House debates

Tuesday, 24 May 2011

Bills

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2011-2012; Second Reading

Photo of Rowan RamseyRowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2011-2012, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2011-2012, the amendments that have been put forward and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2011-2012. One hundred and seven billion dollars or $107,000 million—or about $5,000 for each member of the Australian population—is what the budget says the Australian government will owe on behalf of the Australian people in 12 months time. We are still borrowing $135 million a day. That $135 million a day means that we are going to pay $7 billion a year in interest. The government should really send a bill to the people of Australia so they understand the debt that they have run up on their behalf.

We remember well, when the Rudd Labor government was elected, the promise of surpluses; they were committed to surpluses—'we believe in surpluses'—but, as the member for Longman pointed out in this House the other day, it is, in fact, 21 years since a Labor government delivered a surplus. Now it appears as though the Treasurer knows that as well, even though it took him a day or so to catch up.

But it is worse than that. The NBN, on which the government says it will spend $36 billion, will, in fact, cost $50 billion they have not included the money for Telstra in that sum. The government will borrow $18 billion over the next four years, over the forward estimates, and it is off budget. I know this is technically correct but it is morally dishonest. That is why the government now seeks to lift the borrowing limits of government from $200 billion to $250 billion. Some experts believe that once the $50 billion NBN is completed it may be worth less than $20 billion. Worse still, there is a hole at the heart of the budget and that is the fact that the carbon tax has not been factored in. To propose you can levy an $11 billion tax on the Australian public and business and that it will have no effect is not believable.

One of the things my colleagues have raised is the price increases this will see right throughout the Australian community, the cascading effect of the tax. I am more concerned about the incentive to shop overseas. In fact, the only way to avoid this tax is to buy something that is not made in Australia. That is my chief concern. We are talking about carbon leakage on a grand scale. Paradoxically, the mining tax is in the budget but it is still not in legislation. So we have not seen the mining tax and we have not seen the carbon tax, but the mining tax has been put into the budget. We well remember that after the appointment of the Prime Minister by the Labor Party one of the very first things she did was claim victory in the mining tax negotiations. Here we are, some 11 months later, and still the tax is unsettled.

And the events of the last week would suggest that the tax is more unsettled than ever. When the Western Australians proposed a lift in the royalty rates, which will take $2 billion out of the government's mining tax—if, in fact, it is ever presented in the form they moot—this was so totally predictable. Not only was it telegraphed to the Treasurer but it was totally predictable. As soon as a government says to a state government, 'Look, you can levy whatever tax you like and we'll pick up the bill,' what would you expect to happen? But it was all based on trying to get a quick resolution to get the subject off the front page of the papers. Of course, that has been the modus operandi of the government: so often we have seen things announced before the detail has been worked out. The mining tax is just another example of it. We have seen it with the ETS and we have seen it with the NBN. Remember the $4½ billion model that was announced? That detail was not worked out. East Timor and Malaysia—more announcements with no understanding about how these policies would be implemented, so it was: 'Oh, that will all come later. We'll sort it out then.' Well, it is not easy to sort it out later because expectations are raised in the community and then you have to come back and disappoint someone.

The budget also fails to recognise the supply pressure in the economy. We already have the highest interest rates in the OECD and that supply pressure is goading the Reserve Bank to lift interest rates further, but still the government have borrowed an extra $50 billion in the last 12 months to pump into an economy already reaching capacity constraints. This year they will borrow another $22.6 billion to pump into an economy reaching capacity. As I said, the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, is daring the Reserve Bank to raise interest rates.

The government has failed on many programs. There has been rampant mismanagement. All have been listed again and again in this House and it takes some running through: the pink batts, the green cars, the cash for clunkers, the green loans, the school halls, the solar panels, the $900 cheques. Those $900 cheques are still recalled with absolute disbelief in the community. There are some other things happening in the budget over which I am starting to have great concern. Take Regional Development Australia—and it is good to see you here, Minister Crean. I am pleased you are here to hear what I have to say. I wrote an article 2½ months ago concerning about whether or not regional Australia will actually see the promised billions. There are 55 RDAs in Australia, as the minister knows, competing for what they thought was $10 billion. In fact, $4 billion of that has been allocated to hospitals, and I thank the Treasurer for the money invested in the Port Lincoln hospital.

So we are talking only about a figure of $6 billion. Of the $6 billion, Regional Development Australia boards have been told: 'We need a great list: I want you to prioritise all these things around Australia so that we can select the most worthy projects.' They have been out there feverishly beavering away, trying to bring some discipline to the situation. Many of them think most of these projects are going to be funded, but in fact we find that only $573 million is available for the RDAs to compete for. There are 55 RDAs in Australia and, incidentally, 11 of them have their headquarters in capital cities. In the budget we find—and I think it was pre-announced—that $480 million of that $573 million is going into Perth Airport. Perth Airport is undoubtedly a worthy project, but it is hardly regional. The minister seems to have signalled that metropolitan Australia is regional and should feel free to apply for these funds as well. There is a growing concern out there that the money promised is not actually going to materialise.

Comments

No comments