Mr SAWFORD (4:29 PM) —Budgets do not come more cynical than this one. The member for Mitchell has been around long enough. He would remember that this is almost like Groundhog Day for 1977 and 1980, and we know what happened after that, don't we? It is the government's ninth budget and its sole purpose is to get itself elected for the fourth time and to ingratiate itself with the electorate in the hope of winning another term. To be a successful Treasurer in the federal government of this country requires a greater scope of vision than just the nine-four the current Treasurer can muster. If he had some guts, he would have changed the taxation rates that the member for Mitchell was referring to.

It is not good enough to use the position of Treasurer of this country simply to perpetuate office. The Treasurer seems to think that he can use the same trick term after term—tax everybody heavily for two years and then give big handouts to selected parts of the community in the lead up to an election. How does the Treasurer determine which parts of the community get the handout? For example, does he hand it back to those who are most in need? Does he determine which parts of the economy need assistance for jobs growth? Does he commit to big national infrastructure projects like the development of ports, bridges and railways and help streamline the economy? No, he does not do any of that. The Treasurer hands it back to groups which Liberal party polling has determined are the key to being successful at the next election. As I said, budgets do not come more cynical than this one, and neither do Treasurers nor Prime Ministers.

This is not the way to run a country. This is not the way to build an economy or a cohesive community. The Treasurer's tax cuts start at $52,000. While nobody is saying that $52,000 is a high wage, it is much more than most people get in my seat of Port Adelaide. It is impossible to understand why those above $52,000 will get tax cuts, while those earning less than $52,000 will get nothing. Over the past three years the government has gorged itself on new taxes and has stuffed the coffers to the brim with takings from the GST. But this money did not come from Mars—it came out of the pockets of ordinary men and women working in this country, and to give it back as tax cuts only to those earning over $52,000 runs contrary to any notion of fairness and responsible administration.

This is the biggest taxing government in Australia's history. Australians have never had as much tax taken from their pay as they do today. Most Australians accept that they have to pay tax to enable the government to facilitate the building of the nation. People want to see their tax money fairly spent on facilities for themselves and their families. They want to know that our schools and higher education institutions can provide their children with the skills and the knowledge that they will need to succeed. They want to know that our hospitals and Medicare are being looked after so that they do not have to be on a large waiting list when they need help. They want to know that their taxes are being used to build the infrastructure of a strong economy so that they and their children can be assured of secure jobs and good incomes.

The people's expectations about how the government should use their hard-earned taxes have not been met by this budget. Schools, hospitals and infrastructure have been ignored, while the big spending items are transitory. It is true that many people will be pleased to receive a $600 cheque—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 4.33 p.m. to 4.59 p.m.

Mr SAWFORD —It is true that many people will be pleased to receive a $600 cheque in the mail before the end of the financial year and another cheque before the election. No-one is going to return the cheques to sender. That is not to say that they consider this wild spending of taxpayers' money wise or fair-minded. The government is committed to spending $52 billion over five years, including $6 billion in the next six weeks. Two out of five families will receive a cheque in the mail and one out of five taxpayers will receive a tax cut. It will not last too long with the interest rate rise in September, but that is another story. The way the tax cuts are structured, however, means that those on or just over $52,000 should not get too excited. The tax cuts might start at $52,000, but they only really begin to bite on incomes much higher than that. The Treasurer's tax cut, for example, will probably be bigger than the cheque many people will receive in the mail. And he will get that not just once but every payday until he challenges the Prime Minister for the top job.

Nothing about this budget is sustainable or will provide long-term benefit to the country. For example, the government has done nothing about bracket creep whatsoever. Okay, there is a tax cut, but that will be wiped out as soon as working people advance to the next tax bracket. In fact, it will be before that: they will lose it when the interest rate rise comes in September. The real challenge of reforming the rates got lost—that takes a bit of courage. For many families the cheque in the mail will not even match their debt against the so-called family tax benefit. If it gets past that hole it will be gone soon enough when home mortgage rates, as I say, rise again shortly after the election—in fact, a week after the election. You can be sure they will rise. It is a certainty. That is exactly what happened after the last election. The Reserve Bank governor, surprisingly, admitted as much when he implied that he held off raising interest rates before the last election for the electoral benefit of the government. In my view, that comment should have been accompanied by a resignation statement. Instead, he survived and is set to play the same trick again, for the benefit of the same Prime Minister and the same Treasurer.

This country is crying out for infrastructure development, to build a stronger economy and to provide more jobs. That should be the core role of government, yet there is next to nothing in this budget for infrastructure. Out of an expenditure of $52 billion it should not have been too difficult to find $100 million or so to help build the Port of Adelaide into a world-class port. I am sure every state has similar vital infrastructure which needs development for the benefit of taxpayers. But it has all been overlooked. Obviously, in the eyes of the Liberal Party pollsters there is not a vote in it, so for the Treasurer there is not a dollar committed to it. The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, in my electorate, is in desperate need. Again there is not a cent for health care in western Adelaide. There is also no money to vaccinate Australians against the deadly pneumococcal disease, to fund early child development or to help our young people into education, training or a job.

On the Commonwealth funding of public and private schools, the Prime Minister's record speaks for itself. From 1977 until now, as Treasurer in the Fraser government and now Prime Minister, John Howard has totally reversed the proportion of Commonwealth funding going to public and private schools, totally turned it around. In 1977, 67 per cent of Commonwealth money went to public schools, 33 per cent to private. This is an appropriate ratio, reflecting the proportions of students in public and private schools. But in 24 years as Treasurer and as Prime Minister John Howard has progressively reduced funds going to public schools and increased funds going to private schools. The result is that today 67 per cent of Commonwealth education funding goes to private schools and 33 per cent to public schools. It is a national disgrace. This is despite the fact that two-thirds of all students still receive their education in the public area.

Whatever happened to the PM at Canterbury Boys High School? He has certainly vented his spleen on public education ever since, in his roles as Treasurer and PM. I wonder what really did happen at Canterbury Boys High? He never goes back. No-one wants to deny private schools and private school students a fair slice of the cake, but it must be a fair slice. This requires a change of focus from whether the school is public or private to making sure that all schools have the resources needed to provide their students with the same high-quality education. Labor's policy does this by tailoring support for each school so that every child can receive a high-quality education, no matter which school they attend.

The government has constructed its ninth budget simply to win votes. Will it? I suppose we will learn that within a couple of months. Labor's approach to governance is very different. We will use the tax revenue contributed by working people in this nation to build a strong economy with well-resourced essential services. The provision of first-class services in health and education will be of much greater benefit to families and singles than any tax cut or any one-off cheque in the mail. For example, Labor's commitment to restore bulk-billing to the level it was before Medicare was run down by the current government will greatly assist many family budgets. Labor's new national dental scheme will do likewise. Dental care is a prohibitive expense for most people, especially for larger families, those on lower incomes and those in rural and regional Australia. Labor's promise to create 20,000 new places in higher education and 20,000 in TAFE will help young people to achieve their career goals and increase their earning potential for the future.

Australian families have never been under such financial stress. They are working harder and longer but find they are unable to get ahead, and it is not hard to find the reasons why. The responsibility for this state of affairs lies squarely at the feet of the Treasurer. Household debt is now at record levels and credit card debt has trebled to $22 billion. Families owe nearly $600 million to the government because of the botched family tax benefit, with over 670,000 families owing an average $850. It is not hard to see where most of the vote-buying cheques will go: they will go straight into paying off current debts—and these families will still be worse off.

The government has failed to act to restrain the imposition of new and higher fees by banks and other providers of essential services. For example, the government has sat on its hands while banks fees have doubled in the past seven years. That inaction has encouraged others to get on the fee bandwagon. What about Telstra: what a cheek they have. They now charge a fee when customers pay their accounts by credit card. In the recent Senate estimates—how is this for arrogance—Telstra was asked why they have brought in this new fee, and the answer was simple: `Because we can.' This shows just how arrogant the big end of town has become under the current federal government. They know that the government will not move to protect the interests of consumers against their ugly profit--grabbing. There is nothing wrong with profit but it needs to be fair. It is about time that the government reminded Telstra, their chief executive officer and their underlings that their brief is to provide the highest quality communications services to the Australian people. Currently, all they seem to be doing is fattening themselves up on fees and higher line charges to maximise their market value for privatisation. The $90 per quarter charge for the provision of a line is simply a cruel joke—in no way can that charge reflect the minimal ongoing costs involved.

The fourth indicator of just how hard it has become for families is that household savings are now at record low levels. Families now save around just 3c for every dollar they earn. And it now takes nine years of wages to buy a home, which is an extra 27 months of wages compared with seven years ago. The proportion of new home buyers is now the second lowest on record and the average size of these loans has increased by 67 per cent. And of course tax is at the highest levels ever recorded in this country.

This hardship for families has been compounded by the loss of government provided essential services in the areas of health, child care and education. In health care, bulk-billing GPs are harder to find—in fact, a GP is hard to find—and the out-of-pocket cost to see a doctor who does not bulk-bill is now an average $12.78. In some areas it is $25 minimum. This is a rise of 55 per cent or, at $25, 100 per cent, during the years of the current Howard-Costello government. And in child care, funds for children with special needs have been frozen and too many children with disabilities cannot get a place. I thought civilised societies cared for young people, for aged and for people with disabilities. This one did not even get a mention. In education, student fees have jumped 85 per cent and some students are now paying $100,000 for a degree.

This budget contains the largest pre--election spend in our nation's history from the highest taxing government in history. This is a fact—Commonwealth taxes are set to hit a record high next year at $217 billion, which is up by 90 per cent since 1996. By next year, total personal income tax will be up 80 per cent since 1996. Working men and women in Australia are already paying an average of $9,000 more in Commonwealth taxes than in 1996, and this will grow to $12,000 over the forward estimates in the budget. Where did the money for this record pre-election splurge come from? The answer is simple: it came from the pockets of ordinary working men and women of this country via a raft of new taxes, including the GST. It came out of the pockets of everyone and has been fed back into the pockets of a select few. And we know that those select few were chosen by the Liberal Party pollsters for electoral reasons—not by analysis of need and of what would be best for the development of our nation.

Labor's plan is to restore services in the first instance and to put more money back in the pockets of families that way. Labor will also offer tax relief for a much broader section of the community in our tax policy. Our policy will be broader and fairer. Labor believe that, because everybody puts in, everybody should see and feel the benefits of their taxes at work. The Treasurer's latest budget—it will be his last—was a pitiful grab for votes. It contained nothing for the nation in the way of productivity and growth. There was nothing to boost competition or to assist the development of new technologies and innovation to help business succeed in the competitive world marketplace—not one thing. There was nothing to contain the surging fees of institutions or to reduce the BAS paperwork for small business. There was no new investment in TAFE and universities and nothing to help increase the skills and qualifications of our work force. There was nothing for major infrastructure projects that this nation so badly needs, especially in the area of roads and rail transport. And there was nothing to help our ailing river system and ensure that my state of South Australia can be guaranteed good fresh water in decades to come.

These structural issues that are so critical to our nation's future have been comprehensively ignored in the budget in favour of a grubby grab for votes. Instead of dealing with the national interest, taxpayers' money was dispensed as a political ploy, simply to win votes. It was a gutless effort; no more, no less. It is a bit like Groundhog Day. For those of us who can remember the 1977 and 1980 elections, there is a bit of deja vu about all of this. They were also campaigns that ran on a fistful of dollars, particularly the 1980 election campaign. We know what happened when Malcolm Fraser and John Howard got together in that terrible election—the terribly wasted opportunities that many people on the current frontbench have acknowledged. I think the member for Mayo, on a number of occasions, has made mention of the lost opportunities of the Fraser years.

The person who was the Treasurer at that time is the current Prime Minister. We know what happened. In 1983, when the election was called—ironically at a time when Malcolm Fraser could not win—that big spend of 1980 and the subsequent three years created 10 per cent unemployment, 10 per cent inflation and 10 per cent interest rates; the trifecta of doom. Malcolm Fraser, tears or no tears, found it very difficult to accept that that negligence of the nation and the nation's future interest in 1977-80 and 1980 to 1983 was the prime reason he lost office. But there was another person there—the member for Bennelong and Treasurer at that time—who was doing exactly the same thing. The member for Bennelong, the current Prime Minister and former Treasurer, has never changed his spots: whether it be education, he has always had it in for public education; whether it be health, he has always had it in for Medicare; whether it be public ownership of communications like Telstra, he has always favoured privatisation.

If Howard wins the record of being, next to Menzies, the longest-serving Prime Minister in office, he might also, like Menzies, leave a legacy to the nation that is minimal. Menzies had lots of opportunities too. In the early 1950s, some of the great inventions of the world—the hi-fi, the colour photocopier or whatever—were all invented here, in Australia. In fact, one of the scientists was a guy called Alwyn Clements, who lived in my electorate. He was a very smart man. Did we develop those inventions? No. Under the years of Menzies, all those sorts of things went offshore. Menzies was supposed to have said to Clements, `Your transistor will never replace the valve.' That is what Menzies said to one of the great scientists of this country.

Can you imagine Australia now being the leading country in the world in television, hi-fi and photocopying technology? We had those opportunities but we blew them. We blew them because of the lousy, rotten leadership of the country at that time. Here we go again: we cannot invest in something substantive, we cannot invest in the future, we cannot put down a legacy for our children and our grandchildren—the government are just going to spend, grab and bribe their way back into power. (Time expired)