Mr LEO McLEAY (9:35 PM) —I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2002-03. It is sad to listen to someone who has gone through a metamorphosis. I remember the member for Parkes when he was, I think, the President of the New South Wales Farmers Association. He was a very strong advocate for people in rural Australia. In that incarnation, he understood the plight of people on the land. When you look at the city-country divide in this country, poor people in the country are far worse off than poor people in the city. But since the member for Parkes has become a member of the parliament, rather than as a National Party backbencher—

Mr Gavan O'Connor —Since he's become a Lib.

Mr LEO McLEAY —Like most members of the National Party, he has become a Liberal in gumboots. The parliamentary secretary at the table was never stupid enough to join the National Party, even though they wanted him to.

Mr Gavan O'Connor —They used to stand for something.

Mr LEO McLEAY —He had a better standard. National Party members, prior to their positions in this parliament, were proper farmers' advocates and had a thing to say about what people on the land needed, particularly people who live in the small country towns. Now you see them come into the House and say that a dollar extra on people's prescriptions does not matter much. It probably does not matter much to a member of parliament who is earning over $100,000 a year but, for the constituents of the member for Parkes, particularly the poor farmers whom he used to represent—and now he is walking out of the chamber—if they have two or three things wrong with them, a dollar per script represents a fair bit of money. There is nothing worse than National Party members, who out there on the stump are okay, but as soon as they get in here become Liberals in gumboots and forget the lot, figuring that they are now on $100,000 a year as a member of parliament, so the rest of the poor little people in the bush can go to hell. At least the parliamentary secretary reckoned everyone could go to hell; he did not care about them one way or the other. He has a little more credit going for him. I cannot help liking him, too, which is one of my sins rather than his.

This budget has not been a good budget for anyone. It certainly has not been a good budget for people in this country who are not well off. In the 22 years I have been in parliament I have not seen such a budget that attacks those least able to protect themselves. I did not think that I would find a budget that attacked the disabled, a budget that attacked those who are terribly sick, or a budget that basically says, `We haven't been able to identify a threat to Australia, but we're going to put a lot of money into defence.' Unfortunately, the people who are going to make the sacrifice are those at the bottom end of the scale. We will have some nice little tax cuts for people like the member for Parkes who are on high salaries. They will not have to pay as much on their superannuation levy— at least they think that, but we will not let that get through the Senate. We are giving tax cuts to the rich and imposts to the poor— a traditional Liberal government budget, one might think. Even in the past I did not see the Libs be as bad as that. To find new members coming in here who are apologists for things like this is just a little bit hard to take.

When we were debating the additional estimates for 2001-02, I was struck by the bits-and-pieces ordinariness of those bills. There was nothing in them that grabbed the imagination and nothing to inspire us or to give a lift to the Australian people. Often, the additional estimates are where governments come good—they have been naughty in the budget but they realise that they ought to put a bit of a lift back into the system. The additional estimates are where you find a bit of decency. But not this time—it was dull, plodding stuff. So what do we have now? We have more of the same—another unimaginative, uninspiring group of budget bills. They are hardly likely to bring much joy to anyone in the community, but they are very likely to bring unhappiness to those who are less well off.

The budget was introduced by the Treasurer with references to the war on terrorism and the depressing events of the previous eight months. The budget speech must have had some listeners wondering what was going to be announced next—war with Germany or something like that. He had some listeners thinking that they were listening to one of those 1939 broadcasts. They must have thought that war was about to be declared—in some ways I suppose it was, given the commitment of our troops in Afghanistan, our obligations under the ANZUS alliance and the fact that we were facing a time of increasing austerity.

We would all be asked to tighten our belts, according to the Treasurer, and to make do with less for the sake of the cause—Australia et cetera. No doubt those references were intended to set the scene for what was to come in his speech: to justify the expenditure on defence and security, for example, to be paid for by cuts to other programs—welfare programs. The poor would pay, as they usually do in these circumstances. It was very depressing and I am not sure that it achieved much, nor do I believe that it fooled the Australian people. I think that the Australian people, while acknowledging that the past year has not been a good one, in many ways would like to go forward without being constantly reminded of past events, horrific as they were.

It was a strange way to begin a budget speech, and not in my view an appropriate way. People look to governments for leadership and a positive attitude. They look to the budget speech as one of the most important speeches made in parliament each year. The budget establishes the financial context for the coming year and it sets out the government's agenda. Just look at the amount of media interest it attracts. That media interest is generated in response to the interest of the public. The Treasurer had a captive audience that night. What did he do this year? He spent time delivering a lesson about the state of the world, focusing on doom and gloom— doom and gloom that none of us really needs to be reminded about. The government say that, in all the assessments that they make, there is no threat to Australia. But the government use it as a mechanism for tightening our belts and delivering on the surplus that they had squandered. As we are all aware, it was just another tactic to enable the Treasurer to put forward yet another miserable budget.

The so-called Intergenerational Report is another odd document which the Treasurer decided to feature as part of this year's budget package. It also seems to be designed as part of a softening-up process. You can see the government's tacticians' minds ticking—`Let's give them a bit of a blast on the ageing of the population and the low birth rate, then we will identify the emerging issues associated with an ageing population and then they will have to accept some proposals which try to address the problems resulting from looking after an increasing number of aged, sick and disadvantaged et cetera.' The budget is a bit of a mixed bag on those matters. It claims to be addressing their needs but I am not convinced that their needs are being addressed—quite the opposite in fact. Look at the reaction from the disabled and organisations representing them.

Unlike what the member for Parkes says—his electorate must be different from everybody else's—we have all received messages from people who have been done in the eye by this budget. We have all seen reports in the media about the inequities that will be produced by the proposed changes to the disabled pension eligibility. By altering the work test for recipients of the disability pension from a minimum of 30 hours a week to a minimum of 15 hours a week the government will force genuinely disabled Australians to lose up to $52 a fortnight in payments and access to other benefits. If they do work, they could face a marginal effective tax rate of up to 80c in the dollar. It is outrageous to even try to make out that this measure will help people with disabilities. However, the government and ministers go out and tell that blatant untruth.

Far from encouraging people with disabilities to find work, this measure is a real disincentive to working more than 15 hours a week. It will have the opposite effect to what the government intend and it will be a terrible thing to visit upon people with disabilities who, more than any others, want to try and contribute and do their very best to become part of the community. This government are now going to sock them right in the hip pocket. They are going to give the disabled a hard choice to make: whether to try to overcome their disability and get back into the work force or to take a drop in the disability pension.

Look at the reaction to the proposed changes to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme by pensioners and others at the lower end of the income spectrum. They are justifiably worried and confused. The reaction of my constituents has been entirely different from that of the member for Parkes. No-one has rung my office to say, `Well, another $1 a week, what do I care?' I suppose if you were earning over $100,000 a year, as a member of parliament does, maybe you would not care all that much. However, if you are on the pension, you care a lot. If you are on a low income and you have a sick child, you care a lot. If you are struggling with a husband or wife who has a debilitating disease which means they need three or four different types of medication, you care a lot. To gratuitously say that an extra $1 a week is not much is just not to understand the situation at all.

Some commentators have questioned the government's research behind the Intergenerational Report, which is the government's next move on Australians. There is certainly not universal agreement among the experts in this field about what will happen. The threatened unimaginable bill for the taxpayers of the future may never eventuate. I believe that the government are taking a particularly pessimistic view, because that suits them, of the future and demands that might be placed on the welfare budget in order to justify the harsh budgetary measures in this year's budget. It is rather interesting that the Treasurer has brought this forward now. The report has been before the government for some time and there has been discussion for some years about the effect of the changing age profile of Australia. However, all of a sudden, when we have one of the worst budgets we have seen in the last decade, the government trot out this shock horror: no-one is going to be able to fund the baby boomers. The government are just overestimating the case.

To put a human face on some of the proposed budget measures, I would like to tell you about one of my constituents. As it is not question time, I can get into the specifics. This particular lady contacted my electorate office. She was most concerned about the cost of prescriptions. While the member for Parkes and other members of the government are not concerned about that, this ordinary Australian had a problem with that. She needs eight separate medications and she tells me that that is not unusual, particularly for some of the elderly in our community. Any increase in the cost of her prescriptions is not just another $1 a week; it is $8 a time. She has no choice about taking these medications. She has been prescribed them and she needs them to maintain her health at an acceptable standard. She is just one person out there who is concerned and upset about the cost of her pharmaceuticals, some of which are subsidised and some of which are not.

The government have said that the increased cost of pharmaceuticals would mean only an extra $52 a year for a pensioner. As we know from the people in our constituencies, even if it is only $52 a year, that is a significant amount of money for a pensioner. Every dollar counts when you are on a low income. It might not count when you are on $100,000 a year, but if you are on the pension, every dollar counts. However, the government do not understand that most people are on more than one prescribed medication. Sometimes they are on five or six—or eight, like my constituent. The government do not understand that when you are on a very limited income, this becomes a significant impost. It is fine if you are a healthy person who does not need medicines, but for those who are not healthy, like so many older people, it is a significant burden to have to meet the increased charges. Most of these older people have chronic illnesses. They require constant ongoing medication. They cannot afford to pay the increased costs of their prescribed pharmaceuticals.

Another example is the proposed changes to the eligibility for disability pensions. What the government are about to do is too cute by half. The government are starting to realise this themselves. Even with all their chest thumping at the beginning, and even with the speeches that government members have been making over the last few days on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2002-03, while they are defending these outrageous claims and the things the government have done, the Prime Minister is quietly and carefully preparing the ground for a backtrack.

With this government's budgets we get these big claims up front that they are going to do this, that or something else. But they misjudge public opinion every time and they backtrack a lot of the time, and we are seeing that at present. I think the government are starting to realise they have made a mistake. Labor and the community have made sure they understand that what has happened to pharmaceuticals and what has happened to the disability pension is just so outrageous that even this government, with a smokescreen of national security, are not going to be able to get away with it. That has happened so often under this government: they come up with what they think is a good idea and then they are forced to come to grips with the full implications of the policy. That is what happens when you let ideology get in the way of good sense. That is part of the problem with this government: ideology always gets in the way of good sense and then after the outrage occurs they have to fix it up. You have to wonder why the government runs into this tactic so often. You have to wonder why they did not learn the first time and get smart the second time or the third time or the fourth time. If they listened to the marginal seat holder at the table, the honourable member for Leichhardt, they might realise they should get smart the second or the third time. But they do not and that is their problem.

Ultimately, even governments full of ideology like this one have to bow to public opinion. And we all know where they are going to go: they announce draconian measures and then they seek to backtrack after they have terrified everyone. Why do they do it? Why do they want to frighten old people? Why do they want to frighten people with disabilities? Why do they want to frighten the most disadvantaged people in our community? Why don't they just come clean at the beginning? But no.

Even today we have seen yet another apparent backflip. On budget night, the Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Vanstone, was unequivocal in her threat to withhold $100 million of Commonwealth, state and territory disability agreement funding promised before the election campaign if Labor did not vote for cuts to the disability support pension. As the minister said, the increases would also be dependent on parliament passing the government legislation on disability support pension reforms. But what did we have today on the Alan Jones program—Alan Jones, the Prime Minister's ideological friend, the former Liberal candidate for the state seat of Earlwood, Malcolm Fraser's speechwriter, the man who has disgraced himself over many years? What did the Prime Minister say to the parrot today? The Prime Minister, in commenting to the parrot, said:

There we are: a backdown. He tells the parrot, the parrot tells the Sydney community and what we have once again is a budget that sets out to hurt people, and the government will have to change it. (Time expired)