David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of answers given by Ministers Carr and Ludwig today on matters related to the budget, particularly the effect of changes to the income level for the Medicare levy and job cuts within CSIRO, Centrelink and other places in the Public Service.

Senator Moore has just asked for honesty when we are talking about the current budget. I could not agree more. We do need to look at this in an honest way and see what really is going on. There has been a whole series of headlines and discussions by commentators over the last few days since the budget was delivered. Many of those have talked about Robin Hood budgets and the like. But, if you have a look at the comments made by those who have some economic expertise, you will find that the general consensus of those commentators—people who actually know what they are talking about—is that the budget has been fiscally neutral in its inflationary impact.

You will also see that some commentators have commented that it is the biggest spending and biggest taxing budget that this country has ever seen. Those opposite have been arguing—and the ministers have certainly commented in their replies—that they have cut deeply and that huge measures have been incorporated into the budget with a view to reducing inflationary pressure.

Prior to the budget, the government built this up in a huge way. They were constantly going on about the inflation crisis we are having. We have heard from the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, stories about the inflation genie; we have heard comments about the cancer that is eating away at the Australian economy—that being inflation. They have built up to a huge extent the need for fiscal responsibility to make massive cuts but, as I have just commented, the reality is that most commentators with any economic expertise are saying that what has been done in this budget is fiscally neutral in its inflationary impact. The spin has not been met by the actual delivery. The government have failed to deliver on the promise.

Just today, a young student of macroeconomics came into my office to see me. She and her fellow macroeconomics students have spent the last couple of days pulling the budget to pieces, looking at it particularly from the perspective of its impact on inflation. Their conclusion was in fact that it was fiscally neutral in terms of its inflationary impact. They could not see where it relieved the inflationary pressures that, as the government continually tell us, we are currently experiencing as a nation. The reality is that, despite the spin, the government have not delivered in this budget any major changes that will reduce inflationary pressures.

At the same time, they have delivered a budget that will lead directly to an increase in unemployment in this nation. The budget papers themselves admit that there will be 135,000 people who will lose their jobs. That is in the budget papers. It is not the opposition saying it; it is not commentators having a bit of a look at it and saying, ‘This is likely to cost 135,000 jobs.’ It is in the budget papers. Treasury say that, over the next 12 months, 135,000 people will lose their jobs. I would suggest to you that it probably understates the figure, but it is in there from Treasury. In one of the papers today a spokesman for the Community and Public Sector Union was saying that the estimate of 1,200 jobs that will be lost in the public service is grossly understated. I think he said that it is probably more likely to be double that. If the union is saying that, it is probably more likely to be triple or quadruple.

Here we have a budget that not only has failed to deliver the reduction in inflationary pressures that was promised but is also putting people out of work. Rather than being a Robin Hood budget, the reality is—as has been stated by a number of the government members, including the Treasurer on the night that he delivered the budget—this is a traditional Labor budget. Why is it traditional? It is traditional because it focuses more on looking after those who have jobs than worrying about people getting jobs in the first place. They are quite happy to put people out of work. They will put in place whatever measures they need to meet their ideological desires and preferences—and hang the consequences for people. They are quite happy to put them out of jobs. They are generally more worried about the rights of those who have work than those who have no work at all. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.