Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Hansard source

In the appropriations debate, I argued that the first Abbott-Hockey budget represented an attack on fairness in this country, the like of which we have not seen before. People in my electorate are asking me why this government seems so intent on inflicting pain on average Australian families. People out there are confused and bewildered by this budget. And why would they not be? It is just months since the Leader of the Opposition—and now Prime Minister—prior to September promised there would be no cuts and no surprises. No-one forced him to go on television and say 'no cuts to health, no cuts to education, no cuts to the ABC or SBS and no changes to the pension'. But what we have seen with this budget is mean-spirited across-the-board cuts, a succession of nasty surprises, making the people of Australia feel neither relaxed nor comfortable—cuts to universal health care by introducing a charge every time people visit the doctor, cuts to end equality of access to education, cuts to public-transport funding, cuts to child care and cuts to family assistance. The common theme here is that these cuts impact on the vulnerable.

The coalition say that these are necessary to address a so-called budget emergency, but in the Senate estimates process we have discovered something very different. In my area of infrastructure and transport we have found a $1 billion payment will go from the Commonwealth to the Victorian government, in the next month, for stage II of the East West road project. Stage 1 has not even commenced yet. Stage 2 has no business case, no plan and no traffic projections; indeed, in Senate estimates, they are not even sure where the tunnel from stage II will come out, and yet there is a $1 billion payment. The profile is pretty interesting. I have seen some budget profiles over the years, on infrastructure. I have never seen one before that read $1 billion in the current financial year, then zero next year, then zero the year after, then zero the year after that and then $500 million four years down the track. Why is that the case? It is because the project is not ready to commence and, according to Senate estimates, the earliest it will commence is not this financial year when this billion dollars is being paid, it is not even next financial year, it is the financial year after that.

You cannot say there is a budget emergency on the one hand and on the other hand pay $1 billion dollars for a phantom project that is not ready to commence for a number of years down the track. You cannot say to the pensioners, young people, unemployed and students: 'You just cop this pain, because we need to do it,' when, quite clearly, there is $1 billion floating around that they are happy to just put into the Victorian government's bank account—to make their accounts, when it comes to the state election later this year, look better than they would have otherwise. The whole premise of the so-called budget emergency is based upon a falsehood.

This government inherited a growing economy, a growing economy that is the envy of the industrialised world with comparatively low debt levels, with low unemployment, with low interest rates, with low inflation and with a AAA credit rating. It is the case that, at all times, governments should seek to ensure that spending is just for necessary measures, to keep the economy strong and to reflect the sort of country that we are, to create opportunity. But this government has not even acknowledged that it was Labor's actions that ensured they inherited such a strong economy, Labor's actions in government that kept people in employment and Labor's actions that charted a path back to surplus.

The government is exaggerating the nature of the current fiscal challenge's cover for its rigidly ideological approach to this budget. This bill, in having a temporary increase of those people who are above $180,000, who do not use the time and window that the government has created to minimise their tax and ensure that they do not pay this, is cover for the breathtaking attack on those who can least afford to pay. Members of parliament will see a very small decline in their position, for a brief period. Those people who are most vulnerable in the electorates that we represent will see permanent cuts, much larger, and therefore for a continuous time, because they are permanent cuts.

The truth is that this is a Prime Minister who is more comfortable with the values of many decades ago—a time of imperial honours, of knights and dames, of smaller government and of social conservatism. His real agenda is to wind back the social gains that have been made since the 1950s. When you consider the key concepts that are under attack in this budget, there is a common theme—they were all put in place by Labor governments: universal health care; equity of access to education; government engagement in public transport and urban policy for our cities; and a decent safety net to ensure the welfare of the disadvantaged.

As opposition leader, Mr Abbott took a conscious decision to turn the coalition into the noalition—rejecting anything proposed by Labor. Now that he is in government, the Prime Minister seems to feel compelled to dismantle everything even remotely related to previous Labor governments. The only agenda of this government and this Prime Minister is to tear down what Labor governments have built.

This budget is a declaration of cultural and philosophical war, as the extreme right seeks to undermine the social and cultural assumptions of the 21st century. It wants to turn people against each other to create the opposite of the politics of envy—the politics of contempt; the politics of blaming those people in our community who are most disadvantaged rather than seeking to lift them up and to give them opportunity. For example, while most Australians have come to accept that education is a basic right, this government is encouraging taxpayers to resent university graduates on the basis of the cost to the budget of their education, ignoring the fact that education does not just lift the individual; it lifts the entire nation. If we are going to compete in this century in our region we must be the smart nation.

Labor is the builder; the coalition is the wrecker. The dirty truth about this budget is that it is all about regression—winding back previous Labor reforms. It is not about a plan for the future; it is about destroying the gains of the past. We see represented in so many of the measures in this budget the prejudices of those people opposite. Australians do deserve better. They do not expect to be targeted by a Prime Minister who has embarked on this cruel ideological crusade.

As worrying as these spending cuts are, there is another here which many Australians might have so far missed. It is the return of the blame game. During the Howard era, when the current Prime Minister was a senior minister, Australians became increasingly frustrated with the lack of accountability over the quality of basic services like health and education. There are a range of measures in this budget that are designed to allow the government to blame the states, to blame local government, to blame families—to blame anyone else but them—for the predicament.

The cost-shifting that is in this budget, more represented of course by the $80 billion of cuts to health and education, will ensure a reduction in service quality. But it is there in other measures as well. The cuts of some $1.3 billion to funding that is given to the states for concessions to pensioners for areas like public transport, at the same time as they are cutting all public transport funding for any projects that are not already under construction, will ensure that pensioners are hit again. On top of the reduction and the cuts that are being made to pension payments and on top of the pauses in service delivery and funds, of which areas like health are so critical, there is a cut in terms of support for public transport concessions and other concessions that are given to state governments. That is an example of an underlying feature of this budget.

In my area it is exemplified by the complete abandonment in this budget of funding for projects like Cross River Rail, Melbourne metro, Tonsley Park, and Perth public transport projects. The government says that we are funding roads and that that will lead to state governments being more able to fund public transport projects. But of course they are also cutting road funding. There is a cut to projects like the M80 in Melbourne—a very important road that has been identified as a priority by Infrastructure Australia. State governments, if they are faced with the options of funding a public transport project or a road project, Infrastructure Australia has identified through the Senate estimates process again that their view is that it will lead to a reduction by the states in public transport funding as well. They will be looking for co-funding and, when faced with options, they will pick the option that will enable them to receive some of that co-funding through roads—thereby distorting transport strategy in our major cities right around the nation.

This budget is also a challenge to our values. I believe that people need the opportunity that is granted through education. This government wants to make it harder for people from humble circumstances to take on university study. I also believe that every Australian has a right to decent health care and that, if you get sick, you should receive the same treatment whether you are a millionaire or a pensioner. Most Australians agree with me. The Prime Minister does not agree. For as long as he occupies his current office he will be trying to persuade his fellow Australians that our nation cannot afford universal health care. This is an attack on the fair go.

For this government, though, it is a fair go for those who already have means and no go at all for the poor. To this government, adequate health care, access to education, a decent retirement income and a workable public transport system are all manifestations of what the Treasurer has condemned as the 'age of entitlement'. This is all about a government prepared to take Australia back to where opportunity and security were not as available as they are in today's modern society.

I like the idea that in this country, if you really want to work at it, it is possible to rise from humble circumstances to become Prime Minister or, indeed, Deputy Prime Minister. That is about to change with the measures in this government's approach—a range of measures which will make it harder for people and a tax in direct contravention, which is the theme of this budget. (Time expired)

See this speech in context