Ms GRIERSON (10:10 PM) —I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2002-03 that has been a shock for most people in Australia. The 2002-03 budget was not just a fiscal failure for Australia but also a failure for the people of Newcastle, who I represent in this House. After 10 years of economic growth, a low inflation rate and decreasing national unemployment figures, the best economic performance the Treasurer, Peter Costello, could achieve was a $1.2 billion deficit. To create a surplus in the coming financial year, the government will overlook Newcastle, regional Australia and sound fiscal management and will expect those who can least afford it—the aged, the chronically ill and those with disabilities—to help them out of their financial mismanagement.

This government would like us to believe that, because of new security threats, tough decisions were needed to get the economy back on track. No-one denies that this is the right time to make sure our defence and security forces are well resourced and well equipped, but securing the country and securing our future economically and socially should go hand in hand. It seems that this government only makes tough decisions after an election, but it is happy to squander our future on election sweeteners—elections sweeteners that it is now obvious we could not afford.

Costello and Howard intend to save $2 billion on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and $350 million by toughening up the eligibility criteria for disability payments. Every health card recipient will now pay $1 more each time they fill an essential prescription for the first 52 prescriptions—one prescription a week, every week of the year. Thankfully, our veterans escaped this increase. But, if you are not on a benefit, you will need to find $28.60 per prescription—an extra $6.20 each time. We will all pay more, but this measure will particularly affect families with several members needing regular medications.

In Newcastle we have a particularly high rate of respiratory disorders, and there is now very real fear that families will cut back on preventative medication because they will just not be able to afford it. The potential human suffering that could result is one our local doctors look on with dread. So everyone will pay more, whilst our pharmaceutical companies refuse to lower the prices of prescription drugs and pass on the money they saved when sales tax was removed and exemption from the GST allowed them to make even greater profits.

To top that off, the Costello budget will make it tougher for people to receive disability support payments. If they are assessed as being able to work just 15 hours a week, they will be forced on to the lower unemployment assistance payments—a reduction of up to $52 per fortnight—and they are expected, of course, to look for work. Last week in the parliament I named a constituent of Newcastle who in the last two years has applied for 175 jobs and remains unsupported by the Job Network system, and if we follow this budget we are going to put more people in this position.

Newcastle has the second highest level of disability payments in the country—not only a legacy perhaps of our industrial past, but also a direct consequence of people needing to be close to special disability support services and health care that Newcastle, the regional capital, offers. Many people with disabilities will now be expected to join the other 10 per cent of our local population competing for jobs—all for the cold comfort of knowing that the government is saving $350 million and that the Treasurer, Peter Costello, thinks that these measures `will improve their self-esteem and self-reliance'.

But there is no corresponding boost to employment and training programs or any major changes to the Job Network system. Although Job Network agencies will now have to spend a minimum of $850 per long-term unemployed person to help with their job-seeking costs, this is made possible because they failed to spend $214 million of the intensive assistance funds allocated last year. That money was not spent, because the Job Network agencies did not reach their outcome targets and did not actually put people into real jobs. So in Newcastle 22,000 people will still be looking for employment.

Another 8,500 Work for the Dole positions Australia-wide over three years and a modest bonus system for employers to take on apprentices are very poor substitutes for job creation projects, which would have been most welcomed in Newcastle. The reality for the people of Newcastle is that, for every 100 people on a Work for the Dole project, only eight will actually gain a job. Of course, while they are working for the dole, they are not undertaking training courses that perhaps could equip them better for the employment market. In an area of high unemployment with high numbers of mature age unemployed, there was no funding in this budget for regional job creation schemes targeting local needs. Incentives for business growth seemed to come from small gains in existing innovation and export programs, but support for strategic industry development is left for the states, apparently.

There was also no funding for regional infrastructure or capital projects that could boost our local economy and create much needed jobs. So the football stadium that, as Andrew Johns would say, we so dearly need—and I would agree—joins the many capital infrastructure projects on the Hunter wish list that the Howard government expects the state government and the community to pay for. There is no funding for a national transport plan to make sure regional Australia has access to the best freight and transport links. There is no funding for port development in Newcastle and there is no funding of partnerships to deliver high-speed broadband and telecommunication links to the people of Newcastle.

Budget support for regional aviation extends to the Gold Coast and Canberra, apparently, but not to Newcastle. But the Newcastle tax office may pick up some of the jobs it lost last year, with the expansion of compliance and taxation recovery units so that small and large business can be pursued for tax avoidance. It is quite ironic that small business looked forward to some gains to compensate them for the burden of GST collection that they have to bear.

As for big business, Newcastle's major employers, health and education, missed out completely. It appears no accident that financial support to these vital areas continues to decrease under the government as they pursue their mean-spirited policies that divide Australia into those who can afford private health care and private education and those who will be left with access to a far diminished public health and education sector. These measures to diminish education and health care must and will be resisted by those of us on the opposition benches. We will not stand by and allow the government to dismantle a public education system and a public health system that were the envy of the world. But each successive budget of the government makes our task so much harder.

On a first reading of the budget, there seem to be some extra GP places and higher Medicare rebates for lower income patients. But these appear to be only for GPs in outer metropolitan areas of capital cities, not regional cities. In fact, Newcastle may have to provide service to assist the capital cities when we too face challenges in retaining enough GPs for Novocastrians. It is also unlikely that any of the six new regional facilities for radiation oncology are meant for Newcastle, but we are well served in that area. However, we would have liked to have seen some support for our burgeoning medical research industry. After this budget, aged care remains seriously underfunded and access to dental care for those on support payments and low incomes has not been reintroduced. Intergenerational change apparently means that as you get older the government will do less for you unless you are fortunate enough to have benefited from high income tax subsidies during your working life. Match those omissions in health spending with no increased investment in schools, TAFEs or universities and you may understand that this government is dodging its real responsibility for securing our future.

If securing the country from terrorism and asylum seekers is the real agenda in Costello's budget, then what will Newcastle gain? Nothing, it seems. One year's expenditure to complete the upgrade of facilities at Williamtown RAAF base is very pleasing, but hours after the budget was released Senator Hill quietly announced that his government would favour new partnerships to rationalise defence shipbuilding. This effectively would mean that a region like Newcastle with a strong and proud shipbuilding heritage would now be outside the naval shipping contract process. So the Newcastle based ADI facility that delivered the minehunters on time and on budget need no longer apply. For this mean--spirited and short-sighted government, New South Wales shipbuilding industry and high-tech jobs in Newcastle are apparently quite dispensable.

In the budget, there are some rewards for the more fortunate. The 15 per cent surcharge on superannuation contributions by higher income earners will be reduced over the next three years to 10½ per cent and the age for personal contributions will be raised to 75. If you have spare cash, you can contribute to a child's super fund without it affecting your entitlements and with no requirement that you use your superannuation as a pension—a saving system for the rich. The reality that this policy ignores is that since superannuation was introduced the take-up of the age pension has not diminished in a correlated way. So, instead of introducing measures that assist more people to save for their retirement, this budget assists the most wealthy to avoid taxation.

For intending mothers, the baby bonus sees higher earners receiving more to care for their babies, although all mothers know that babies come with the same costs irrespective of the family's income. The First Home Owners Scheme also continues without any means test being applied. If investment is your aim, then you might prepare to buy more Telstra shares, planned for release perhaps as early as next July as we see the National Party ready to sell out rural and regional Australia. But it is worth noting that the increased consumption and monetary flow that result from measures like the home owners grant have already contributed to an increase in inflation and an upward pressure on interest rates. With national and credit debt at an all time high, these bonuses may very soon turn into mortgage nightmares for many Novocastrians and many Australians.

This budget disregards the needs of the people of Newcastle and, in doing so, it robs Australia of increased economic prosperity. Newcastle is a clever city that contributes significantly to the national economy. With planned strategic support from the federal government and encouragement of focused partnerships with the private sector, major economic, social and environmental dividends could be achieved. But this budget does not reflect clever thinking or a willingness to work with regions like Newcastle to maximise economic performance. So it falls on me as the representative of the people of Newcastle in this House to give some guidance to the government.

The following is a Hunter and Newcastle wish list that we would like to see advanced through strategic federal policy that targets regional and urban development, promotes public-private partnerships, invests in regional infrastructure, encourages cooperation across all tiers of government and delivers genuine economic growth and community prosperity. The wish list for Newcastle would include funding support for the following projects and programs: a new international standard football stadium; local employment programs that provide local jobs for long-term unemployed and disadvantaged job seekers; increased resources for our schools and hospitals in Newcastle; support for a multipurpose shipping terminal to expand the port of Newcastle—the most economic and efficient port in Australia; efficient and competitive regional aviation services at Newcastle airport, and perhaps we here understand that, at the moment, regional aviation has not been delivering efficient service; support for a new clean steel industry in Newcastle; support for the provision of broadband services to Newcastle and the Hunter; expanded defence presence in the Newcastle and Hunter region; higher funding levels for Newcastle university, so it can reduce its lecture sizes and increase its face-to-face teaching and its research programs; increased GP training places at regional universities such as Newcastle; higher rebates to GPs for low income patient groups; family support packages that target early parenting, child care and early learning; sufficient funds for the delivery of quality age care in residential facilities and at home; reinstatement of the Commonwealth dental program; support for the construction of the Hunter Medical Research Institute Centre; a new Federal Court building in Newcastle with accommodation for our Family Court, which suffers under great pressures at the moment; expansion of the new CSIRO energy centre as a centre of excellence in national energy strategy and environmental sustainability.

Perhaps some top-up funds for the Social and Community Services employees award in New South Wales would also stop programs from ceasing in Newcastle. We would also have liked to have seen some increased staff levels in Commonwealth departments, like Centrelink. In our office we have dealt with 500 cases in five months. With three Centrelink offices we know the pressures that those people are working under. We would also like to see some relocation of Commonwealth departments back into Newcastle. Perhaps our unemployment rate would decrease as well. The list is a very long one, but so much could be achieved if the Howard government supported investment in regional cities like Newcastle. Unfortunately, budget expenditure on short-sighted and exclusive policies that ignore local needs, like we have seen in this budget, will fail to deliver for the people of Newcastle.

I also support the amendment proposed by the opposition. The opposition's amendment condemns the Howard government for its failure to deliver a budget surplus; for its failure to deliver a budget surplus without breaking previous commitments on defence, roads and working credits; for its false claims that cuts to health and welfare payments are needed to fund border protection and the war against terrorism; and for wasting $5 billion of taxpayers' money by gambling in foreign currency markets through cross-currency derivatives. The losses in defence spending because of our foreign exchange risk not being managed has been sorely felt by this country. It is a budget of failure. It has failed to consider the fairer options that we have put forward to offset the harsh measures that it imposes on families, the sick and the disabled. This budget fails in its strategies to deal with the ageing population, fails in positioning us for the knowledge future, and it certainly fails the people of Newcastle. Fortunately, Newcastle has always been a region that backs itself—with the callous disregard shown to the people of Newcastle and the Hunter region by the Howard-Costello government through this budget—and it is just as well. We will need much resolve and much determination to recover from this budget. We deserve better and we will continue to assert that in this House.

Today we had a visit from the Lord Mayor of Newcastle and the general manager, working with two other regional cities— Geelong and Wollongong—to put forward strategic policies for regional cities. I would hope that, through their efforts and the community efforts of Newcastle, we see in the next budget some recognition of regional Australia and some policies that target regional development, that equip regions to compete effectively in this economy and that provide the infrastructure and capital projects that they need to prosper.

In conclusion, this is a budget that fails Australia. It is a budget that is fiscally irresponsible. It is a budget that fails Newcastle. In targeting the people who can least afford it—the chronically ill, the disadvantaged, people with disabilities and families perhaps struggling with illness—it certainly dodges the responsibility to build prosperous and harmonious communities.