care, dementia assistance and Medicare benefits hit the hardest. This second budget hits families again, just as the government's first budget did. An analysis by NATSEM shows that the government's budget policies will inflict more than $6,000 in cuts to the typical family.

Labor has outlined its approach. We will invest in the education of our young people and the skills of our workforce. We want more young Australians to learn the language of the digital age, coding, from the beginning of formal learning in primary and secondary school. I was at a breakfast this morning with the Business Council of Australia where there was discussion about the demand for these skills, certainly in the United States, and why these skills are so important to employment prospects for the next generation of Australians. To cater for this we have to boost the skills of our primary and secondary teachers; we also have to encourage more recent graduates in science, technology, engineering and mathematics to become teachers and we have to introduce new measures to encourage more young people, particularly women, to study the science, technology, engineering and mathematics disciplines. These are all matters that Mr Shorten has spoken at length about. Labor has also made clear the priority of investment in science research and innovation and supporting new ideas and start-ups to drive the economy. Our commitment is to ensure that three per cent of Australia's GDP is invested in science research and development by the end of the next decade. This is all about a smart, modern and fair Australia.

In conclusion, I return to the need for a sustainable budget. We understand the need for a sustainable budget, and we demonstrated that when we were in government, as I said, by making targeted savings totalling over $180 billion over the six budgets from 2008-09. We have supported in excess of $20 billion of proposed savings announced by the government, and we have proposed a range of alternatives—alternatives which are responsible and fair. These include reducing superannuation tax breaks for high-income earners, saving over $14 billion in 10 years. I note today that Mr Tony Shepherd, the Prime Minister's hand-picked head of the Commission of Audit, has said what the Prime Minister cannot say, has said what the government cannot agree with, and that is that superannuation concessions need to be revisited. They do. They are overwhelmingly tilted to high-income earners, and in the interests of long-term sustainability of the budget position, as well as the encouragement of a sensible policy for all retirement incomes, you cannot take them off the table in the way the government has.

Another measure the opposition has announced is multinational tax reform to ensure multinational companies pay their fair share of tax, saving some $7.2 billion over 10 years, and we indicated clearly that we did not support the Prime Minister's Paid Parental Leave scheme or his Direct Action scheme, which cost, respectively, $5.5 million and $2.6 billion a year. These are savings which are socially fair, unlike the Abbott government's cuts which fall hardest on low- and middle-income earners. Alternative savings are also economically and fiscally responsible—contributing to fiscal consolidation while supporting economic growth—and they address reform priorities: the need for a more sustainable retirement income system and also the impact of multinational tax shifting on budget revenues, which is an ongoing challenge for all advanced economies.

In conclusion, I want to turn to the issue of spending. Those opposite like to mouth a lot of rhetoric about Labor's spending, but in opposition they made a range of assertions which were simply not true. I think it was Barnaby Joyce who said that we were heading for Greek-like levels of debt; I recall Senator Abetz in question time suggesting that the country was bankrupt. In fact these are economically irresponsible statements; they are not only untrue and not only partisan, but they are economically irresponsible for senior members of a party of government to make. Senator Cormann also spent a lot of time, both in opposition and in the lead up to the 2014 budget, beating his chest about how fiscally conservative he was. It must be very embarrassing for him now to be the finance minister presiding over the budget. He spends a lot of time telling me how bad I was; I would like to point out some figures to him and hopefully he will reflect upon them.

During my time as finance minister, government spending averaged 24.6 per cent of GDP. Since Senator Cormann was sworn into the position of finance minister, government spending has run at an average of 25.8 per cent of GDP—that is a full percentage point of GDP higher than during my period as finance minister. But it is also higher than it was during the tenures of finance ministers Tanner, Minchin, Fahey, Beazley, Willis, Walsh, Guilfoyle, Robinson and Lynch. So in a government that has notched up so many dubious distinctions, here is another: congratulations to Senator Cormann, you hold the record as Australia's biggest-spending finance minister.

David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the various Appropriation Bills before the Senate. I know the major parties support their passage, but I have grave concerns about these annual Appropriation Bills that I want to put on the record. As we have just heard from Senator Wong, Commonwealth spending is at record levels. Figures for last financial year indicate that real Commonwealth government spending per person is at its highest level on record. Real government spending per person across the federation is also at its highest level on record. There is no hiding the rise of government spending, even when you compare government spending with GDP. Commonwealth government spending is 25.9 per cent of GDP—that, by my calculations, is actually higher than Senator Wong thinks at 25.8. Since 1970, this ratio of Commonwealth government spending to GDP was higher for just four years under Bob Hawke, for two years under Keating and for one year under Rudd. In all other years since 1970, Commonwealth government spending relative to GDP was lower than it is today.

There is no justification for the ever-expanding Commonwealth government spend. As I have said before, living standards for all groups of society have risen inexorably over the past decades. This means the need for government welfare services has declined, and we have not uncovered new forms of effective government intervention, either. To the contrary, the prosperity-promoting effects of free markets and the many failings of government involvement have been demonstrated time and again.

The annual Appropriation Bills authorise Commonwealth government spending. They provide line-by-line authorisation for spending on specific items. They also set limits for some general categories of spending. The Senate is empowered by the Constitution to reject any appropriation bill. This reminds us that Senate scrutiny into appropriation bills does not represent sticking our noses into other people's business. Indeed, the Senate has a responsibility to scrutinise. The Senate is also empowered by the Constitution to amend any provision in the Appropriation Bills that does not relate to the 'ordinary annual services of Government'. That means the Senate can amend any provision relating to loans, capital equipment, assets and depreciation, any provision relating to grants to the states and territories and any provision relating to new policies.

So the Senate has a particular responsibility to scrutinise capital spending, grants to the states and spending on new policies. This leads me to the first of my grave concerns. The government is asserting that the Senate cannot amend provisions relating to new policies. The government is doing this by placing provisions relating to various new policies in those Appropriation Bills that should exclusively house provisions relating to the 'ordinary annual services of Government'. These are the odd-numbered Appropriation Bills, like the no. (1) and no. (5) bills before us today. For example, the no. (1) bill includes provisions for Australia's contributions to the Asia Pacific Project Preparation Facility and to the World Bank's Global Infrastructure Facility. These are new policies, but because they fall under an existing, broad departmental outcome, the government is asserting that they represent the 'ordinary annual services of Government' and are immune from Senate amendment. I reject this assertion and reserve the right to amend provisions relating to new programs and projects, even if the government places these provisions in odd-numbered appropriation bills.

Another grave concern relates to the even-numbered Appropriation Bills. These are the bills that should contain all the provisions that the Senate is empowered to amend, including grants to the states under section 96 of the Constitution. Section 96 of the Constitution provides:

… the Parliament may grant financial assistance to any State on such terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit.

This is a very strong power provided to the parliament, but Appropriation Bill (No. 2) before us today contains a clause, clause 16, that delegates this power to the relevant minister. In particular, it provides the minister with the power to determine the amounts and timings of payments to the state, territory and local governments. It also provides the minister with the power to determine the conditions under which those payments are made. The government asserts that these payments to the states and territories can be made without a written determination from the minister; and the government asserts that, if there is a written determination, the determination may not be made public and it will not be disallowable by the parliament. It is bad enough that the Commonwealth uses section 96 of the Constitution to undermine the Federation; it is unforgivable that this could occur at the whim of a minister, without parliamentary scrutiny. This is a centralisation of power that would put the Soviet Union to shame.

My final grave concern relates to the massive blank cheques provided in the appropriation bills. Take, for example, the issue of national partnership payments. These are payments of tied grants to the states and territories that are authorised under the Federal Financial Relations Act 2009 so they do not need to be individually specified in annual appropriation bills. However, the annual appropriation bills need to set a limit on the total amount of national partnership payments in a year. The budget papers outline government plans for $10.6 billion of national partnership payments next financial year, but Appropriation Bill (No. 2) sets a limit of $25 billion on national partnership payments next year. This represents a $14.4 billion blank cheque. It will allow the government to make national partnership payments that it has not outlined in any document.

Such a blank cheque is completely unnecessary. For instance, if the government increased its planned national partnership payments in later months, it would be able to outline these increased payments in updates to the portfolio budget statements and to seek authority for a higher spending limit in follow-up appropriation bills, which are routine. That the government seeks authority for national partnership payments without even outlining them in budget documents is the height of authoritarian swagger.

I have a simple amendment to Appropriation Bill (No. 2) to reduce the authority for national partnership payments next year from $25 billion to $11 billion. This is still well above the planned level of national partnership payments. This is the most modest of amendments. It is an amendment to a bill that the Senate is clearly empowered to amend and it is an amendment that defends the limited rights of the parliament. So, if any senator opposes this amendment, I would appreciate an explanation in the committee stage as to why.

I have outlined three grave concerns with the appropriation bills before the Senate, but these are not the paranoid concerns of a solo libertarian. The first two concerns arose from the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee, a cross-party committee of which I am not a member. The third concern arose from the Parliamentary Library's briefings on the budget. Most senators do not take the time to personally scrutinise these bills. Surely that means it is our responsibility to listen to those people who do take the time—that is, the senators on the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and the parliamentary officers who prepare their committee reports and undertake research at the Parliamentary Library.

These five appropriation bills before the Senate have more than $97 billion of specific spending proposals in their schedules and spending limits applying to general spending areas in excess of $30 billion. Even if you do not share my concerns about the magnitude of government spending, there is a case for applying more scrutiny to these bills than to other bills that pass through this place. Unfortunately, there is far less scrutiny of these bills.

I believe it is a dereliction of duty to let government spending drift; but, through a failure to scrutinise these appropriation bills, that is exactly what this parliament is doing.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As most people in this chamber know, one of my previous occupations was as an early childhood educator. As such, I am familiar with the excitement that a child feels when they learn a new word. Listening to the Treasurer on budget night, I could not help but come to the conclusion that he was just like a small boy who had learnt a new word—that word was 'fairness'—and he was trying to use it at every opportunity. And it was clear to the Australian people that, like a small boy, he did not really understand the meaning of it, because this Treasurer still needs to learn that just saying something is fair does not make it so.

This appropriation bills debate that we are having today, despite the convention not to block supply, is perhaps the most important of the parliamentary year. It is important because it allows us to outline the values that we feel should be used to allocate funding and it allows us to spotlight the values that the government has used in this budget and raise objections to decisions that the government has made—and the values of this government are very, very wrong. They are not aligned with the values of the Australian people. Australia is a nation of intelligent, caring, egalitarian people. We battle for the underdog. We help out a mate. We believe in the fair go. The Australian people know that, despite the budget's mask of fairness, it contains cruel cuts and is built on last year's budget attack on the least well off in our community. There are cruel cuts to health, cruel cuts to education, cruel cuts to pensions and further unnecessary cuts to the ABC, SBS and the arts. The Abbott government is killing the fair go.

Inequality in Australia is now at a 75-year high. It did not rise during the period 2007-2013. However, we are now in a situation where, compared to a generation ago, the top one per cent share of income has doubled and the top 0.01 per cent share has tripled. Earnings have gone up three times as fast for the top as they have for the bottom, and the wealthiest three Australians now earn more than the poorest one million Australians.

This budget does nothing about reducing inequality, and in fact it increases it. NATSEM modelling found that the poorest 20 per cent of households would lose up to seven per cent of their total annual disposable income by 2018-19, and that is when you take all the budget measures into account. This is a huge hit to 2.5 million of Australia's least well-off families. The modelling also shows that some higher-income families will be better off. The analysis shows that a sole parent with an income of $55,000, with two kids, one in primary school and one in high school, will be more than $20,000 worse off in total by 2018-19. This is absolutely shameful. It is a shameful attack on single parents and it is completely unwarranted.

As members of this place know, a great way to reduce inequality is through education, and Australians value education. Australian parents know that education is the means through which their children will build a better life. Parents understand that a quality education is vital for getting a job. They work hard to ensure their kids have the resources they need to get the best education they can. And, of course, in last year's budget we saw $30 billion cut from schools over 10 years.

I was absolutely shocked by reports over the weekend that part of the green paper on Federation reform would see funding adjusted for student need and the ability of families to make a contribution. In other words, this government is now putting forward an idea to charge parents for sending their children to primary school. This is from a government that had the great idea to provide $75,000, non-means-tested, to millionaire mums. There is no good reason to charge parents to send their children to public schools. Free public education is the right of every citizen in this country. Mr Abbott has walked away from a commitment to universal public education. He said recently:

Whether state or territory governments choose to change the way schools are funded in their states and territories is absolutely a matter for them.

And:

We don't have any role at all.

I would like to say, Mr Abbott: you do have a role, or your government does. You provide the states with the majority of their funding. If the Commonwealth does not provide the states with enough revenue to provide basic services, it is your fault if they have to introduce the education co-payment model outlined in the green paper. It would be Mr Abbott's fault, as the idea was raised in the Abbott government's own green paper.

Universal education was introduced in the 19th century and it is a value held by everyone in the country. It has been clear for some time that this government is out of touch and that its values are decades out of date, but I did not think they would be centuries out of date. There is absolutely no justification to make this fundamental shift in the right of Australian children to access free education.

The government have shown that they are also opposed to the principle of universal health care. Recently, we saw the 40th anniversary of Medicare. Medicare is a fantastic success story. It has been a central part of the Australian health system, except for the brief period in which it was axed under the Fraser Liberal government. But we saw in last year's budget that those opposite are opposed to universal health care. According to those opposite, universal access to health care is not an inalienable right but something that must be paid for. We saw this through their successive of policy positions on the GP tax. Whether the tax is $7, $5, $20 or, now, $80, it is a bad idea. They failed to sell this policy to the Australian people last year and they have failed to sell this policy to the Australian people this year. Why are they again trying to bring it back in through an effective $8 dollar GP tax in the budget through the MBS indexation freeze? This is a cut of more than $2 million from Medicare over the forward estimates that will have a serious impact on bulk-billing rates, out-of-pocket costs and the level of access vulnerable patients have to general practitioners.

We know from an analysis published in The Medical Journal of Australia that the government has put a GP tax of $8 into the budget by stealth. They have cut $2 million out of health again, and some of it in an incredibly petty way—for example, when you look at the cut to support for those with inborn errors of metabolism.

The government just wants to attack the most vulnerable in our community. In particular, they attack young people to shift the blame to them for the government's own failings. The rate of youth unemployment is far too high at 13.4 per cent, and long-term unemployment is at its highest rate in 16 years. The government has shown no interest in fixing this issue and no ability to do so. Consequently, they want to blame young job seekers. Rather than work positively to provide opportunities for young job seekers, they wish to punish them instead by ensuring they get no income support for a month.

Labor will not support a measure which pushes young people into poverty and hardship. How could this possibly help anyone? Why does the government think this cruelty will help? This government shows no concern for the vulnerable in our society, and its overtly harsh policies reflect the selfishness of liberal ideology. This government does not care about providing opportunity for all; it believes that if you do not have opportunity, it is your fault for not having rich parents.

While we are discussing unemployment, the budget figures themselves forecast an increase in unemployment over the course of the next year. Not only is this government failing to find work for those who are unemployed now, the situation is going to become worse in the future. It is all very well for the Treasurer to tell people to get a good job and a well-paid job—nearly 800,000 Australians are having trouble getting any job at all. For those Australians, the future is looking bleak, and that is why the government needs to do more. This government needs to articulate a jobs plan for this nation.

The ABC and SBS are exemplars of quality public broadcasting. Despite the assertions of members in Mr Abbott's government, they provide independent, unbiased and quality news. They are regularly rated as being trusted by the Australian people to a significantly higher degree than other parts of the mainstream media. This government, with its continued cuts to the ABC and SBS, shows that it does not value independent, unbiased media. Unfortunately, it is clear that the attacks on SBS and ABC are a payback to the Liberal and National Party mates for the support that they provided in the lead-up to the federal election.

It is pretty dangerous for a country to be without a free and fair media, because an independent, unbiased media is vital for questioning government policy. It is looking like this government is trying to hinder scrutiny of its actions wherever it can, because they are finding it hard to govern. It is hard to govern when all you have are three-word slogans and no real policies. It is hard to govern when the Prime Minister cares only about saving his own skin rather than governing for the benefit of the nation. It is hard to govern when you try to force all your policies through a narrow ideological vision that the Australian people do not subscribe to and that does not match reality.

Perhaps the minister who is most out of touch is the besieged Attorney-General and Minister for the Arts, Senator Brandis. Unfortunately the minister brings nothing to this government except arrogance and a lack of political judgement—and a small book of poetry to read at estimates when he should be doing his job. Minister Brandis has again mismanaged a portfolio responsibility. This budget saw an unwarranted and unprecedented attack on the arts. The Australia Council does a fantastic job of allocating funding independently, fairly and to arts organisations that are worthy. But Minister Brandis does not believe in the independent allocation of arts funding. He seems to believe that everyone has the right to be a bigot, as he has previously told this place; and, ironically for a man so enamoured with free speech, he believes that the allocation of arts funding should be under direct government control—namely, his own control. Presumably this is to reduce funding to projects or organisations that create art which the minister does not personally believe in.

The Liberal government's budget is once again leaving those on lower incomes worse off. The budget also unfairly attacks families. Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison's families package will leave almost half of Australian families worse off. New analysis by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling shows that 44 per cent of families, or over 1.4 million families, will be worse off. Tony Abbott's second budget is just as unfair as his first and will hit low- and middle-income families the hardest. Eighty per cent of families with children earning below $75,000 will lose out over all. Six in seven families who receive family tax benefits will be worse off because of the government's child care changes and family tax benefit cuts. One in 10 families receiving family tax benefit will be over $4,000 a year worse off.

This budget is a disaster. The government has even failed the test it set for itself. In this budget, spending is up, tax is up, deficits are up and unemployment is up. The government has broken its promise to save as much as it spends: spending initiatives are greater than actual savings. Mr Hockey has doubled the deficit in one year—from $17.1 billion to $35.1 billion. Mr Abbott has broken his promise for no new taxes—this budget contains around 17 new taxes—and tax is at its highest level since the last budget of the Howard government. As I said previously, this government is completely out of touch. It is out of touch with the values of the Australian people. It is out of touch with the way the world operates. This government has failed to meet its own expectations and has completely failed the Australian people.

This budget is mean. It attacks those on low incomes—single parents, pensioners and others that face disadvantage. This budget is vindictive. It attacks arts companies that the government does not agree with. This budget is visionless. It fails to see the value of investing in education and training. And this budget is cruel. It denies access to health care for those who can least afford it. The Abbott government cannot see a better Australia for all and has no plans to improve Australia. This is not a budget for Australia's future. It is last year's budget repackaged and ready for an election. I believe Australians deserve better government.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2015-2016. I agree with Senator Bilyk's assessment of this budget. It is a repackaged budget. They have tied a bow around it. They might have changed the wrapping, but it is still the same budget from last year which wrought such damage on the economy—on individuals and businesses. What we see in this year's budget is Mr Abbott trying to con the Australian public with a PR exercise to boost his own credibility, not to boost the economy and the standard of living of everyday Australians. The reality is that this budget remains inherently unfair—just like the last one but repackaged and served up again. Many of the same programs that were in the last budget are in this one. This budget contains the same cruel cuts from last year's budget which this parliament consistently rejected.

This budget shows that Mr Abbott and the coalition are not listening to the public, to the parliament, to their own backbench or, for that matter, to the crossbench. They are fanatically persisting with their own unfair budget measures. I concede that there has been repackaging. Health has been a major stayer in the Australian economy for a very long time. All sides have sought to improve health outcomes for Australia. All sides have continued to improve health services—up until recently. And it is the same person who did it once before. Mr Abbott has got form in this area. In the Howard era he ripped $1 billion out of the health budget—and he his doing it again. Of course, what that means is that families will be the hardest hit by Mr Abbott's attack on the Australian health system—only this time he has chosen a much bigger sum than $1 billion and to include education. The figure he is seeking to cut from both health and education is around $80 billion.

This budget does confirm that the government is once again trying to push through a GP tax, further cuts to hospital services and more expensive medicines. Before the election, Mr Abbott told the Australian people that the coalition would be a 'no surprises, no excuses' government. Well, there is one thing that is true about that statement: they certainly do not like providing any excuses. As for 'no surprises', it has been surprise after surprise after surprise. This government has consistently gone into reverse gear on many of the promises it made during the election period. Mr Abbott promised the Australian people that the coalition was about reducing taxes, not increasing taxes. He promised that the coalition was about getting rid of taxes, not imposing new taxes. Nothing about that statement is true. The Abbott government's new GP tax proposed in this budget is even bigger than the original proposal. By including a four-year freeze on medicine rebates, Mr Abbott and this government are passing the cost on to families, which he promised not to do.

In fact, the Liberals are so zealous in charging Australians this GP tax that, despite opposition from across the parliament, including the crossbench senators, they are still determined to pursue this GP tax, destroying the notion of universal health care in this country. It appears to be almost a pathological desire of the Liberals and Nationals, one of their highest priorities, to do this. The rebate freeze in this year's budget is just the latest version of an unfair GP tax, a tax which the Abbott government has tried to charge Australians.

First they tried a $7 fee. That did not seem to go over very well with the general public, so they dropped it to $5. You think, 'Maybe this is a bidding war that they are in now.' But now Mr Abbott, if he is successful in getting a rebate freeze through this parliament, will see people slugged with an $8.43 fee. That is, in effect, what he seeks to do. The rebate freeze will rip $1.3 billion out of general practice over the next four years. The Medical Journal of Australia said of it:

Even though the rebate reduction has been retracted, the freeze will have greater impact with time—nearly double the amount of the rebate reduction by 2017-18. For economic reasons the freeze may still force GPs who currently bulk-bill to charge co-payments.

So by 2017-18 the shortfall will leave GPs $8.43 worse off, forcing who knows how many to charge patients who are currently bulk-billed and to increase gap payments for many other patients. Shame on this government because in the past both sides worked tirelessly to ensure that people could have access to affordable medicine, could have access to a GP, could have universal health care, could have a bulk-billing doctor handy to visit. But not this government. This government has continuously pursued its own ideological ideas, its own ideology about attacking Medicare. It goes directly against what the fundamental principles of Medicare are about—making sure that medicine is free and accessible to all Australians. It goes against the principle that your Medicare card, not your credit card, should determine your access to health care in this country.

We have already seen the reports across the country of people, especially in some lower socioeconomic areas, not visiting the doctor for some conditions, which only compounds the problem and, in the end, when it reaches a critical point for patients, becomes a greater cost. So there is also a false saving built into their position. The healthcare system will ultimately bear the cost of this. Any measures which dissuade people from visiting their GP or accessing preventive healthcare options should be opposed, and Labor will continue to stand up against these measures.

The health minister has made it abundantly clear that the Abbott government is committed to forcing more patients to pay to see a doctor in that she said:

… there are a lot of people who attend the doctor, who pay nothing and can afford to pay a bit more and that's where we have to land in this discussion.

That was the health minister, Sussan Ley, on 3AW, 3 March 2015. What an extraordinary thing to say! You might otherwise have thought that it was a slip or misspoken words, but ultimately it is the Liberals speaking from their hearts. It is where their guard is down—they are comfortable on radio talking to their favourite presenter where they can speak their minds. The Assistant Treasurer even declared that he was very proud of last year's disastrous and unfair budget and lamented that the GP tax was blocked by Labor because 'there would have been big savings, and it is unfortunate.' So you can see that their whole position here is about driving the costs onto the people who can least afford it.

The 2015-16 budget proves that Mr Abbott's promise that the GP tax is dead simply cannot now be believed. The budget attack on health through a backdoor GP tax is short-sighted and unfair and continues to threaten the future of universal health care. I think they abandoned some time ago the view that Australians should have access to universal health care. I think they abandoned some time ago the view that Medicare should remain strong and a viable entity. The Abbott government appears determined to inflict even more pain and chaos on the Australian people. Almost $1 billion will be cut from the programs that focus on preventative health care, drugs and alcohol rehabilitation, mental health and other crucial health programs. The magnitude of these cuts means that many organisations and service providers will be forced to close their doors, while many others will have to sack their staff and cut service provision.

But this budget does not stop there. The budget also cuts $125 million from the child dental benefits schedule; $140.6 million of cuts from the MBS, including halving the amount paid for child health assessments; $69.6 million cut from DVA dental and allied health; $214.1 million from eHealth; $252.2 million from PBS-listed drugs; $72.5 million cut from health workforce scholarships. This comes after the $1.3 billion increase in the price of medicines. The Australian people simply cannot afford to get sick under a Liberal government, literally. If they do get sick, they will have to find the money; if they cannot find the money, ultimately they will get sicker and sicker. Just today, we have seen a report in The Australian Financial Review that states could lose around $18 billion a year of Commonwealth funding for our public hospitals. The leaks from the Australian federation reform white paper show that the government's real objective is to cut money for public health, but it is also about cost shifting. It is also about shifting the cost of health to the states and education to the states and anything else it can push onto the states, but, ultimately, it fails to recognise that we are a Commonwealth—and the Commonwealth has primary responsibility in funding for the wellbeing of Australians.

When you look at what the government are doing to families, the Abbott government and their unfair budget are not content with attacking Australians' healthcare system. They also have their sights on attacking families in this budget. Mr Abbott's second budget lockup is in fact a lock-in. It locks in unfair cuts to family payments while at the same time imposing savage new cuts to paid parental leave. It is clear that the Abbott government have not learnt anything from last year's budget other than what I indicated at the start of my speech: they have learnt to dress it up. They have learnt to put a pink bow with a bit of frill around it, but, ultimately, when you unwrap it, it still remains an unfair budget to the core. Despite promising that this budget would not come at the expense of family budgets, Mr Abbott still wants to cut families off family tax benefit part B when their youngest child turns six. He still wants to freeze family tax benefit rates, eroding the value of these payments. As a result of last year's budget, a single-income family on $65,000 a year will be worse off to the tune of $6,000 a year. Mr Abbott also wants to abolish the large family supplement. He is also pursuing abolishing the low-income supplement and reducing the portability of family tax benefit part A. Mr Abbott's rhetoric on families may have changed—he may look like he has put his hand out—but, ultimately, it is about whether this budget passes the fairness test. The fundamental unfairness of last year's budget remains in this budget. It simply, on balance, does not pass that test.

The Minister for Social Services, Scott Morrison, refers to parents who receive top-ups to their paid parental leave as people who are rorters or defrauding the system. He uses strong language that I know the government secretly agree with. They might have distanced themselves from him, but they ultimately keep sending him out whacking families as the social services minister. Mr Abbott second budget will leave as many as 80,000 women a year worse off because of his cuts to their paid parental leave, and some women will lose as much as $11,500. Mr Abbott does not even know what he stands for any longer. This was his signature policy in this area, which he jettisoned as needed. In 2010, Mr Abbott referred to:

… 26 weeks which everyone knows is the minimum that should be spent at home by mothers with newborns.

This year, Mr Abbott said, about new mums who receive more than 18 weeks paid parental leave:

It is not right, it should not happen and it will not happen under this government.

This means less time for mothers with their babies in the early years of a baby's life. How quickly Mr Abbott changed his tune in this area.

Mr Abbott and the Liberals and Nationals simply do not care sufficiently in this area. They do not support mums and dads in starting families. They do not support them at the beginning of this journey; they certainly do not want to support them in case anything goes wrong later in life, when people might need to access a universal healthcare system. In fact, they are placing hurdles in front of families. Those opposite are waging a war against the safety net that successive Labor governments have built up over time. Those opposite are attacking our healthcare system, our family support system, which they want to cut, and our education system, at both primary and tertiary level.

I do recognise that we might want to finalise this debate before a dinner break, but I did not want to leave too much time for Senator Cormann to deal with his summing up speech.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank senators who have contributed to this debate on these bills and I commend the bills to the Senate.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bills be now read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a second time.