Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 6 Hansard (16 May) . . Page.. 1711 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

What is the context in which the priorities were reordered? Three years ago the Commonwealth Treasurer, Mr Costello, forecast for this financial year a budget surplus of $13 billion to $14 billion dollars. In the space of three years an anticipated budget surplus of $13 billion to $14 billion was reduced to a deficit of $1.2 billion. And we are asked to applaud this budget as recognition of the sound financial management that heralds the stewardship of the nation by the federal Liberals. Turning an anticipated $13 billion deficit around in three years to produce a $1.2 billion deficit is not the sign of a government or a Treasurer that is managing appropriately.

I characterised the budget as mean for those reasons. I characterised it as tricky for the fine print or the print that is not there. I went into this in some detail in question time yesterday in the context of how the ACT has been explicitly excluded from the additional Commonwealth funds for GPs and GP services, despite the fact that the latest Productivity Commission report on the state of government expenditure identifies the ACT as a place with severe pressures in relation to the number of GPs per capita.

I also explained in some detail the basis on which it seems almost certain that the federal government has excluded the ACT as a region that will benefit from radiation oncology. I hope that that is not the case and that the budget is simply silent on how the regions that will be selected for radiation oncology funding will be identified. But on experience we are nervous about that.

As Ms Gallagher explained, there is also a whole range of smoke and mirrors tricks or achievements in relation to the new arrangements for disability pensions. The proposal to convert a couple of hundred thousand disability pensions to the dole over the next couple of years requires a major jump in our understanding of the responsibilities of governments and the community to people who are disadvantaged.

The proposal to convert 200,000 or more recipients of disability pensions to dole applicants comes at the significant cost of $52 per fortnight. That is why it is being done. It is being done in the most patronising terms. Senator Vanstone's letter explaining why the disability pension would be removed and disability pension holders required to apply for the dole is one of the most offensive and patronising documents you will ever see from a disability minister. It says that people who have a disability and are currently receiving a disability pension will be required to apply for the dole in their interests. The disability minister is telling disability pension holders that they are being asked to go on the dole because the government thinks it is in their best interests. It is in their interests that they be forced to apply for the dole! It is in the context of those significant changes to the way we deal with issues around disabilities that we can characterise this budget as extremely tricky.

I think we all view with some cynicism the government's promotion of this budget as its first attempt to address the intergenerational report, which it is now propounding as a visionary blueprint for the future. It is almost as if the federal government had suddenly woken up to the fact that we are a rapidly ageing population. It is something we talk about in this place probably every time we meet. All communities are facing a major issue in the ageing of the population. I talk about it constantly. It is of concern that Mr Costello has just discovered that this is a major issue. Once again, one cannot help avoiding the feeling that it is all about explaining the major cuts to health and to welfare.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .