Now that the election is over and now that he has had the chance to bathe in the warm glow of the symbolic gestures of signing Kyoto and issuing an apology to the Stolen Generations, it looks Kevin Rudd is going to ditch any pretence of compassion for the vulnerable and give carers of the elderly and the disabled a right shafting in the name of fiscal prudence. Specifically, they are looking at discontinuing a $1600 carers payment that eases the burden on many carers of the elderly infirm and the disabled.
Now, I'm a big fan of fiscal prudence and believe that Rudd and his treasurer Wayne Swan are right to take the meataxe to public spending, which has gotten bloated over the last part of the Howard government years and does threaten inflation. I don't even mind if they cut the $500 seniors payment, as I don't see why people should have money thrown at them just for being old.
However, slashing the carers payment is plain heartless and also pretty bloody stupid. Carers are often extremely financially strapped and give up earning opportunities themselves to care for their loved ones, at a time when they would otherwise be saving for their own retirement. Whats more, in doing so they save the taxpayer a bucket by keeping their young ones out of public hospitals and government subsidised nursing home beds. As far as I am concerned they are a group that don't recieve enough recognition and support from the government, though this was improved over the course of the Howard government. The annual payment of $1600, which was only ever going to be spent on essentials, was a step in the right direction.
However, Rudd and Swan (incidentally, the word is out that his officials in Treasury think he is a moron and wish they had Lindsay Tanner in charge there) in their wisdom has decided that rather than making cuts to the incomes of the most vulnerable in our society a LAST resort, that they will make it their FIRST. I can think of a number of their pre-election promises that should get the axe before this does. The $2 billion dollar broadband network which is only really going to increase the productivity of the online pornography industry and which private industry will probably eventually build anyway, would be a good start. They could also reconsider banning public universities from taking full-fee paying students, which has created the need for them to compensate the institutions for the lost income.
But then again those are initiatives that are important for making the Rudd government look cool and hip to their young, trendy support base, aren't they. It is far easier to shaft truly vulnerable people who were probably more likely to have been Howard voters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
LABOR will scrap a $500 seniors' bonus payment created by John Howard last year to help the over-65s deal with rising costs, despite a massive community backlash over plans to abolish the $1600 carers' payment in the May budget.
But as welfare advocates and unions yesterday joined the Opposition in condemning the social spending cuts, the Treasury said spending under the Howard government was unsustainable and likened its profligacy to that of the Whitlam Labor government.
A Treasury report provided crucial support for Wayne Swan's insistence on the need for deep spending cuts in the 2008-09 budget to ease pressure on inflation and interest rates.
"The recent growth in spending stands out, along with the growth in spending under Whitlam in 1974-75 and the increased spending following the recessions in 1982-83 and 1990-91," the Treasury report stated.
The Australian revealed yesterday that the Government planned to axe the $1600 carers' payment as part of its May budget savings.
As the Treasurer refused to confirm the plans yesterday, other government sources said the $500 seniors' bonus, created last year, was also in the budget razor gang's sights.
Sources said the Government maintained its determination to deliver all election promises, but that all Howard government programs faced a line-by-line search for spending cuts.
The carers' bonus was paid to 400,000 Australians for the past four years, providing up to $1600 each, while Mr Howard created the seniors' bonus last year at a cost of $1.3 billion.
Both payments were said to be one-off - meaning they were funded out of budget surpluses and were not written into the budget forward estimates.
News of the plan to axe the carers' bonus sparked widespread community anger yesterday, highlighting the political risks facing Mr Swan as he grapples with the need to reduce budget spending.
Carers Australia chief executive Joan Hughes said many family carers lived below the poverty line and used the $1600 to augment their living expenses. "It's going to be a very tough time for carers," she said.
Mental Health Council of Australia spokesman Simon Tatz said carers needed the payment to help with medication, food, transport and accessing services.
"The utilities allowance cannot substitute for what the carer bonus can buy," Mr Tatz said.
The move sparked a warning from the Australian Services Union that the Rudd Government's "social inclusion" agenda might be damaged before it had even started. The ASU covers non-government workers providing housing, counselling and other support services.
National assistant secretary Linda White said the budget would have to be carefully thought through, and that taking money from programs that helped the people on the margins of society would be counter-productive.
"Taking money out of programs in a circumstance where there is already some difficulty being experienced at the front line getting labour - there is already significant difficulty getting workers for the pay on offer - then the Government's social inclusion agenda could be in jeopardy before it starts," Ms White said.
Community and Public Sector Union national secretary Stephen Jones said his union was concerned about job losses, but was also "concerned about the impact on the most vulnerable in the community".
Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson demanded that Mr Rudd intervene to protect carers.
"Whoever it is in Mr Rudd's Government who dreamed this up needs to pick on someone their own size," Dr Nelson said.
"Anyone who thinks that Australia's carers do not deserve the support they are getting just needs to walk a mile in their shoes."
Liberal MP Chris Pearce became personal by questioning whether Mr Rudd, whose wife, Therese, is a successful businesswoman, had forgotten what life was like for non-millionaires.
Since Labor's victory in November, Mr Rudd and Mr Swan have gone to great lengths to warn about the need for spending cuts and to demonise the Howard government for reckless spending and pork-barrelling.
The Treasury study released yesterday, prepared by Kirsty Laurie and Jason McDonald of the department's budget division, made similar observations.
It said that, including spending since 2004-05 and budgeted through to 2010-11, the Howard government gained an additional $391billion as a result of increased tax revenue, resulting mainly from the resources boom.
New spending decisions and tax cuts totalled $314billion.
Most of the money had been consumed by increases in government spending, which had grown more rapidly in the past four years than at any time since the 1990 recession. Much of the money had gone on social welfare to the aged and families with dependent children.
There was a remarkable increase in the number of spending proposals announced in each of the Howard budgets, rising from 359 in the 1997-98 budget to 825 in the last election year. Most of the initiatives were small, with 90 per cent valued at less than $100 million over the forward estimates. However, the number worth between $100million and $250million grew from 16 to 49 in the past 10 years, while the number of $1billion-plus proposals jumped from one to nine.
Over the same period, the Howard government dropped the ball on savings. "In the 1997-98 budget, close to a third of all measures had a savings component whereas, more recently, savings measures have averaged around 1.5 per cent of total measures," the report says.
There was also a rapid rise in spending on industry assistance, rising at an average rate of 6 per cent a year since the commodity boom began. Treasury warned this spending could distort the allocation of resources.
www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,23338903-601,00.html
|