Russell's Speeches

REPLY TO THE 2010 -11 BUDGET

Back to Speeches

(McMillan) (7:20 PM) —Madam Deputy Speaker, the first thing I would like to do is honour your endurance through all of these speeches that members have been putting to this House today—you have endured and endured well.
I would say to the previous speaker that as of today his government have done nothing about housing affordability. If they were prepared to take the very hard decisions that he is concerned about, there are things that they could do to make housing more affordable for young people.

However, I rise to speak in reply to the second reading of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2010-2011, in which the Treasurer spoke of framing the budget from a position of strength - notwithstanding the fact that the Labor debt is already at an all-time record and interest payments will amount to $4,600 million in 2010-11 and $6,500 million in the following year, any claims of returning to surplus at some time in the future under Labor can be put in the same category as every other Labor broken promise under Prime Minister Mr Rudd and his ministers.

This budget is wholly predicated on the prospects of a resources boom, is totally reliant on the Chinese demand for our resources and says very little about the impact of the global financial crisis engulfing the European Union in particular and the rest of the world in general. Any downturn in demand for Australia’s resources puts this entire budget strategy at considerable risk.

The Treasurer wishes to harness the profits of the resources boom to ensure a two-speed economy does not develop and disadvantage many Australians. Unfortunately, by his own admission, the two-speed economy is already a reality, and his strategies will not impact on the economy until 2013-14, if not later. This is an admission of failure by this government in not acting sooner to stem the development of a two-speed economy.
At the same time, households in Australia—ordinary men and women and families—are struggling with the ever-increasing cost of living: local government rates, water rates, health insurance and the cost of electricity in particular, and I could go on. All of these are impacting at levels exceeding the inadequate CPI and Reserve Bank measures of cost of living increases.

This budget proffers little support for Australians in the forthcoming financial year. It is entirely focused on the future—and a distant future at that. As Kenneth Davidson remarked in the Age on 24 May 2010:
"The Australian budget is very deflationary—withdrawing about $46 billion from the income-expenditure stream this financial year even though it will still be in deficit. A deflationary budget only makes sense against the Treasury forecast of accelerated growth in private spending. If this growth does not materialise, the deficit will rise …"
This was reiterated by the Treasurer at a press conference, when he said:
"What you’re not seeing is the money we didn’t spend."

As we know, small business is feeling the pinch and retail sales are falling dramatically. Housing, as the previous speaker said, is becoming increasingly unaffordable for many Australians as interest rates rise and supply pressures drive the scarcity of available properties.

Any reasonable person would have thought the budget was about the coming financial year—after all, it is the Appropriation Bill (No.1) 2010-11. Note the year; it is this year.
However, the Treasurer in his second reading speech made much of the economic outlook for Australia, and in particular, his forecast of returning to a surplus in three years.
However, according to the economics editor for the Age Ross Gittins, it is not as simple as that. He wrote on 17 May:
"The annual debate about the budget gets ever more unreal. This year it reached the height of absurdity. Budgets used to be about what the government plans to do in the coming financial year. Now they’re about what supposedly will happen any time over the next four years. How unreal can you get? Who on earth knows what will happen over the next four years? No One. Certainly not Treasury … And yet we take seriously what it says the balance will be in three or four years’ time."

I could go on, and let us not forget that an election is due before very much longer—and who knows what changes that may bring. Treasury’s forecasts might be even further tested.

The Treasurer puts much emphasis on the resources boom, yet the resources super profits tax, if it ever comes to fruition, will not be introduced until 1 July, 2012.
It will not happen in this budget year, 2010-11, which is what this bill is all about.

This new tax is being touted as the means to provide a cut in the company tax rate to 29 per cent in — wait for it —2013-14 and to 28 percent in 2014-15, which again is not in the forthcoming budget year.

Moreover, the mining tax is viewed as a catalyst for policy in all directions. The proceeds from this tax will create a new infrastructure fund. As the Treasurer noted:
"The fund will grow over time, with estimated inflows over the next decade … beginning with $700 million in 2012-13."
Again, that is not in the forthcoming budget year.

But this not the full impact of this new tax, according to the Treasurer’s speech. He said that the new tax — the RSPT — along with other measures, will strengthen the business case for new investment. He also said:
"Independent modelling indicates economy wide investment will be boosted by 2.1 per cent in the long run."
Who is the independent modeller?
In economic terms, the ‘long run’ is basically a series of 'short runs'. However, in this instance, there is neither any specific detail as to what the Treasurer means by the ‘long run’ nor what will occur in the immediate 'short run'.

The Treasurer’s optimism is certainly not shared by everyone. Max Walsh of Dixon Advisory writing in the Australian on 24 May about this new tax suggested that Prime Minister Rudd has a dated and/or cynical view of the politics of class and money in 21st century Australia. Citing the undignified burial of the ETS, the insensitive treatment of Telstra investors and the forced negotiations between Telstra and the National Broadband Network, Walsh says:
"… is fast earning Australia the harmful reputation of posing a sovereign risk to investors. We are hugely dependent on capital inflows to finance investment. Further, the global competition for capital is intense as governments around the world are running record peacetime fiscal deficits."
On 25 May, Terry McCrann asked in the Herald Sun:
"Apart from the money that’s borrowed by our banks, where does the real investment have to take place? In the resources sector that Rudd and Co are trashing so cynically and so recklessly."

The 2008-09 budget promised $1.9 billion over five years to increase and deepen the skills capacity of the Australian workforce through the Skilling Australia for the Future program. This was to deliver up to 630,000 additional training places to fill skills shortages.
A year later, in budget 2009-10, this program had become the Jobs and Training Compact which promised thousands of job placements.
In this current budget, these two programs have morphed into the new Skills for Sustainable Growth strategy. The Treasurer assured us in his budget speech that the strategy will:
"… invest $661 million in the skills of our workforce and ensure our education and training systems are flexible and responsive to our economic needs."

The newness of this program is revealed in the budget papers, which show that the strategy will be largely financed by bringing forward and redirecting funding which was previously allocated.
One could question the effectiveness of the 2008-09 and 2009-10 programs. Weren’t they responding to our needs also?

On a related matter, the Treasurer, in delivering the 2008-09 budget, proudly announced:
"Just one year ago, from the other side of this House, we promised $2.5 billion for Trade Training Centres in our schools."
To date, a number of budgets later, my understanding is that just two centres have been completed.

It is worth noting the credentials of this government. In the 2008-09 budget, the Treasurer spoke of regional and rural Australia:
"Mr Speaker, at the election we promised to be a government for all Australians. For rural and regional Australia, and for Indigenous Australia."

These are fine words, but where are rural and regional Australia in the 2010-11 Budget? Nonexistent, not mentioned, forgotten.
The Leader of the Nationals, Mr Truss, put it quite succinctly in his 11 May press release:
"For the third budget in a row, the people of regional Australia have copped it tonight … Instead of some recognition for their hard work in keeping Australia out of recession, they have been ignored or attacked."

In his 2008-09 budget speech, the Treasurer went on to say:
"We will invest $2.2 billion dollars over five years for the Caring for our Country program …"
But what has this government done—(Time expired)
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.

(McMillan) (10:00 AM) —There are two issues that go to the credibility of the Treasurer: what is said by the Treasurer on the day and what he does after that. The Treasurer said in 2008:
“We will invest $2.2 billion over five years for the Caring for our Country program …”
That was in his speech of 13 May.
But what has the government done to uphold this commitment in 2010-11? This budget cut funding for Caring for our Country by $81.3 million and ripped the heart out of Landcare, cutting it by $10.9 million. In my seat of McMillan, Landcare is an iconic organisation conducting serious work in revegetation, restoration, erosion and pest control and in improving our environment. The government has turned its back on regional communities in this regard.
I assert that the credibility of the government is in tatters. Again, the Treasurer, focusing on the future and not the present, said:
“Tonight I am announcing a further $2.2 billion investment in the health system, over five years … and over the rest of the decade.
That is why I am announcing $523 million to train and support our nurses, including in aged care and in our rural and regional communities.”
You would think that was absolutely marvellous, and I did. GP nurses were a great idea.
But what is the reality? A GP clinic has informed me in regard to the GP nurse grant that, given the number of GPs, the clinic would be granted $125,000 for the employment of nurses. As part of the grant process, the practice incentives payments under PIP plus seven other procedures which could be performed by nurses have been removed. This amounts to a total loss of $159,000 to the GP clinic. The net loss of employing the nurses then amounts to approximately $34,600. This is a major disincentive to employing the nurses. There is no logic in this program and it will do great damage rather than provide the benefits that we thought would accrue. The broader question is: is this happening in all accredited general practices and in the much touted superclinics?
I come back to Australians out there working and trying to make a go of it for their children and their loved ones. There was very little mention of them in the budget speech and no mention of rural, regional and remote Australians. But there was plenty of rhetoric about the future and the long run. When the Treasurer did mention families, he said:
“But the families I speak to—(not ‘with’)— also want more time with each other.”
So the government has decided to provide taxpayers the choice of a standard deduction instead of the hassle of shoeboxes full of receipts and the costs of professional assistance.
Let me say this: what does this achieve?
“This means less time with the Tax Pack, more time with the loved ones”— said the Treasurer.
Does a once-a-year activity translate to massively more time with loved ones?
I think not. By the way, professional assistance is tax deductible.
I now turn to the issues facing young people and I will quote from an ACCESS ministries document rather than use my own words:
The issues facing young people today are unique, as is the case for every generation. But today more than ever young people are susceptible to new forms of peer pressure that invades even the privacy of their own homes. The advent of the internet brings with it some amazing prospects, however it also has introduced a new way of interaction among young people. To some it is simply a fun way of keeping in touch. For others it is the ultimate device for inflicting misery on peers and even teachers in a very public arena. Welcome to the world of cyber-bullying.
Here is an illustration for most of us, including me, of a case of bullying:
For most of us, bullying was played out between 9 and 3 and the retreat of home was usually rapid, and we were safe, there was time out.
Imagine what it would be like, to come home from a demoralising day at school, victim of the same group of kids yet again. You come home, throw your bag in the door, you’re tired and stressed out, you’ve got heaps of homework to do. You’re so behind because you can’t concentrate in class, everything is late and the teachers are getting cross.
You turn on your computer and open up your English assignment, a little icon starts flashing on your screen, it’s impossible to ignore it, like an itch that has to be scratched. You try to concentrate on your assignment but the flashing icon requires attention, someone wants to tell you something …
You click, and to your horror you see your own name, plastered on the screen with a photo of you that is enough to make you want to die. It’s private and personal and everyone can see you, and everyone is laughing at you. They are calling you names and you bury your head in your hands, hot tears streaming down your face, humiliation, embarrassment, anger blended together. How can I face another day at school, how can I face another day of my life …
You are too embarrassed to tell your parents, there is no-one to turn to. Welcome to the world of cyber-bullying.
After a sleepless night while you checked your account every few minutes to torture yourself further with what people are saying about you, you decide there is only one thing to do.
You sneak into the school yard early, avoiding everyone, yet you feel their eyes are boring into you sniggering, you walk up the hall and find a door with one word written on it, chaplain … You walk inside, your eyes meet Sarah’s, the chaplain, and you shake uncontrollably and the tears are unstoppable.
‘There is nothing I can do,’ she says with a sad smile —
who is speaking—the chaplain or the student?
‘first things first,’ she says, ‘let me get the hot chocolate on and the comfiest chair in the house.’ It feels like a hug and you know from her smile that she’s in it with you, and you begin to feel safer, and slowly but surely the world begins to shift back into focus, perspective slowly dawns and you begin to realise the humiliation of the night is over and soon it’ll be yesterday’s news.
This is not a one in a million story. This is happening all the time in many schools across Australia. It could be the young man who delivers your paper, the girl next door—worse, it could be your daughter, your nephew or your grandchild. That is why the chaplaincy program is so important in this day and age. It is different. The coalition have committed to the program in upcoming years. I am just worried the government might not have committed to this program in upcoming years. It is crucially important; in fact, I think the program should be extended so that more schools can take the opportunity to provide chaplaincy in their schools so that that young girl and many others can go to that door and find the word ‘chaplain’.
In conclusion, as to the coalition’s announcement of refugee policy today, my views and standing on these issues are well known and documented. I take not one step back from, nor do I resile from, what I have said and that I have done. I live in hope for all people who have made this great south land their home. I stand in the absolute assurance that hope will always triumph over fear.