Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The government's unfair budget is inflicting the greatest hurt on those most disadvantaged. We have had people stand up and rant about debt and deficit, but what they fail to realise is that their budget is actually twisted priorities. How can someone stand up and say that we have to make these harsh cuts and we have to deliver tough medicine when in the same budget they are introducing measures to give the wealthiest women paid parental leave of up to $50,000 to have a baby? That is not a government in a budget emergency, that is twisted priority. How is the government funding this paid parental leave: by cutting support to the most disadvantaged in our country. That is the twisted priority of this government.

Who are the most disadvantaged in this country? When I think of that word I think of the people in a town called Eaglehawk in my electorate. It is part of the city of Greater Bendigo and it is one of the areas that is most disadvantaged and pops up at the bottom of all the statistics. They have a community dinner and they have several community lunches. At one of those dinners and lunches I met a young girl called Paige. I was talking with her mother and I was talking with Paige and they were excited because the mother is about to have a second baby. But they still homeless; they have been on the emergency waiting list for three months and they were couch surfing. Paige's mother was not only worried about having a new baby and about getting Paige off to school but worried about where they live. What these budget changes mean to Paige and her mother she explains: If only I was wealthy enough, if only I had a stable home, if only I had a job that paid $150,000 so I had access to the government's $50,000 Paid Parental Leave scheme—but I don't. I am struggling to survive. I have been in the situation of domestic violence. I am coming here to this free community dinner. I will eat my humble pie and pick up my parcel of food, my hamper, and go home. And next week I will again get in the queue to talk about where Paige and I can live and trying to find a home before my second child is born. That is just one of the many thousands of examples of people in our community who are the most disadvantaged and at risk because of this government's budget.

As a result of this budget, a single parent who earns $55,000 a year will be $6,000 a year worse off by 2016. That is 10 per cent of their budget. If you take money off single parents you are punishing the children, because every single dollar of that $6,000 that this government will take off the single parent is spent on the child. It is spent on them—on their schooling, on their extracurricular activities, on going to birthday parties, and on making sure that their children get the same opportunities as others.

This budget's changes to the pension are another example of the twisted priorities of this government. Let's be real about the pension—it is not big bucks. We are talking about somebody on the single pension getting just over $22,000 a year. There are about 30,000 pensioners in my electorate. All of them will be disadvantaged by and hit hard by this government's cruel budget.

Turning to the changes for young people under the age of 30 who are seeking work, how on earth are you expected to live on nothing? How on earth does the government expect this young job seeker to be able to get to their job interviews, or pay their rent, or be able to live, if they pay them no support for six months. The government must just assume that everybody under the age of 30 still lives with their parents or has a trust fund. It is simply not true.

This budget is an example of twisted priorities. This budget is unfair and attacks those who are most disadvantaged. At the same time it rewards those at the top end of the scale. Every dollar you take from a low-income earner, every dollar you take from the disadvantaged, forces them further and further into poverty. (Time expired)

See this speech in context