Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I will take the interjection from the honourable member. The problem is that in the work sector a lot of people of 50 or 55 years of age, in difficult times, are put out of work because they are regarded as too old. In my view, it is a dumb decision by employers, because people of that age have more to offer than a few upstarts. They have a bit of corporate memory, a bit of history. But the point is: what is the priority of this government, for which we are attacked? Jobs. What are the alternative policies of the opposition?

Mr Deputy Speaker Washer, you are a medical practitioner. The opposition are going to move amendments in relation to private health insurance, where we have recommended some changes. I think it is at around $70,000 for singles and $150,000 for couples that it cuts out. That shows the priorities of the opposition, who have also indicated at various stages, although not very loudly, that they would prefer tax cuts for the rich or that they would prefer to be like a moo-cow watching passing traffic—in other words, to do nothing. The opposition have not come forward with a detailed strategy as to how they can protect jobs, because the only way they can do it is for the deficit to be substantially less than is currently projected.

This nation’s finances are in good shape when you compare them to the rest of the world and we can take out a short-term mortgage to protect our citizens instead of putting them out on the scrapheap, then losing the revenue to government and all the other consequences that fly with it. This is a budget full of compassion. This is a budget that is interested in people and in protecting people.

The other thing is that we are told, ‘Oh, some of the money has been put to savings and only a little bit of it has been spent.’ The savings do not detract from the money that has been allocated. I have an economics degree with my law degree from Sydney University and I went to my old Brown on economics books. Bob Brown was a member of this House for many years. I also went to Hunt and Sherman on economics and I had a look. If you read those texts, there is the multiplier effect. The multiplier effect, in Brown on economics, they predict is of the order of a magnitude of four so that if you spend a dollar, it is four dollars that whirls around in the economy. That is very important in terms of what the money means for consumption, for demand and for jobs.

I also happen to be a director of Revesby Workers’ Club. I have been on the board since 1980 and vice president since 1982. Before the economic crisis, our club was looking at extensions and renovations and has been engaged in intense planning since 2004 to diversify the club so that it is less reliant on poker machines and alcohol. We are looking at a child-care centre and a fitness centre, which will be opened by the Deputy Prime Minister on 10 July. We are also looking at a hotel; we are looking at 26 retail stores underpinned by Coles; growing the jobs on the site from 300 to 1,200. The major banks are interested and the project is sound but what we have found is that the banks do not want to lend in the current economic climate. They have got overseas commitments and they are not interested in big projects at this stage.

Why do I give this example? Because that is typical of what is happening all around Australia. If you do not lend then you cannot grow. You cannot protect jobs and you cannot maintain jobs. What we have done is brought back a $180 million project to a $110 million project. We have basically staggered it in terms of what will be built and when so that we can come within a reasonable chance of securing the money from the banks.

Multiply that throughout the whole of the community. If the banks are not lending then the businesses cannot grow, they cannot protect existing jobs, they cannot help create new jobs and that is why the government has had to step in. That is why certain guarantees have been given for the banks. So let’s not go on with this nonsense that the opposition goes on with because we are talking about human beings.

I am very proud and very supportive of the direction this government has taken in this budget and since the economic downturn. I am even prouder that the people have placed their confidence in this government and that those opposite in the opposition are not pulling the economic levers at this difficult time in our economic cycle when I hear what they have got to say. The situation is that it is a budget we can be proud of. Where is the evidence for that? The evidence is the very little interference that the opposition is going to wreak on the budget. It is not little as in ‘little’ it is just that they have not gone for 10, 12 or 15 measures at this stage—unless the caucus dictates otherwise.

Private health insurance rebates have been targeted. That was a bad policy at the time. The then opposition went along with it. I did not agree with it, but that was the decision of the party room and, frankly, I for one am proud that that has been revisited in the economic circumstances. If you do not revisit that—the $1.6 billion or whatever—what else do you hit? Do not tell me in these economic times that the priority of the government is to give rebates for people’s private health insurance when they earn above $75,000 for singles and above $150,000 for couples. Let us get real! That is not a hard decision; it is the right decision. What do the opposition want to do? Keep putting the boot into the workers, the way they did for 11½ years in government. It will not work—and the unions need to be responsible in these economic times.

In relation to difficult decisions, the government also took a decision which none of us knew about—it is probably the only decision that was not leaked or backgrounded—to increase the age of eligibility for the pension to 67 by 2023. I was part of the Keating government in 1995 that basically provided that the age women would become eligible for the pension would increase from 60 to 65. That was a measure that was to made over time, and it will be fully implemented by 2013. When one looks at that decision and considers the former Treasurer Peter Costello’s Intergenerational report, one sees it is perfectly consistent. It is not an easy decision, but what do we do?

There is a bit of scaremongering in the community. This measure does not start until 2017 and does not become final until 2023. People have been given eight years till it will commence and 14 years till it is finalised and the age of eligibility increases to 67. The sad reality—not the sad reality; the good reality—is that people are living 23 years longer on average than when the male pension age was first set at 65 in, I think, 1909-10. Only one group in the community could complain about increasing the pension age to 67 and that is the Indigenous community. If one goes to the Fred Hollows website, one will see that the statistics show that only 24 per cent of Aboriginal men and 35 per cent of Aboriginal women live to the age of 65, although in the last week or so some new statistics have emerged that show that they live about 10 years longer because there has been a change in the calculation.

So I know it is a decision that people might be upset with, but given the age of our population it is a hard decision that has to be taken now with proper notice. It is interesting that the Prime Minister has said he will not touch superannuation—that superannuation is off limits in relation to this decision. It can be off limits because we are not talking about the public purse in relation to superannuation; we are talking about people making provisions for their own retirement, and this may well be an incentive for people to access superannuation and to contribute to superannuation much more than is currently the case.

For me, it is not a difficult budget to rise to defend, because I think the government have made a good fist of it. I think they have got the compassion right. In the Indigenous affairs area, as the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Jenny Macklin, says in the budget papers, a raft of things are being funded. In the Attorney-General’s portfolio, some extra money is there for native title applications. One of the things that the former government did not do was increase the funding to rep bodies so that they could help sort out these claims through conciliation rather than through going to court.

So I think this is a very defensible budget. I say to the opposition: you are barking up the wrong tree by running your campaign on debt. There is no doubt that issue is resonating in the community. I listen to my community and they do ask the question, ‘Can we afford it?’ My answer is, ‘Yes, we can.’ Frankly—I will depart from the script here—if it takes a little bit longer to go back into surplus, so what?

I do not believe that you can play with people’s lives. I think the role of government is to make sure people are in employment, to protect their employment, to create employment, to create growth. That is why it is no secret that the British government and the American government, even the former George Bush administration, followed the same principles that we have adopted in the lead up to this budget and in this budget, that this is the time to invest in our communities. This is the time to protect them, and it is arrogant of those opposite to run around and talk the economy down. The stimulus package was important because it is about confidence. It is about helping the people get into a better mood, a mood in which they can consume, as against the opposite, because you can create a run on your economy if the whole show closes down.

I used the example to you earlier that there is more caution from the big banks in terms of lending. That means the government should step in to help fill the breach. That is why the stimulus packages are important. That is why a deficit of $57.6 billion is important, because it is investing in people and it is investing in infrastructure. There is money there for broadband for the future. There is money there for infrastructure in certain quarters of the economy that does not come down just into conservative seats or Labor seats—it falls across the spectrum. The money is being spent where it is needed. That is the important thing about the budget.

The Treasurer was right when he talked about the centrepiece of this budget being the $22 billion we are investing in the infrastructure—our nation needs to grow and prosper in the years ahead. That is what it is about. To help the growth, to help create prosperity, not to stand back and just watch like a Lowes’ dummy, doing nothing. And the $43 billion super fast broadband network is important in every respect for businesses in all quarters of our community, for schoolchildren in all quarters of our community. The opposition can mock it, can carry on. I am still to see anything. At least you came up with one alternative policy: ‘we want the same for private health insurers’. Whacko! How far is that going to get you? What are the hard decisions you have to make? How many people are you going to put out of work which you say is good for the economy? I am pleased to rise on this, my 20th budget, and give it my wholehearted support, because the Treasurer, Mr Swan, has done a great job—history will show that—and it is a budget worth supporting.

See this speech in context