Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Housing) Share this | Hansard source

In the member for Mallee’s electorate, in Mildura I think, we have to close down a laboratory. As the parliamentary secretary who administered research and development in agriculture, I saw what those programs did for our agricultural industries and how our future as farmers on the world stage, as the best and brightest—I know that is a bit of a cliche—came from our competitive edge. We do not get subsidies and we do not have the benefit of tariffs that Europe and America do, but we do have some amazingly good minds working on the case. The cuts to research and development have effectively pulled the rug out from under those who would have used their ability, knowledge, innovation and networks, which were all set up and operating, to make us more and more at the competitive edge. That is something we so desperately need in the face of the other disadvantages of not having subsidies and tariffs, which, as an individual, can secure your income.

Regional Partnerships has been much talked about. I particularly want to mention Broken Hill, which came into my electorate at the last election, and say how disappointed I was that money for the regional events centre, money for the hearing centre—come on, this is helping senior Australians with their hearing—and money for an aquatic centre was withdrawn. Broken Hill is a long way from anywhere and it has one small 25-metre pool. The aim of the Regional Partnerships program was to upgrade it to something much better for the local kids. Three projects have been wiped off the table by the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. What was amazing was the very ad hoc nature that became apparent as he moved through the administration of that program. Nothing at all happened for six months, except that we sacked the small business officer who was associated with the program, and that was very sad. The next thing that happened was that every program was off except for the ones that the Labor Party had guaranteed as being doable, which were their own election commitments during their election campaign. Ironically, they criticised us for making ad hoc decisions but then said they would fund everything they had committed to during the election campaign—none of which had been through the rigorous selection, review and recommendation program that our projects had been through and which, having passed that very important first hurdle that says, ‘Yes, it is in the interests of the community, it is a good thing to do and it is a good use of taxpayers’ money,’ were waiting to see if funding was available. Those projects that were waiting there were axed and, instead, the new Labor government came in with their various election commitments, which have not undergone that rigorous process.

I challenge the minister and anyone in the government to tell me why projects other than those that have been cancelled in my electorate—and I particularly focus on the three in Broken Hill: the events centre, the aquatic centre and the hearing centre—are more deserving and why Minister Albanese, in an amazing backflip, reinstated some projects but left others out in the cold. That appeared to be entirely under pressure from Sunrise and the media—‘I didn’t realise there were such good community things happening here.’ I have to tell the minister: they are all good community things. I have seen sporting facilities, halls, libraries and community function centres all receive dollars under the Regional Partnerships program. The Rural Medical Infrastructure Fund is another example. They are real live examples of what a small amount of money can do and the difference it can make to the heart and soul of a very little country town. It was very disappointing to see us lose those projects.

The Investing in Our Schools Program has been axed. I was at the Booligal Public School, which is a little school in the middle of the Hay Plains, where we were opening new facilities. All over my electorate, the Investing in Our Schools Program has provided covered outdoor learning areas, new play equipment, electronic whiteboards and computers.

The great thing about the program was that whatever the school needed, whatever it wanted, it was allowed to apply for. We now have a completely top-down approach, in keeping with Labor’s approach to people generally—which is that they know better than the community does. They have said that students in years 9 and 10 will have laptops. That is where the money that was going to Investing in Our Schools appears to have been directed.

I just want to relay one anecdote. I was at a conference of single mums in Adelaide recently, and one of the attendees, one of the mums, broke down in tears. She said: ‘Everyone else in the class is getting their education rebate for their computer for their child, but I don’t pay tax. I’m doing my 15 hours work a week and I’m on a pension, but I don’t pay tax, and my child is coming home completely disadvantaged, because others are getting the education tax rebate and my child is not.’ And I thought Labor was the party that looked after those people. I think, if we have a program like that, there is a responsibility to not disadvantage the kids of single mothers who have to turn up in the classroom without a computer. It is hard enough raising children on your own without having that sort of distress to deal with and with having to feel so left out by the government, which is exactly how this woman described it. She said, ‘This government has just left me out.’

So we have lost Regional Partnerships, drought assistance, the Rural Medical Infrastructure Fund and the Investing in Our Schools Program. Much has been said about petrol, and I have made some remarks about that elsewhere. I simply appeal to the minister for agriculture that, in reviewing exceptional circumstances declarations as they come due in the second half of this year, he remember the advice of the Rural Financial Counselling Service: basically, if you stop the exceptional circumstances payments, some people feel that as many as 50 per cent of those receiving them will simply go to the wall. I say to the minister: you cannot do that. I am a little bit worried and suspicious because I see a $14 million transition fund in the budget, a transitional welfare fund, which suggests to me that it is for when people finish a program and they need some transitional help. If the government is considering finishing the EC assistance, would it please reconsider, because I could not cope with seeing half the farmers in my electorate who receive exceptional circumstances go bankrupt, and I do not think it would do much for the fabric of the society in those country towns.

I invite the minister to come and have a look and have a chat. He does not need to take me, but he does need to come and talk to the Rural Financial Counselling Service and see exactly what they do, because they actually have all of the knowledge about this. There is no need to listen to anyone else except the counsellors, who deal on a day-to-day basis with farmers who are in crisis—and we all know that, when it rains, you still need a bit of help, and it has not really rained sufficiently yet.

In conclusion, I think the budget lets rural Australian families down. It is a typical Labor budget. It increases taxes and spending, it plays on the politics of envy and it does not really do much for the running of the economy either. I appreciate the opportunity to make the points that I have this afternoon.

See this speech in context