Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Although this is not the subject of my remarks to the Senate today, I do want to take the opportunity to associate myself with the call made a moment ago by Senator Kirk for there to be an apology to those children who were abused in state institutions in Australia in recent decades. Having been a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs inquiry into that issue, I believe that that apology is richly deserved, and I hope that the Australian government will be able to consider that call very seriously.

I want to talk today about the federal budget that was brought down last night and indicate in which ways I feel that this budget has failed the Australian community by, more than anything else, failing to determine a clear direction for where Australia should go in terms of the preservation of the extraordinarily good economic position in which we find ourselves today. This budget is a confused budget in that it fails to give a clear indication of what principles guide it. It wants to look tough on spending, but in fact this budget spends at record levels. It says that it wants to provide relief to working families, but in many ways the by-products of this budget and the decisions leading up to it place further pressures on working families. It wants to reject the record of the previous government but many of the new programs that it rolls out are nothing more than coalition programs that have been slightly reshaped and rebadged.

We have to ask ourselves: what are the principles that this budget tries to use to take the budget process into the future? Let us examine a few of those. We are told that we cannot go on as before, spending irresponsibly. That is from Mr Swan’s speech last night. The problem that we have with this assertion is that it runs counter to so much that we hear day in, day out—and we have heard it day in, day out—from Labor senators in this place. The day that Mr Tanner, the then opposition spokesperson on finance, put out a media release accusing the Howard government of spending too much, of irresponsibly expending public money, I went back to the Hansard and checked through what had been said about spending in both houses of the federal parliament by Labor members and senators. In that one day, calls from Labor members and senators for expenditure commitments amounted to at least $2 billion. Mr Tanner was saying that too much was being spent by the Commonwealth government and Labor members and senators were saying that it needed to spend more.

If we think back over the last few years, the recurring theme of Labor members in opposition was: ‘The government is not spending enough on education; it is not spending enough on health; higher education is suffering; the environment needs more expenditure et cetera.’ We were spending, program by program, too little; but, overall, we were spending too much. If someone can explain to me how that works, I would be very grateful. But that confusion is here in this budget as well. The government talks about stopping irresponsible spending but, in fact, it spends at record levels. This is, as far as we can tell, the highest spending budget ever. No budget has ever spent so much money. It has done so partly by cutting back programs of the former government and partly by significantly increasing taxation levels. This is the first budget in a long time that has actually introduced new taxes—taxes, I might say, that were not clearly signalled to the Australian community in the lead-up to the 24 November election last year.

It is true that the new government have cut some $15.2 billion of Commonwealth programs that were the brainchild of the former federal government; but, in their place, they have put $30 billion worth of new programs on the table. They are not the restrained expenditure custodians that they claim to be. They have maintained a surplus. I would have to say that it would be pretty hard not to maintain a surplus, given the inheritance from Peter Costello. But we have to ask ourselves: what is the future when the government have such a strong adherence, even in their first budget—the budget that is supposedly to fight inflation—to high levels of expenditure? The government say that they want to keep inflation down, but this budget increases taxes on alcohol, cars, health insurance and energy. Those things all have an inflationary effect. It is very hard to see how inflation can be brought down in the long term if the government take that kind of approach. We know that they have a highly inflationary industrial policy that they are presently rolling out.

The government say that they are in favour of low debt. That is very good to hear, and there is no significant debt added by this budget, I am pleased to say. But it is a concern that state governments are dramatically increasing the Australian community’s level of debt. The Victorian budget last week lifted debt in that state from $2.3 billion to $9.5 billion by 2011-12. Western Australia is also dramatically lifting debt in that state to $11.4 billion—tripling it in the space of the next four years. The Northern Territory and the ACT are also raising their debt levels, and the other states have yet to bring down their budgets. This is a worrying sign of what long-term Labor budgeting is all about. We need to watch that very carefully.

I want to close by making some comments about the effect of the budget on the ACT. The Labor Party has long purported to be a friend of the national capital, but decisions of recent months have to throw that claim into some doubt. The budget last night trimmed a significant number of Public Service jobs. This is not particularly transparent in the budget papers, but we estimate some 3,200 civilian Public Service jobs are axed in this budget. There is also the imposition of the two per cent efficiency dividend on government agencies. It is worth remembering that Labor, when in opposition, said that the efficiency dividend of 1¼ per cent was lazy budgeting, it was badly targeted and it did not give people the chance to distinguish good programs from poorly run programs. Labor have now upped it to 3¼ per cent. How does that work out?

There are cuts to the planning of Canberra: $12.8 million over five years to the Griffin Legacy and $15.8 million to the National Capital Authority. We should all be proud of this national capital, but we cannot be proud of it if it is not well planned and does not look like an outstanding national capital. I think the cuts that have been proposed are heading in the direction of reducing the quality of planning in the national capital.

Finally, it is worth recording that this budget fails to deliver on a promise that was made by the government when it was in opposition: to provide relief to Australian families with respect to higher petrol and grocery prices. There is nothing in the budget to provide that relief. In fact, a number of decisions made by the government, effectively through extra taxation to push up other costs for Australian families, are going to push them in the other direction. It will be worth looking very carefully at whether Australian families are any better off, even with the tax cuts that were announced last night, given Labor’s failure to act on those particular promises.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise, essentially, to talk about nothing—and I do so in the specific context of ‘A show about nothing’, which went to air for the final time in 1998 on this day: the Seinfeld show. Many people here would be familiar with Seinfeld and would recognise many of the self-absorbed, vain and indignant characters who appeared in it. They created a flurry of activity where none was required, and it was mostly a waste of time. It was a very popular show.

The Australian people could be forgiven for thinking that Seinfeld has started up in Australia once again. For the last six months, we have had our very own version of it—that is, the Rudd Labor government. I say that because for six months—or nearly six months—we have had a flurry of activity about nothing. There have been any manner of headlines and there have been all sorts of inquiries—outrages about a number of issues that have arisen. What they have done in all of that has actually achieved nothing.

It came to a spectacular climax last night with the presentation of the budget. Nothing new was in the budget last night. We had the familiar characters, of course. I guess Mr Rudd would be Jerry Seinfeld, and I could probably see Treasurer Swan as George Costanza, because the only thing they did was talk about what they had already done for the last six months. There was very little in new announcements last night—in fact, we could have saved the Australian public a whole lot of wasted air time by just leaking the actual budget speech. Most of the material that actually came through had already been announced previously, and was rebadged existing coalition policies.

In a number of areas, such as disability, there has been a redirection of funds from the disability assistance package through to the Commonwealth-State Territory Disability Agreement—that was already announced. The utilities allowance had already been announced. The National Disability Strategy is a new program that had not been announced—and I commend it—but the problem is that the $7.7 million over four years is not new money. It is coming out of the existing FaHCSIA department.

The $100 million for ageing carers had already been announced. The carers bonus—which caused this government so much angst so early in the year—was only a single-year measure, from my reading of the budget papers, and they have failed to commit to the continuation of that through the budget papers. This leaves carers in a state of distress, and they are certainly raising that in a number of press releases that have come across my desk today.

There is respite brokerage for older carers as well. The problem we have with some of these announcements is that the funding has now gone directly from a Commonwealth oriented focus, from non-government organisations or organisations that can actually deliver services, to a very clearly dysfunctional, inefficient state government service delivery system. I say that because, in the numerous consultations I have had with organisations supporting those with disabilities and their carers, they have all raised with me the difficulties they have experienced within the state systems. In the state systems, under the current CSTDA, the service providers are also the funding providers for a lot of non-government organisations, and I think this raises a serious concern. Effectively, you have the person who is going to be providing the money providing a competitive service also.

This government promised to fast-track the CSTDA after an extension late last year. In fact, the first extension was in about June last year, when the state Labor governments refused to negotiate and walked out after 20 minutes with the previous government. In December, it was re-announced there would be a further extension until June. Disappointingly, because it was identified as a priority and a fast-track requirement for this government, it was flushed out through the press that this agreement still has not been reached and will be extended once again, leaving people in limbo. There was a much-vaunted $1 billion contribution to the CSTDA, of which—of course—$900 million was simply the reallocation of the previous government’s promises.

We have, effectively, a budget about nothing. It is a budget in which paper has been shuffled and funds have been reallocated to suit an agenda which is not really in the public interest. It is an agenda that is in the interests of specific target markets of the Labor Party. I say that because, in the public interest, we want to ensure that there is a strong commitment to families, we want to ensure that our most disadvantaged people are actually looked after, we want to make sure that there are jobs available and we want to ensure that we have efficient, open and transparent government operations. None of those things are taking place under this government.

In my own state of South Australia, there are any number of concerns. The government boasted of—or inherited, I should really say—a surplus of around $20 billion, and proudly boasted last night they were going to have $21.7 billion in surplus and they were going to earmark that for infrastructure. Infrastructure is, of course, a commendable project, but we have to recognise that this allocation of funds can only come on the back of the work done by the previous government, in which various funds were set up—not least of all to pay off Labor’s historic $96 billion debt that we inherited as a former government. We set up funds to ensure the solvency of funding public sector superannuation, we organised the Higher Education Endowment Fund, we organised a Communications Fund, and some of these have been raided already or attempted to be raided by this administration—the Future Fund, as I mentioned. They are plopping some of the money into another fund and badging it all as their own. But they have failed miserably to support any number of areas with this $21 billion surplus.

Let me touch on a few of those areas that are relevant to my state of South Australia. Mr Rudd made a number of promises. He made a promise that Defence health clinics would be built in Edinburgh and Elizabeth North. The outcome? It is a broken promise. The centres are being provided in other states but the clinics promised for Edinburgh and Elizabeth North have been cancelled. There was a promise of $500 million for South Road. I did not see much mention of the $500 million figure in the budget, but there is a figure of $12.6 million in planning funds in this budget. So there is only a shortfall of $487.4 million. There was a commitment for $451 million towards Adelaide’s Northern Expressway. Unfortunately, it falls a little short there—about $391 million short, because only $60 million appears in this budget. There was a promise of $7 million for the Victor Harbor Road, but only half a million dollars has been allocated for planning funds in this budget. There was $10 million identified among the promises of the Rudd campaign for teaching and clinical training infrastructure at Flinders Medical Centre. I cannot find any reference to funding in the current budget papers. There was $160 million promised for a desalination plant in the upper Spencer Gulf. I cannot find any funding for this in the budget papers. And on it goes: lots of community organisations miss out. They were counting on this money and very important infrastructure projects.

This government has claimed to have already delivered on its election promises. The reality is that the budget shows a whole host of broken promises. That is why I say that this is really a budget about nothing. It is a budget about spin—in fact, this government is all about spin, and manufacturing issues and areas of contention to divert the focus away from some of the failings that have already become so apparent. The budget falls flat in so many areas. Carers and people with disabilities in this country deserve far better. I say that because the direct transfer of funds from the disability assistance package to the states and territories effectively symbolises that this government is washing its hands of delivering disability services to those who are the most vulnerable in our society. This budget pours millions of dollars into inefficient state and territory governments that have consistently failed to deliver important services. National Disability Services said today that this year’s budget ‘was never likely to be the one that brought home the bacon for the disability sector’. I ask you: if you can’t bring home the bacon for the most vulnerable in our community when you are running a $21.7 billion surplus, when can you do it? It is the cause of very great concern to those who are amongst the most vulnerable in our society. I would hope that in future budgets there will be more substance and less spin, because the Australian people deserve a great deal better.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to contribute to some of the commentary that I have sat here and listened to over the last half hour from senators opposite. I must say how very, very disappointing it is to hear the commentary coming from the opposition. For the first time in 12 years a budget was delivered from savings and will be met by savings, not by throwing out bundles and buckets of money as the previous government did to get elected at any cost. No matter the sensibility, no matter the durability, no matter the ability to fund into the future, the previous government’s approach to the budget was to just throw it out, announce it and look no further than the next election.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bernardi interjecting—

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You, Senator Bernardi, through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, are being very mischievous, as are your colleagues, in your comments.

The week before last I had the privilege of being in that wonderful part of Australia called the Pilbara—with which you, Mr Acting Deputy President Lightfoot, are very familiar. The Pilbara has generated bucketloads of wealth for this country. No less than $28 billion came out of the federal seat of Kalgoorlie in royalties to Canberra for the year 2005-06. Where did that money go? It did not go back into the Pilbara in infrastructure, whether it be hard or soft. I take my hat off to the Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, in committing to Infrastructure Australia to fix up that gross situation we found ourselves in as a country in greatly underinvesting in our infrastructure. Senator Bernardi and senators opposite have the audacity to sit there and belittle the Rudd Labor government and the budget that was delivered last night by the Treasurer. I take my hat off to the Treasurer. What a wonderful budget! I praise the Treasurer. It has been left up to the Rudd Labor government to fix up the misdemeanours of 12 years of Howard conservative rule, of throwing money at anything that would get them through to the next election.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz interjecting—

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz, welcome to the debate! I look forward to hearing your comments, Senator Abetz. If the last three years, the time I have been in this chamber, are any indication, I am sure the rhetoric from Senator Abetz will not change. If you have no value to add to this conversation, the best advice I could give to senators opposite is that it is probably better to keep your heads low because, when you look at the commentary coming from the media this morning, you will see no less than Heather Ridout from the Australian Industry Group and Mr Henderson from the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry praising the Rudd Labor government’s budget. It is delivering. I ask senators opposite to take note: however long you may find yourselves sitting on that side, Mr Rudd and Mr Swan delivered on election promises—not ‘core’ promises, not ‘non-core’ promises. Election promises were all funded and committed to.

I will go back to the issue of the Pilbara. I would like to talk about all the money that has come out of that region. I listened to a speech from Senator Eggleston yesterday. He even strengthened my belief that that area of Australia, which generates so much wealth for the Commonwealth, has been absolutely raped and pillaged over the years.

When we talk about Infrastructure Australia being needed to fix up the bottlenecks, whether they be at our ports or on our roads, they were created by those opposite when in government and were major factors in putting upward pressure on interest rates. At least the Rudd Labor government is taking the steps to place Australia’s future in very safe hands with a very fiscally responsible budget that was delivered in this great parliament last night. On that note, I will cease my remarks.