Arch Bevis (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2009-2010 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2009-2010 form another part of the impressive Rudd Labor government’s commitment to building a strong economy for Australian families. They build on previous financial initiatives in budgets and economic statements and, of course, most notably the efforts of this government in seeing Australia through the greatest financial global crisis we have witnessed in more than 70 years. The government has done that in a manner that now sees Australia as the economic envy of the world, the only advanced economy not to go into recession.

As I commented here a day or so ago, it is a performance that those on the opposition benches and the leadership of the opposition have simply failed to comprehend. It is difficult to believe that a little over a week ago the Leader of the Opposition, the person who would be the Prime Minister of Australia, asserted that, instead of adopting the approach this government has taken, which has seen Australia perform so well, we should have adopted the approach of the New Zealand government. The approach in New Zealand resulted in the New Zealand economy going into recession for five quarters. It is an approach that sees the New Zealand economy today still some 2½ to three per cent smaller than it was before the global financial crisis; an approach that has seen the Prime Minister of New Zealand acknowledge Australia’s wonderful performance and assert that he would like New Zealand to be in a position to catch up to Australia’s economic performance by the year 2025. Yet the alternative Prime Minister in Australia, the Leader of the Liberal Party, seems attracted to that model. I am not sure that many constituents or many voters in Australia, and certainly not the millions of ordinary working men and women of Australia, would see that as a more attractive option.

I want to refer to a number of the initiatives that this government has taken, many of them fulfilling election commitments in 2007. At the outset, I want to refer to the impressive record of this government in looking after, in particular, pensioners and those who are less well off in our community. On 20 September 2009, single pensioners on the maximum rate of pension received an increase totalling $70.83 a fortnight. That brings their total pension to $671.90. In the Brisbane electorate, in excess of 12,000 pensioners benefit from this very significant improvement. Pensioner couples combined on the maximum rate received an increase of $29.93 a fortnight, taking their payments up to $1,013. Importantly, these increases include indexation under the new Pensioner and Beneficiary Living Cost Index. For as long as I can remember, whenever matters involving pensioner payments occurred, pensioners have argued that the general CPI, consumer price index, that we tended to apply in the past did not accurately reflect the actual items and costs of living as they affect pensioners in their normal weekly purchases. We have remedied that. We have put in place a special pensioner cost index. That index does take into account the basket of goods that pensioners buy, which on this occasion was actually higher than the consumer price index. This is one of the great achievements over the last two years.

These changes will lift the single pensioner base rate from 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings to 27.7 per cent by March 2010. That is a very significant increase. If memory serves me correctly, it was the Whitlam government that first established the 25 per cent benchmark as a policy of government. It was subsequently legislated for by other governments, but it has taken a further Labor government to increase that benchmark. I know that there are thousands of constituents in Brisbane who are appreciative of this initiative and of the Rudd government for delivering on that commitment.

I have long had a keen interest in and a concern for those people who suffer from type 1 diabetes, particularly children. I think all of us in this place have been involved in meetings with representatives from the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. I have had the great pleasure of keeping in contact with a number of constituents in my electorate of Brisbane who have type 1 diabetes. I am very pleased that the Rudd government has taken further initiatives recently to provide support for them. Families with children who have type 1 diabetes are going to benefit from the government’s decision to increase the subsidy for the purchase of the insulin pump for children who are under 18.

The Type 1 Diabetes Insulin Pump Program is an innovative initiative, and it is a good initiative. It was started under the Rudd government, and it delivers relief for families trying to manage the complexities that are part and parcel of living with someone who has juvenile, or type 1, diabetes. The maximum subsidy under the Type 1 Diabetes Insulin Pump Program has been raised from $2,500 to $6,400. That is 80 per cent of the price of a pump. It is available to successful applicants who have an annual family income of up to $64,240. The level of the subsidy operates on a sliding scale, gradually reducing to $500 or 10 per cent of the pump cost, whichever is the greater, for families who have an income of $101,045.

I have also had the great pleasure of visiting Medtronic, one of the global leaders in the production of insulin pumps and, I should say, a range of other extremely advanced medical devices. I had the honour of opening their new premises in Brisbane just recently. They are a very professional organisation that works very closely with the hospitals, the surgeons and those involved in diabetes—as they do in other areas. It is very pleasing to see the government’s commitment to assisting the families of those who have type 1 diabetes. For children who suffer from type 1 diabetes the opportunity to have an insulin pump greatly improves their quality of life and enables them to participate more fully, whether it is in the playground or the classroom, and certainly reduces the trauma of regular testing and injections.

I am also very pleased to see the commitment of the Rudd Labor government to assist families with childcare assistance. The government has honoured its election promise to increase the childcare tax rebate from 30 per cent to 50 per cent of out-of-pocket expenses. The annual cap has also been increased from $4,354 to $7,500 per child. The rebate is now paid quarterly, to give parents assistance closer to when they incur the actual out-of-pocket expenses. The Child Care Rebate is not means tested, as it is also designed to make it easier for people to re-enter the workforce. In that respect, it is unique amongst the payments that governments typically make. The support that Labor has given in that increase in the tax rebate is very substantial and will make a significant difference to families meeting their weekly budget requirements.

I want to mention the enormous investment this government is making in education. As a former teacher, as a parent and as a legislator, I have long had a commitment to the importance of education in our society. Before I do, I want to anticipate and respond to some of the arguments those in the opposition might make and have made whenever these programs are mentioned. Typically, they say, ‘That’s all good and well but you’re creating this massive debt.’ If you walk around this building, you will see on Liberal Party and National Party offices posters talking about the terrible debt that Australia faces and the ruin we are all going to confront. My attention was drawn on 8 August last year, when the opposition endeavoured to run that argument, to an article in the Age written by Ross Gittins. At that time, Malcolm Turnbull was the Leader of the Opposition, so he is mentioned in the article. It read:

So, how worried should we be about that debt? Much less than Turnbull wants us to be. He is exaggerating the size of the debt, misrepresenting the cause of the debt, exaggerating the difficulty we’ll have repaying it, misrepresenting its effect on our prospects and pretending we’ll end up with little to show for it.

This was the commentary about the former Leader of the Opposition, who was actually the responsible one. This was before Tony Abbott was elected as leader. This was before Senator Barnaby Joyce became the finance spokesperson. This was a commentary on a Leader of the Opposition who, it could be said, had some degree of credibility, particularly in financial circles. Against that commentary, consider the sorts of things presented by the current Liberal frontbench and the alternative ministry in this parliament. In fact, Ross Gittins in that article of August last year went on to say:

Nor is the debt “massive” or “mountainous”. The typical home buyer borrows two or three times their annual income and manages the repayments without great stress. At the projected peak in the net debt of $203 billion in June 2014, it will be equivalent to just 14 per cent of the nation’s annual income …

Ross Gittins is not the only person who has belled the cat on this issue. He is not the only one who has come out to say that the Liberal opposition argument about debt is simply fallacious and untrue. That is not even going to the comments of Senator Barnaby Joyce, who talked about the United States going bankrupt and Australia going bankrupt. We saw that only a couple of weeks ago. That was from a person who would be the finance minister. He is clearly challenged to comprehend the difference between ‘millions’ and ‘billions’. It really does cause concern.

More recently, in the Financial Review on Tuesday, 9 February there was an article written by Tony Harris, the former New South Wales Auditor-General. He also commented on the arguments of those opposite on economic management. I quote from his article:

The real expert in misleading the electorate is the shadow treasurer, Joe Hockey. For many months Hockey has been waging war against the government by claiming that its spending forces the Reserve Bank of Australia to lift interest rates.

Hockey knows—or should know—that the central bank’s present target rate of 3.75 per cent is half a percentage point lower than the lowest rate seen in the 11 years of the Howard government. It is also 3.25 percentage points below the highest rate in the period of that government. If Hockey wants us to believe that very low interest rates are the mark of a good ministry, the Howard government failed.

They are the comments of a former New South Wales Auditor-General published in the Financial Review earlier this month. I will not go further, to Senator Barnaby Joyce and his comments or to some of the comments that the Leader of the Opposition has made. It is important, when we talk about the programs that I have mentioned and the funding programs for schools that I am about to move to, that the only criticism that those opposite are able to muster is that it creates a debt and a burden which is a problem for the future. It is an untrue, hollow argument and there is ample evidence from economic commentators to demonstrate that.

I mentioned before that as a former teacher, a parent and a legislator I am really excited about the investment this government is making in education. It is across the board, but I am very pleased to see the investment going into primary education. There is no shortage of reports, including parliamentary reports, but also in the literature within the education fraternity, talking about the importance of early intervention and of resourcing early schooling as an important way of dramatically improving the outcomes at the end of schooling. Yet government after government has failed to act on it. This is the first government that has actually invested in our primary schools in a way that is enabling every primary school in the country to ensure that its capital infrastructure is first class. It is not just primary schools; a large range of secondary schools have also benefited.

I want to place on record my thanks to the government for the change this is making to the educational opportunities for students in Brisbane, because across the electorate there are very worthwhile programs. I will mention just some of them. The list is reasonably long but I am touching on only a very small percentage of them. All Hallows’ School in Brisbane received $2 million for a new music room conversion. Ascot State School, which I visited at the end of last year, has a new $3 million classroom block going in. At Ashgrove State School, I had the pleasure of announcing at their fete last year that they would receive $3 million for a multipurpose hall and a resource centre. Brisbane Central State School, a small inner-urban school, is receiving $2 million for a resource centre and a multipurpose hall. Brisbane Grammar School will have a new $2 million multipurpose centre. Clayfield College will get a $3 million junior school building. Eagle Junction State School—I am going out there next week and I was there at the end of last year—is getting a $3 million resource centre. Enoggera State School will have a $2 million resource centre. Fortitude Valley State School will receive $250,000 for new library facilities. Hamilton State School will receive $850,000 for a new library. Hendra State School is getting $850,000 for a new resource centre. Holy Cross School at Wooloowin is getting $2 million for new classrooms. Holy Spirit School down at New Farm, a school I visited a number of times last year, including to talk about this very program, is receiving $2 million for a new hall and a new library. Ithaca Creek State School, my old primary school that I attended, is receiving $2½ million for a new multipurpose hall and a resource centre. I was at that school only last week and they are keenly looking forward to the opportunity to use that facility. I might say that the community is keenly looking forward to it as well because it will be a resource not just for the school but for the wider community.

See this speech in context