Harry Quick (Franklin, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. You pre-empted my opening remarks. Yes, it is my 15th and last budget reply speech. I can honestly say that, from the very first one in 1993, where I think I criticised the John Dawkins budget and was accused of being a rebel, to the 2007-08 budget, I would like to think that every time I have stood up and made my budget reply speech I have tried to highlight the gaps where the punters, as I lovingly call them, are promised the world but quite often miss out.

I do acknowledge that there are lots and lots of positive things in the budget. The previous speaker mentioned the $25,000 allocated to European prisoners of war. That was one of the things that I have been nibbling away at for years and years. As I said in a speech here a couple of days ago, it was in lots of cases too late to acknowledge the Japanese and Korean POWs. To totally ignore the Europeans I think was a retrograde step by not only this government but by our government when we were in power.

If you believe all of the hype, we have never had it so good. You look at the television ads by the major retail chains and it is basically buy, buy, buy—just put it on the plastic card. But, if you look beyond the hype and turn the stones over, there are some disconcerting things that confront us. First of all, there is the fact that Australians owe $38 billion on credit cards. I think there is an average of close to $3,000 per person and there are lots of people who do not have them—they have given them away.

We see a growth in personal insolvencies which has doubled over the past nine months. This was revealed in the Senate estimates the other day. Bankruptcies grew by 12½ per cent in the nine months to March this year. Debt agreements, which are binding arrangements for people who cannot pay their debts, have jumped a massive 32 per cent in the nine months to March this year. These are frightening statistics. Land repossession claims in New South Wales have jumped a hefty 75 per cent since 2004 and in Victoria they doubled between 2003 and 2006. There are lots of positives, but there are lots and lots of negatives and people are falling through the cracks. So, despite the McDonalds mansions that are out there and the gloss that is Australian society, when you have a closer look there are some serious problems.

One group of people that I think were really ignored in the budget were the people with disabilities. There do not seem to be many votes in the disability sector, unfortunately. To their credit, the government have sought to iron out this vexatious problem with state health ministers. That phrase ‘the blame game’ does exist and the fault lies, in my mind, on both sides. Ministers of all political persuasions are trying to grind out the extra dollars to ensure that they can then go out and pork-barrel in their electorates or their states and say, ‘It’s somebody else’s fault because we cannot deliver the services.’

I know Minister Mal Brough has recently met with state ministers to indicate that the federal government would like to see dollar for dollar additional funding to address unmet needs, particularly in the desperately-needed areas of disability, supported accommodation and respite. You would know, Mr Deputy Speaker Kerr, that in Tasmania we face a real shortage of respite care places for families who have not only children but grown adults. It is a 24/7 occupation and you do need respite. The children need respite as well as the families. Sadly, I noticed in the Hobart Mercury today that government disability workers in Tasmania are going to strike today in protest over the state government’s refusal to guarantee about 140 staff permanent jobs and employment security. The Lennon government is preparing to hand over to the private sector another of the nine homes for disabled Tasmanians that it operates. There is this growing trend right across Australia where governments are getting out of looking after disabled people, especially those in group homes.

This was brought to my attention by a wonderful friend of mine, Julie Hayes, who works as a carer in a wonderful group home—in fact, it is the first group home in Tasmania—which is situated in your electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker, just off Tolosa Street in Glenorchy: the Sunlea home. I received a letter from them. They are a small non-profit organisation that support four young people with severe disabilities, both in their home and in the community. They are funded through the state Department of Health and Human Services. They wrote about one of the people, young Rachel. She is 37, which is young in my terms. She needs a new wheelchair. Her present chair is 12 years old. It is made of a firm compound moulded to fit Rachel’s unique shape. It has only a thin film of foam covering it as padding. Due to the change in Rachel’s shape over time, the chair no longer fits and it is becoming increasingly uncomfortable for her to be in. The physiotherapist at the specialised seating clinic has recommended that she have a new custom-built electric chair. Sadly, Rachel is eligible for only $6,000 from the community equipment scheme, leaving a shortfall of $11,167. The letter says:

Over the past several months we have submitted requests for the funding to the State government through the appropriate channels but have been told repeatedly that there is no funding to allocate.

Rachel is only 37 years old and has strong social networks in the community. Her present chair will become increasingly uncomfortable for her and it is quite possible that she may not be able to use it at all. This has huge implications for all areas of Rachel’s life. ‘We do not have the money,’ the state says. ‘We are doing our share.’ It is going to take a year to build the new chair—assuming the money is there. So where do we go? It is not a Commonwealth responsibility because they are only interested in disabilities when it comes to work. The states are responsible but they do not have the money. Here is a 37-year-old in a chair that is 12 years too old for her. It is like asking my children to wear the same pair of shoes for 12 years as they grow. Luckily, Norske Skog, the wonderful pulp and paper manufacturer at New Norfolk, looks like coming to the party—to the shame of the state government.

Another area of concern is the aid budget. Most of us in this place are interested in and involved in the millennium goals. We are working to ensure that, when Australia does allocate its aid budget, people in the developing world are able to maximise the opportunities presented to them. One area that does worry me when it comes to aid is the considerable amount of money we spend in Laos demining UXOs, unexploded ordnances. I had the privilege of visiting Laos recently and seeing the wonderful work that Australia is doing. Yet, on the other hand, I noticed the Age on 27 May said:

The Federal Government wants to narrow the terms of a proposed international treaty banning cluster bombs, to exclude new weapons being sought by the Australian Defence Force.

While the Government says it wants to drastically reduce the number of cluster bombs in world arsenals, it has used international talks to argue that the weapons being obtained by the ADF should not be included in the ban.

The ADF says the new weapons have a self-destruct capability, minimising the risk to civilians from unexploded cluster munitions.

If you visit these countries and look at their history, you will see that they do not all explode once they have been dropped. I know in Laos that up to 150 innocent civilians each year are killed by these cluster bombs.

My daughter, Sarah, who is interested in the millennium goals, faxed me a copy of an article that appeared in the Guardian Weekly on 11 May this year. The article highlights the global school report, which names and shames the best and worst donors when it comes to keeping their promise of every person having the chance of an education by 2015. Britain, which gets a B, is bettered only by the Netherlands, Norway and Denmark. The bottom of the class are Australia, the US, Greece and Austria. It says:

The donors are very good at promising and doing events on the issue ... but we haven’t seen the money.

Hopefully, that area of our aid budget will be looked at.

I know later today the Parliamentary Group on Population and Development are issuing an excellent report. I will not pre-empt it—it is embargoed till four o’clock this afternoon—but it raises as an issue the fact that Australia and the USA are the only two donor countries planning restrictions on the use of aid funds. It says that our AusAID family-planning guidelines limit contraceptive choice and ban access to information and services about abortion. These restrictions deny women in our region the same access to reproductive health choices, education and services we give ourselves, even in countries where it is legal to do so. Having visited many countries, especially the Philippines, I know for a fact that this overseas aid restriction has a detrimental effect.

I spoke at the outset about things looking a bit wonderful, but when you turn the stones over you see there are some problems. I have been proud to serve for the last 15 years on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services. We are currently looking at the impact of substance abuse on families. We were given the other day two excellent reports: ANCD research paper No. 13, Drug use in the family: impacts and implications for children, and Grandparents parenting grandchildren because of alcohol and other drugs. In the evidence we were given were some frightening statistics: 10 per cent of children live in households where there is parental alcohol abuse or dependence and/or substance abuse; close on 230,000 children are at risk of exposure to binge drinking in the household by at least one adult; another 40,500 live in a household containing at least one daily cannabis user; and another 14,000 live in a household with an adult who uses methamphetamines at least monthly.

In the grandparents report it says that grandparents are increasingly taking on full-time caring responsibilities in response to concerns for the welfare of their grandchildren, and 31,100 children aged between zero and 17 are being raised by grandparents. This is an issue that confronts Australian society. Those grandparents have explained to us the problems they have when it comes to Medicare, Centrelink payments, education and their relationship with the police.

I think it would be remiss of me in this my last budget reply speech not to mention the war—something that I have been totally—

See this speech in context