Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Hansard source

As I outlined last night before the debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2009-2010 was adjourned, it is not just those with private health insurance that will bear the brunt of this senseless cost-cutting move; rather, eventually, all Australians will pay a price for Labor’s $2 billion attack on private health insurance. Every Australian knows that the cost of health care is growing, as are the waiting lists for public hospitals. The hospitals in my electorate are already struggling under the pressure of limited resources and funding provided to them by the New South Wales state Labor government and the federal Labor government. Now, Labor plans to go ahead and introduce plans which will consequently increase this pressure. This can only be described as absolutely absurd. This savage cut will drive up premiums and place unsustainable pressure upon the public health system. Those with insurance face higher premiums as others drop out or lower their cover. Those relying on the public health system will face longer hospital waiting times and queues.

The coalition believe in the right of all Australians to take charge of their own healthcare needs and plan for the future. We have always worked hard to deliver incentives to promote the uptake of private health insurance and take the pressure off the public health system. There is an alternative. The Prime Minister can accept the coalition’s suggestion to increase taxes on cigarettes instead of changing the health insurance rebates. In doing so, Kevin Rudd could raise the same amount of money for his cash-strapped Labor government and provide positive health outcomes.

Now I come to the Prime Minister’s ludicrous plan to place a benefit cap on a range of services previously available under Medicare. Labor’s budget will see services such as all obstetric services, some ultrasounds and all assisted reproduction technology services significantly capped under the Prime Minister’s grand plan. The Prime Minister’s grand plan will undo much of the good work introduced by the former Howard government to assist patients with high, cumulative out-of-hospital medical expenses, and the Rudd Labor government’s plan to place a cap on some services is a direct step back from their given word to retain the safety net and not to put more pressure on family budgets by taking away that assistance. Labor have trashed their health commitments because of their reckless spending and, once again, have left Paterson constituents in the dark.

Not only will Labor’s reckless spending mean that Paterson families will have to pay more for their health care; they will also feel the sting of higher unemployment levels in their local communities, if not in their own families. Simply put, the Prime Minister has ignored small business in the Paterson electorate, the engine room of the local economy, growth and jobs. After inheriting the strongest economy in the world, this Prime Minister is recklessly spending money and failing to properly assist small business, the key to Australia’s economic recovery. Small businesses in Paterson employ the bulk of locals; therefore it is necessary they receive the right government support to get them through these difficult economic times. There are 9,438 small businesses in Paterson, and nine out of 10 are under some kind of cash-flow stress. There is nothing in Labor’s budget that will assist small business cash flow, which is its single biggest challenge, yet small business is expected to help pay off Labor’s record net debt of $188 billion.

Small businesses are the key to Australia’s economic recovery. If jobs are going to be generated in Australia, they are going to be generated by small business. I have hosted Jobs for Australia forums across the Paterson electorate to listen to the needs of my constituents and have heard firsthand how the Rudd government’s lack of accountability, red tape and flailing incentives are hurting their back pockets. Labor’s budget is slugging small business even more by increasing the fees and charges collected by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. This extra tax slug will cost Australian businesses $84.3 million and impact even further on business cash-flow stress. The Rudd Labor government certainly has mastered the art of hitting someone hard when they are already hurting.

Our youth are feeling the sting of the Rudd Labor government’s reckless spending spree and they will be terribly disadvantaged under Labor’s plans to tighten the criteria for establishing independence under the youth allowance scheme. Youth allowance is a vital avenue of income support for students, particularly those from regional and rural areas. Plans to tighten student eligibility from the beginning of 2010 will mean that some people currently working towards meeting the criteria will have their plans for further study thrown into disarray. As the parent of three teenage children, I understand the expenses involved in pursuing further study, particularly if children are forced to move away from home. Many young people in the Paterson electorate have told me that under the planned changes they will not be able to pursue further study at university or TAFE purely because they cannot afford to do so. These students’ parents are above the threshold for income support but are nowhere near wealthy enough to be able to pay for their children’s rent, food and educational expenses. Remember, these students simply do not have the option of staying at home while they study.

I would like to draw the parliament’s attention to a letter I received from a very concerned constituent, Eric Stewart, who wrote to me about this very matter. He wrote:

Bob, I just wanted to express my disgust at the Labor party’s plan to make it more difficult for students to become independent for youth allowance. My son has signed up for a 12 mth gap year with the army this year. He is not aware that, if this bill is passed, he will not be going to university next year. He is 19yo and eligible to vote. His 17yo sister had similar plans, I am on a modest income and will be unable to support them through university. Shame on the Prime Minister for allowing things to come to this point, due to his reckless spending spree.

This is an enormous failure for a government who claims it wants to increase university attendance particularly from disadvantaged groups.

Now I come to the portfolio area of defence science and personnel, and my views on the defence budget. First, we have had the much delayed defence white paper, which was finally released on 2 May and attempted to build upon the defence reforms inaugurated by the coalition when it released the 2000 white paper. The 2000 white paper enshrined a modernisation process which had at its core a vision of an ADF equipped with world-class equipment that would ensure Australia maintained its regional technological advantage. However, this all came to a grinding halt with the election of the Rudd government. In the first 18 months under Minister Joel Fitzgibbon, we have seen $5.6 billion worth of delays against only $101 million worth of projects brought forward on time.

The defence white paper was so muddled and disjointed, as anyone in the military will tell you, and is based on a false and dubious premise—a premise that calls into question its very credibility. Take, for example, the complete lack of financial detail. In the 144-page document, there are only 1½ pages of vague budget estimates. There is a widely held belief in academia and even within the defence department that there has been a complete lack of transparency with regard to defence funding now and into the forward estimates. When the white paper was released, the Australian people were asked to be patient, to wait for budget night for the unveiling of the details of the defence budget. But the Rudd government has once again failed. The defence budget has retreated from transparency, accountability and reality, and we are still waiting for details of that defence budget.

In the 2009-10 budget there is a commitment to increase real defence spending by a maximum of three per cent annually out to 2018 and 2.2 per cent from 2017-18 to 2029-30. However, if you read a little more closely you notice that the numbers are not what they seem. Defence’s total funding of $26.6 billion in 2009-10 shows an increase of 14.9 per cent, largely because of the $1.4 billion commitment to support our forces in Afghanistan. However, the increase in 2010-11 is only 1.45 per cent, to $27.028 billion. After that, the funding level falls even further, to $27.001 billion in 2011-12 and $26.337 billion in 2012-13. The Labor government’s commitment to defence over the next few years is nothing more than what was originally planned, and less than the coalition government’s guaranteed minimum three per cent annual real growth. It is built on a premise that savings of $20 billion, nearly the same amount that was recklessly spent on Rudd’s cash splash, can be found internally, with the Department of Defence still required to fund an ambitious acquisition program. Not one new dollar is being spent. The $20 billion worth of savings over 10 years will be difficult for defence bureaucrats to find, if not impossible. Geoffrey Barker, from the Australian Financial Review, has stated:

This year’s Defence budget has retreated from transparency, accountability and reality with the speed of an Iraqi regiment fleeing into the desert. But here is the rub … nor is it possible to know how Defence will find $20 billion in savings over the decade through the strategic reform program. It was particularly galling given that last year’s Defence Portfolio Budget Statement promised that the White Paper would ‘include the fully costed Defence capability of the future and fully costed support functions informed by a long term cost model’. It didn’t—and neither has the budget.

Let me reiterate: what is astounding about this defence budget is that there is not one new dollar being spent. Against almost every new initiative the budget papers state:

The cost of this measure will be met from within the existing resourcing of the Department of Defence.

Despite making lots of promises, the fact is that this funding growth for defence will actually be reduced in 2017-18, just when the huge costs of acquisitions kick in.

There are a number of specific defence budget items I would now like to address. In the past I have expressed serious concern that thousands of defence personnel and their families are still missing out on basic medical and dental services promised as a part of Labor’s 2007 election commitment. Prior to the 2007 election, defence families were promised $33.1 million for the establishment of 12 defence family healthcare clinics to provide free health care for ADF dependants, spouses and children. Again this promise has been stripped back. Instead of allocating money to the establishment of these clinics, the Rudd government is again deceiving ADF families and personnel by announcing no new initiatives in this budget to assist with the provision of basic medical and dental service. In fact, the recent defence budget statements all but confirm that defence families will lose local support as services are centralised under the auspices of a national service delivery model.

The defence budget announcement to extend the trial of provision of basic medical and dental services to dependants of full-time ADF members is not a new budget initiative. We knew about that back in October 2008. The extended trial will again only provide $300 of dental care per dependent per annum and access to GP services. This broken promise and lack of foresight will see personnel at RAAF Williamtown, HMAS Albatross, RAAF Edinburgh, Elizabeth North in South Australia and RAAF Amberley missing out on this important health initiative. Why is it that in defence housing in Maitland, in the Minister for Defence’s own electorate of Hunter, the house with the family member posted to Singleton Army Base gets the package whilst the next-door neighbour with the family member posted to RAAF Williamtown does not? It is just another poorly thought out plan by Labor.

Superannuation benefits are also a key component of the total remuneration package for ADF personnel and are therefore critical to recruitment and retention of service men and women. There is considerable frustration within the defence community due to the lack of initiative shown by the Rudd Labor government in addressing ADF superannuation. The inaction of this government has failed Australian service men and women past and present, whose current superannuation arrangements are not in line with modern standards. The Rudd Labor government’s budget shows a clear hole with respect to any reform of super arrangements for ADF personnel. Labor has deprived thousands of ADF personnel who remain under lagging superannuation conditions by failing to act on findings published in the reports of the review into military superannuation arrangements, which have been out there for the last 18 months. This is despite lobbying by the coalition and numerous submissions from serving and returned ADF personnel. It is beyond belief that nothing was mentioned in the budget regarding this very important issue.

The coalition’s ADF gap year program is a highly effective recruitment tool for the ADF. What is more, the gap year has proven to be very popular amongst young Australians who are looking to experience what the ADF has to offer. In fact, demand has outstripped supply. I am therefore very concerned that the Labor government has decided to reduce the size of the gap year program. In its blind pursuit of savings, the government has reduced the number of available places from 700 to just 600. The coalition government’s policy has always been to increase the size of the program from the initial 700 to at least 1,000 available places. In light of the government’s continuing inability to address ADF members’ health and superannuation needs, it comes as no surprise that it has failed to comprehend the enormous benefit the gap year program has for the ADF and the wider Australian community. At a time when the Navy is unable to crew the existing six Collins class submarines—let alone the planned new 12 submarines—it is a true mystery as to why the Labor government will reduce the number of gap year participants.

In conclusion, the defence forces are finding it hard enough to recruit enough young people to their ranks, yet because of the Rudd government they will have to slash and burn to achieve the savings asked of them. Where will they find these savings? Reduce the workforce? Close bases around the country? These are questions that Mr Rudd and Mr Fitzgibbon are avoiding. In the typical smoke and mirrors style that we have become accustomed to with the Rudd government, there is no real detail as to how defence will secure the savings it has been asked to find—and that is simply unacceptable. This has all happened against the backdrop of a net debt of $188 billion and a forecast of one million unemployed.

The coalition is focused on recovery and growth. We do not think it is fair that families in the Paterson electorate and families across all of Australia are now paying the price for Labor’s reckless spending. We, the coalition, have a plan. Our plan is based on four key principles: protecting and creating jobs for all Australians, keeping debt as low as possible, targeting spending at jobs and economic infrastructure, and supporting private enterprise and small business, the drivers of economic growth. This plan will ensure that Australia remains the prosperous nation it has always been under a coalition government. It will ensure that no-one is left behind and that the Australian economy again becomes the envy of all nations around the world.

See this speech in context