David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Resources and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of answers given today to questions without notice relating to Budget 2008-09.

One of the things that I want to stress in taking note of answers given today to questions about the budget is that a good budget, as we have seen in 10 consecutive years under Mr Costello, achieves three things: firstly, it is fiscally responsible; secondly, it focuses upon assisting those who are most in need; and, thirdly, it provides a vision for the future. This budget, as delivered by Treasurer Swan, increases expenditure by $34 billion over the next five years—and this is under the umbrella of Mr Swan fighting the inflation dragon. Thirty-four billion dollars is one of the greatest pieces of government expenditure this country has ever seen, on top of a $22 billion surplus, which is almost entirely delivered by the efforts of the previous Howard government.

Taxes are increased in this budget by $19 billion. If that is not inflationary, I do not know what possibly could be. But, worse than that, unemployment is increased by 134,000. One hundred and thirty-four thousand might not sound like much when you say it quickly, but it is bigger than the crowd at the grand final at the MCG in September. It is a hell of a lot of people. I also note that not only is unemployment increased by this budget but also, hidden away in Budget Paper No. 1 on page 2-5, interest rates are foreshadowed to increase into 2009. I will quote the words on page 2-5 of Budget Paper No. 1:

The unemployment rate is forecast to rise to 4¾ per cent by the June quarter 2009, as conditions in the labour market ease. This reflects an easing in non-farm GDP growth due to slower global growth, tighter credit conditions and higher interest rates.

Higher interest rates are foreshadowed into 2009. Those famous working families that this budget seeks to protect ought to realise that they are well and truly in the sights of a failed fiscal policy by Treasurer Swan.

This budget throws fuel on the flames of inflation. Food and petrol prices will increase. The head of the School of Taxation at the University of Sydney, in commenting on Labor’s new $2.5 billion tax on crude oil concentrate, said:

Last night they—

Labor—

brought in a tax on condensate ... So that’s quite significant. So that’ll feed through to petrol prices.

I repeat: ‘That will feed through to petrol prices.’ It is absolutely outrageous that we would see $2.5 billion raised through removing the exemption on condensate from fuel excise. Richard Ellis, from the Petroleum Production and Exploration Association, said that the ‘goalposts have been shifted without any consultation’. This is a plundering of oil and gas projects in Western Australia. Oil and gas exploration is under assault by this government to the tune of $2.5 billion. This year it was estimated that that measure would raise only $500 million. Prior to the election, the Labor Party had a policy which said that they would defend energy security in Australia. To impose a tax on companies that are seeking to find oil for Australia is a completely ridiculous way to go about securing Australia’s energy future. It is an absolute disgrace.

This budget fails the fiscal responsibility test. It talks about $40 billion being spent on the Future Fund, a $22 billion surplus, increasing spending by $34 billion, raising $2.5 billion from oil and gas condensate exemptions, but not one cent has been given to pensioners. I think it is an absolute scandal that, in all of this spending—$34 billion—not one red cent has been given to people who have an extremely fixed source of income on a week by week or month by month basis. (Time expired)

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This budget delivers in a way that budgets brought down by those opposite never did. This budget actually delivers on the Labor government’s election commitments. We do not differentiate between core and non-core promises. We took a series of commitments to the Australian people, and this budget is the down payment that delivers on each and every one of our commitments. The budget that was delivered last night by Treasurer Swan is about building a strong economy, maintaining as strong an economy as possible, for the working families of our nation. It is also a budget for the long term. It is not a short-term, electoral cycle fix; it is a budget for the long term.

It is a budget that is built around taking the rewards of the once-in-a-lifetime boom in states like my home state of Western Australia to ensure that future generations get to benefit from that boom—that is, that the money from that boom is not just put into a short-term political fix but delivers in the long term for future generations. It is a budget that, as I said, rightly targets Australia’s working families. It actually delivers on the commitments that we made to those working families in November last year. It delivers on increasing the childcare rebate and it pays it to those working families in a timely manner. The rebate goes up by some 20 per cent and is paid quarterly. You do not get paid only 30 per cent perhaps years down the track anymore. This government understands the financial pressure that working families are under and is doing what it can to assist them in that. It is a budget that delivers on increasing the childcare rebate and delivers it to families when they need it most. It delivers on the commitment that we made to increase the baby bonus and delivers it to working families—not the multimillionaires that live in parts of Perth or Sydney but to hardworking Australian families that are under financial pressure. They are quite rightly the focus of this government’s energies and efforts.

It is a budget that delivers on the tax cuts that we promised the Australian people. No core and non-core promises for us—every commitment that we took to the Australian people and that we made to them in November last year, we are starting to deliver on. But what this budget also does is to make sure that every new dollar of spending by this government on its priorities—on the priorities that it took to the Australian people and on which they gave us the mandate to deliver—is actually matched by spending cuts. By doing that and by ensuring that we carry on a very large surplus, this budget also makes sure that the government joins the Reserve Bank in the fight against inflation. For too long, the Reserve Bank has had to grapple with that incredible problem—the pressure that it puts on working families—all on its own. Where were those opposite? They were out there throwing money all around the countryside in a most irresponsible manner to try to buy themselves out of a problem.

This is a long-term plan from this government. It is a good budget. It is a sound budget. As I said, it starts to deliver on each and every one of our election commitments. To prove that it is a budget for the long term, last night Treasurer Swan announced the establishment of three new funds that will help to address the long-term challenges in the Australian community and in the Australian economy. It will take the income that we are making from the resource-rich states like my own and put it into the Building Australia Fund, which will actually help us address those long-term infrastructure needs and infrastructure bottlenecks in Australia. It will put money into the Education Investment Fund so that we can ensure that our education sector is well resourced and supported and so that we can continue to train young Australians and prepare them for the jobs of the future rather than just provide a short-term fix.

The budget sends a very clear signal that we are going to put our shoulder to the wheel and work with the state and territory governments to try to address the massive challenges in our health system. (Time expired)

Alan Eggleston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Webber said that the Labor Party is going to govern for all Australians. One group they are not governing for is the people of regional Australia, yet the wealth of Australia is very largely produced in the regions by the farming community and the minerals sector. This budget has demonstrated more than anything else in Labor’s record so far that Labor’s focus is basically on their metropolitan base—the western suburbs of Sydney. There are a lot of seats there, but I assure you that you do not see too many farmers or rural people there.

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There’s a bit of a focus on Bennelong!

Alan Eggleston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sure that Bennelong is very important. Now Labor has won Bennelong, Bennelong will do very well. But I will tell you what will not do very well: the regional seats in Queensland and WA. They will not do very well, while Bennelong will prosper. The 2008 budget has seen some of the most valuable funding programs and support programs for regional and rural communities axed by this metro-centric government. For example, the Regional Partnerships program has been axed. One hundred and sixteen projects which had been approved by the coalition prior to the election will not be going ahead. These projects include community centres, hospitals, meeting halls, sporting facilities, surf rescue boats and even support for the Royal Flying Doctor Service, which is a vital service to people in rural and remote areas of Australia.

In the agricultural sector, other programs have been axed. In fact, in total, some $334 million of programs for the agricultural sector have been axed in this budget—the ‘Bennelong budget’, we might call it. These programs include the Agriculture Advancing Australia program—which itself included Advancing Agricultural Industries, a $33 million program that has been cut; the FarmBis program, a $37.1 million cut; and the Farm Help program, a $97.14 million cut. Other programs cut include the Growing Regions program, which the coalition created to fund infrastructure projects in growing regional communities. In addition, the New Industries Development Program was also cut, which is a big blow to regional food producers and processors—and it might even affect the people of Bennelong if they cannot get their vegetables.

An important program which Labor has not replaced is the coalition’s broadband program. Our $959 million OPEL program was designed to bring fast broadband to all Australians. It simply has not been replaced. All that Labor has done is extend the $271 million Broadband Guarantee, which is not going to do what the OPEL program would have done in terms of providing broadband services throughout this country.

We have just heard from the previous speaker that Labor is committed to good health services. I would just like to quote the president of the Rural Doctors Association of Australia, who said in a press release today:

The Rural Doctors Association of Australia (RDAA) is extremely disappointed that the Rudd Government has largely ignored the health needs of rural communities in its first budget, with very little additional funding allocated to get rural health off life support and increase the number of health professionals in rural and remote Australia.

He goes on to say:

Of great concern to RDAA is the fact that a crucial, cost-effective rural rescue package put forward by RDAA and the AMA to get, and keep, more doctors in rural Australia has not been funded.

Need I say more about Labor’s commitment to improved health services in rural Australia?

Kevin Rudd has proved himself to be a true son of the ALP—a metrocrat, focused on Labor’s support base in metropolitan Australia. Yet, as I said, the wealth of Australia comes from the country, and it is time that Mr Rudd and the ALP paid due recognition to that fact and to the needs of regional Australia. It will never happen under this government because this government is a metropolitan-focused and based government.

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have just heard three senators in the taking note debate—all three of them from Western Australia. One of them got the arguments absolutely correct—that was Senator Ruth Webber. The two other senators from that great state of Western Australia were completely wrong. Looking around the chamber, I am assuming we will have a third coalition senator from Western Australia speaking after me.

As much as I love the state of Western Australia, this was a budget for all Australians—wherever they live, wherever they work, wherever they raise their families. A budget for all Australians is something that we have not seen in this country for 12 years. It is a budget that recognises the financial pressures that working families are under and delivers for them.

It is a budget that is fiscally responsible. I go back to Senator Johnston’s remark when he opened up this debate. He said that one of the important features of a budget has to be fiscal responsibility. Fancy having that said from the opposition who, when they were in government, presided over 12 interest rate rises in a row. This from an opposition that, when they were in government, presided over the biggest explosion of government spending; over the biggest increases in levels of household debt, personal debt and mortgage debt ever in the history of this country. They presided over the highest level of the current account deficit ever in this country, yet they have the hide to talk to us about fiscal responsibility. If they had been fiscally responsible, we would not have the inflation crisis in this country that this government has inherited and has had to address.

The other aspects that were raised by the honourable senators from the opposition were about looking after families. If there is one thing that this budget does, it is to look after Australian families. This has already been referred to by Senator Webber. We have made improvements for families in respect of access to childcare. We have made improvements in education. We have ensured that people on $50,000 to $100,000 are no longer considered to be on high incomes, therefore having to pay the Medicare surcharge. I could go on and on. There is a whole raft of them—page after page of improvements that will assist working families in this country who are being hardest hit by the inflationary crisis and by the other pressures that are coming both domestically and internationally.

The other aspect, of course, is about planning and building for the future. I was trying to think of one regional project—one national project of any significance—that was commenced and built under the previous government, and I could only think of one. It was a regional project—the Alice Springs to Darwin railway line. It was the only one I can think of in the 12 years. We have established, of course, the $20 billion Building Australia Fund.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There was the Beaudesert Rail!

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Beaudesert Rail—yes, the regional partnership rort. That train never even ran. We have the $20 billion Building Australia Fund, the $11 billion Education Investment Fund and the $10 billion Health and Hospitals Fund—all about planning and building for the future.

If you read all the commentaries from the various spokespersons from right across the spectrum of organisations in this country—from the NRMA, to the students, to health, to welfare, to defence, to business and the union movement—all are complimenting this government. I do not have time to read them all out, but they are all listed in today’s Canberra Times. I finish with a comment, because it was raised by Senator Eggleston, that was made by David Crombie from the National Farmers Federation. He said:

The federal budget addresses major challenges Australian agriculture must overcome to provide food for Australians and the world—a changing climate, chronic skills shortages, inefficient transport and communications networks, and water reform.

This is a great budget for farmers. (Time expired)

Ross Lightfoot (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will not use much of my time to rebut that which the speakers on the other side have said about previous coalition governments but to say this: after the Howard government, Australians have never been better off. They have never been wealthier. There have never been more people in employment. We had never been debt free. We do not now have that yoke of 11 per cent unemployment around our neck that the previous Labor government created; or the $10 billion Beazley black hole that we inherited when we came into government in 1996; or the $97 billion debt that we had, which we abolished during the time that we were here; or the 10 per cent inflation rate that we had when we came into government; or the 22 per cent interest rates that we had under Labor.

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was when Howard was the Treasurer!

Ross Lightfoot (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It does not matter what you say. The spin you put on it would make Goebbels blush. If he could read what you have said today, the Goebbelsian propaganda that has come out of here would make Goebbels blush. They say the budget is committed to ‘slaying the dragon of inflation’ and yet the first element in trying to keep inflation under control—

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I am loath to interrupt the senator but I was just thinking about this. I do not worry at all about most of what comes from the other side but I think to describe what other senators have said in this place as ‘Goebbelsian propaganda’ goes a bit beyond the pale. I would ask Senator Lightfoot to withdraw that remark because it is offensive.

Ross Lightfoot (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

‘Goebbelsian’ is a term that is often expressed for someone who amplifies propaganda, or ‘spin’, as it is called today. It is quite an acceptable term. It is meant to be insulting because, to insult the people of Australia with this type of talk is Goebbelsian.

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lightfoot, I do not want to split hairs on this one. I really think it might be better if you withdraw the remark. There is another connotation to that word that goes to the regime it was associated with. I understand the intention of what you are trying to get across but I think it might be easier just to withdraw it.

Ross Lightfoot (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will defer to you, Mr Deputy President, and I withdraw. I did not realise that those on the other side who have inherited the Treasury benches were so thin-skinned. But let me read from those papers that more often than not support the Labor Party people and their causes. The left-leaning daily of Melbourne, the Agesometimes compared with the UK Guardiansaid about the budget:

... this is not the nutcracking budget that Peter Costello brought down in his first years as treasurer.

That was written by Malcolm Maiden. And again from Tim Colebatch of the Age:

Is it economically responsible? You bet. Visionary? Not really. Will it ... solve any of Australia’s problems? No.

What about the Australian? The Australian is a very good daily—perhaps the best daily that Australia has, nationally or state-wise. Jennifer Hewett in the Australian said that the ‘Spending slayer’ is ‘more a prodder’. Again the Australian refers to ‘Swan lite’—the latter aspect of that phrase referring to Swan light beer, not a bad beer from Western Australia—with the headline ‘Swan lite on inflation measures’. It is a good play on words. Again in the Australian Lenore Taylor writes that ‘Wayne Swan ... morphs into a Dickensian Fagin’. Again from the Australian: ‘Jobless queues to grow in hard times’. That was from David Uren, who inherited the name of a very famous Labor minister from this parliament some years ago. The Australian editorial today is entitled ‘Swan-lite effort comes up short’ and it states:

It is a ... budget that draws heavily from the work of Mr Costello and lacks courage both on reform and in deep cuts to spending.

To quote the Sydney Morning Herald:

Swan is out to curb inflation but is he creating a monster he can’t control?

And again:

Swan ... talks tough ... yet it is a budget that actually squibs the fight.

And again, the editorial headline in the Sydney Morning Herald reads: ‘A budget that is all about appearances’. It goes on to say, ‘The first surprise is that there were so few surprises.’ The ultimate paragraph in the editorial of the Sydney Morning Herald says:

Overall, the budget bears all the signs of having been put together by image makers, not economic managers. It ticks neatly every box Labor set up for itself during the election, and goes not a step further. That is why it looks complacent. Perhaps it is true that Australia has never had it so good. In his first budget, though, Mr Swan may have just made it harder for things to stay that way.

The budget actually hurts those people who have made it, people like myself, who came from very modest backgrounds. And other people who came from modest backgrounds and have made it are now being sort of segregated out. I do not like to use the term ‘Robin Hood’, but they are being robbed to give to the poor. It is all incentive to be poor these days. This is what you have stepped out on. There is not much incentive to go for it, to have a go. This is the most wonderful country, and I am afraid that the incentive is not there.

The big mistake with the budget is that profligate spending is already part of the ethos of this government. Spending is 1.1 per cent greater than it was last year, which equals hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars more. How can you curb inflation if you are a big spender? The Labor governments that I have lived under in the 50 years that I have been in this party were not good in handling the till. The lesson has been learnt: keep the Labor Party away from the federal till; they are not a good combination.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to comment on the answers from Senator Conroy, the Minister representing the Treasurer, to my questions about the failure of the government last night to increase pensions in the budget. Senator Conroy said that the budget reforms will deliver to those who are most in need. That underlines the failure of the government to realise the terrible financial circumstances that so many pensioners in Australia are in. It is simply not true that the budget delivers to those who are most in need. The tax cuts will deliver $31 billion over coming years principally, and disproportionately, to people who are already wealthy and do not need it the most at all. However, those pensioners who are on $273 a week get not one measly dollar increase in that income under the budget. Sure, there are new indexation arrangements, but they will perhaps lead to marginally increased pensions down the line when everybody else who is earning an income, certainly those people on higher incomes, will outstrip them enormously again.

I am really concerned for pensioners. The Greens have been campaigning for some years for an increase in pensions while noting that since 1993 there has been no real increase in the pensions being delivered to more than one million Australians, the senior members of the working families of this country, who have been left out of the budget. Sure, there are one-off payments for telecommunications and power bills and a $500 one-off payment, as we saw in the last couple of Howard and Costello budgets. But these are not going to give pensioners the assurance that they can budget to live reasonably in a world of rapidly rising food costs, transport costs, rental costs and health costs, to name just a few.

In my supplementary question I quoted from a letter from a Tasmanian pensioner who is now 79 and will be 80 next February. This pensioner pointed out that they twice had operations on their eyes—maybe it was for cataracts—and it cost them $2,680. In their own handwriting, they said:

Because I couldn’t afford medical benefits, I had to save for months.

This pensioner said that they go to the grocery store and can only look at most of the things on the shelves because they cannot afford to buy them. They cannot afford meat, they cannot afford petrol, they cannot afford tyres and they certainly cannot afford to have their car serviced—let alone a new hot-water system or repairs to their hot-water system or new clothes, shoes or spectacles. This senior Australian said:

It would be nice to get a gardener to get rid of the weeds, but that’s out of the question. It’s what I call a starvation diet.

This pensioner is not alone in this. I have had many handwritten letters from pensioners all over this country outlining their budgets, and today on talkback radio the phones have been running hot with calls from pensioners. I find it quite extraordinary that the opposition is not leading the charge on this. I ask the opposition to consider this matter because many Liberal Party and National Party voters are affected. In opposition, maybe you will be freer to take up the cudgels to get a fair go for pensioners in this country.

I was amazed that last night, in a budget from a social justice Labor government, there was not even a $1 increase for pensioners, who are living under extraordinary pressure. Simple things like going to the pictures or buying gifts for family, let alone going to visit grandkids or other members of the family, become out of reach for pensioners. Do those of us who are on high incomes understand what that means? There is a disjunction between the body politic and these million-plus Australians who are in so much need. Senator Conroy was wrong to say that those most in need are being helped by this budget. Those most in need include these pensioners—indeed, a good many carers have been left out of this budget.

I appeal to the government to review this situation urgently. Pensioners are hurting. The pensioners union is calling, as a starting point, for the singles pension to be increased from 59 per cent of the pension for couples to 66 per cent. The Greens have been campaigning for a $30 to $100 a week increase. That could be facilitated simply out of this current round of tax cuts, and you would have change left over. There is a $27 billion budget surplus, so the country has enormous potential at the moment to give something to pensioners. I appeal to the government to look at this very serious hardship that is being visited upon so many Australians needlessly. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.