Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure

HON ALISON XAMON (East Metropolitan) [12.14 pm]: I take this opportunity to comment on the estimates of revenue and expenditure and consolidated fund estimates 2010–11. I am not a fan of this budget. While some government members are busy extolling this budget, in my opinion, this budget demonstrates yet again that the state government is not prioritising the wellbeing of the people of Western Australia. In particular, it is not prioritising ordinary people. It does not seem to care about our workers or our most vulnerable people and it certainly does not care about the environment.

An increasing number of people in WA are going backwards. They are struggling to make ends meet. It is becoming harder for far too many families and people in the community to afford the basics. In the view of the Greens (WA) this budget, rather than helping those people, hits them hard with increased household costs and reduced services.

The Western Australian Council of Social Service noted in April that community services on the ground are still facing an average 20 per cent increase in the demand for their services, particularly in the context of ongoing rises in household costs. However, this budget delivers to families almost $400 more to pay each year in increased fees and charges.

I know that the government recognises on some level that this budget will result in increased hardship for people. What has it done to address that? It has increased funding for the hardship utility grant scheme. I am not suggesting that this funding is not welcome or that it is not a good scheme. The increase in HUGS funding demonstrates not that the government cares about the vulnerable members of our population, but, rather, that it recognises how incredibly unaffordable it has made living in this state for people on low incomes. Many people are experiencing such a level of hardship that they need to access services through HUGS, and it is very worrying. It is not a good sign. We are going in the wrong direction. People on low incomes should not be forced to breaking point. They should not be forced to the point at which they cannot pay normal bills, irrespective of whether they are for food, housing, electricity, gas, water, education or medical services, without needing to access government grants. There is something terribly wrong with the state budget when the point is reached that the cost of everyday living is too much for people on low wages. Our ministers recognised the burden being placed on people when they increased HUGS funding. They should not have been placing such unrealistic burdens on families with increased costs built into this budget in the first place.

The HUGS funding is not much and the increase in that funding is not dramatic. For many families this funding will barely touch the sides in addressing their ongoing issues with debt. It is significant that organisations such as WACOSS are reporting dramatic increases in requests for assistance. Twenty per cent is a huge increase in the number of people needing help. I also note that at the same time the organisations that come under the WACOSS umbrella on which we rely so much to give assistance to people in need are also struggling. The people working in this sector are already dealing with extraordinarily poor wages. The organisations are battling increased utility costs and are not getting the funding increases for the delivery of the services that they are supplying. The Greens certainly support the call that has been coming from the sector, loudly and clearly, for many years now for increased and fairer wages for this sector. We are not interested in keeping this sector poor in order to provide a cheap alternative to services being outsourced from the public sector. I note that some of the people who are working in this area, the people we should be valuing and protecting, are doing amazing work. They deal with domestic violence issues and provide counselling and community legal access. Some of these people are finding themselves in even more dire financial straits than some of the clients they are servicing. We have really got it wrong and we need to be doing better.

In relation to mental health, I welcome the increased transparency provided by the separation of the budget for mental health from the general health budget. I certainly know that last year trying to get to the bottom of exactly how much was being spent on mental health became a near impossibility. At least from now on we can have some baseline figures with which to work, rather than being told that it is simply not possible to ask about funding for mental health because it was apparently too difficult to separate those figures. However, given the desperate need in this area and the huge gaps that still exist in service delivery, the moves that are being made by this government are simply not enough; they are certainly not happening fast enough. It is not enough to simply move the people from the mental health division into the new premises on St Georges Terrace—I note that that occurred at a cost of more than $168 000—and call it progress. We need some significant change. We need structural reform, we need improved delivery and accountability, and we need processes to evaluate and improve on service delivery. The frustrations of the people who work in this sector and who have been working for change for so long need to start being heard. The government has had a real opportunity to make a difference rather than just doing more of the same but dressed in different clothing. On the ground, we are seeing very little movement in what is occurring in the delivery of services and no real attempt to undertake the much-needed increase in service capacity; instead, we have seen the opposite. We have seen services cut from underneath the feet of consumers, including the closure of the Morley Adult Mental Health Centre, about which I have spoken in this place, and now the removal of the Bentley emergency mental health team. To give credit where it is due, it appears that there is some new money for mental health in this budget. I welcome the money allocated for Aboriginal mental health services, because this money is desperately needed. I look forward to having an opportunity during the upcoming estimates hearings to learn how and where these services will be delivered to meet this urgent challenge.

Although I welcome this money, I note that there has been no real effort to address other major gaps in service delivery. One of these is in the provision of mental health services for children and young people. Where are the improvements to mental health services for children and young people in this budget? They are nowhere to be seen. We know that mental illness strikes young people disproportionately, yet children at risk of potentially serious conditions are not receiving adequate treatment in this state. This was recently identified by the Education and Health Standing Committee as an urgent mental health challenge. It certainly deserves urgent action. We also need to concentrate on those most at risk, including infants who suffer trauma and youth across the transition to adult services. The coordination between education services and treatment for mental illness is also severely lacking. I have been approached by people who have described to me heartbreaking challenges of having children who suffer from mental illness and who also have other disabilities. They have told me about the lack of coordination between service providers and the Department of Education and also the huge gaps that exist in service delivery. We have to get better at doing that. Departments have to learn to start talking to each other. Departments have to be prepared to cooperate with each other, because these sorts of members of our community are falling through the cracks.

My final comment about the budget’s provision for mental health care is that, in the end, there is just not enough money. We know that adequately addressing mental illness saves money in the long term. Other comparable western nations spend 10 to 14 per cent of their total health expenditure on mental health services. We are not spending that amount at the moment; it is about nine per cent of the overall health allocation, and it is simply not enough. This is further aggravated by the lack of federal funding, which I note has attracted quite a lot of attention, particularly earlier this week, although I note that the media are currently distracted with other events.

I turn now to the education elements of the budget. Firstly, I was pleased to see that money has finally been allocated to language support for children on 457 visas. This has been desperately needed for a long time, although I would feel more comfortable if I could see some guarantee in the forward estimates that this funding will be ongoing. I certainly hope that this is not indicative of a lack of long-term commitment to this critical area.

More broadly, I echo some public comments made about the education budget. We are looking at a tiny increase in funding, so it begs the question: where are the hidden cuts being made to provide the funding for new programs and to cater adequately for the increase in student numbers? I certainly would like to have seen more money put into programs and also more staff to deal with students at educational risk. I am concerned that inroads have not been made in ensuring a substantial increase in the provision of resources in this area. We know that this is a growing challenge, particularly for public schools. There needs to be adequate funding, programs and staffing to ensure that students in challenging circumstances have every opportunity to receive a good education and to have a bright future. I recognise the unrealistic burden that is being placed on teachers who are being left to deal with so many multiple and complex issues. It concerns me that they might be unable to perform their job of teaching in the classroom because they spend so much of their day trying to pick up the pieces from students who experience many behavioural issues. It is important also for the other students in the classroom that we allocate significant funding to address the issues experienced by these students who are at educational risk. I acknowledge that the minister has admitted that this is a massive challenge for the education department, yet we are still not seeing any significant improvements made to the core funding. Assisting students at educational risk includes increasing the number of school psychologists. We need more school psychologists, particularly in the hard-to-staff regional and remote areas. I note again that the minister has acknowledged this issue, yet we have seen only a tiny increase in the number of school psychologists in the past two years. Again, it is not enough; it is not keeping up with the challenges being faced within our public school system.

We also need more school nurses and we need better assistance for students who require carers. I assure members that there are many students, particularly in remote schools, who suffer from foetal alcohol spectrum disorders, including foetal alcohol syndrome. These children already face many challenges in their lives, so without early and appropriate intervention, including support in the classroom, they will struggle to reach their potential. I realise that this is an extremely hard area to deal with, but it is all the more important that we do not allow these children to fall through the cracks and create generations of disadvantage, and that we make the principled budgetary decisions that are required to address this extremely complex area.

I am also disappointed about the lack of system-wide support for those students who are same-sex attracted. I raised this issue briefly in estimates. I am aware from working with these students in the past that homophobia can be crippling for same-sex-attracted teenagers. We know that being gay or lesbian is an increased risk factor for teenage suicide. It is all the more important that we actively try to address discriminatory thinking and behaviours with as much vigour as we would use to try to tackle racism. It is not a great financial ask, as we have seen in other states, yet I note that it is still not being addressed.

We also need more, not fewer, participation officers to help students in the transition to senior school and other pathways. I also share the concerns of many members in this and the other place about the current assault on rural and regional education, including the uncertainties surrounding the delivery of years 11 and 12 education in district high schools and the expected negative impact on schools following the transfer of costs for the Schools of Isolated Distance Education.

I will move on to speak about child protection. I note that the Department for Child Protection has received increased funding in the budget, and this is great. However, I am worried that this funding is going disproportionately towards more field workers. Although we do need more field workers—many of them do an incredible job in often very trying and stressful circumstances—their work needs to be supported by the direction of adequate funding to effective programs to help those families at risk to be able to stay together. Child protection is not just about taking babies away from their mothers; it is about the government putting resources into strengthening families, helping them to work through issues so they can stay together, and into programs for reunification. I am not saying that there are not situations in which children need to be taken out of harmful situations; however, there is a great deal of scope for broadening the service delivery to invest more into supporting families in the first instance and identifying and assisting vulnerable and potential parents to a much greater extent.

When it is absolutely necessary for children to be removed from their families, we need to look at how we can improve the circumstances for foster parents. I am not suggesting that we want to create a regime whereby people put their hands up to become foster parents because they want to make money, because that is not a good reason to foster children. I am aware that considerable financial imposts are placed on foster parents and also those grandparents who unexpectedly find themselves with the responsibility of raising their grandchildren. We need to do more to assist people in this situation because we also need to acknowledge that the children who end up in their care are, more often than not, deeply traumatised and in need of specialist services in order to have their very complex issues addressed. This requires money. It is incredibly important that we start giving some priority to these areas within our budget.

In relation to children and youth, many members will have read the recent findings from the Education and Health Standing Committee report, “Invest Now or Pay Later: Securing the Future of Western Australia’s Children”. I would like to read findings 5 and 7. Finding 5 states —

Western Australia’s performance is below the national average on a range of child health indicators. This includes a higher rate of teenage births; lower immunisation coverage; a greater proportion of children who are overweight or obese; fewer children achieving literacy and numeracy benchmarks; and greater proportions of children who are developmentally vulnerable on the language and cognitive domain, and the physical health and wellbeing domain of the Australian Early Development Index.

Finding 7 states —

Despite significant population growth and increased demand, there has been a chronic failure to invest in Western Australian child community health services over the last two decades.

Children in this state are not receiving the care and attention they deserve. Although I welcome the additional money allocated to alleviate what has become a horrendous waiting list for child development services—I was one of those parents when my youngest child got caught up with those two-year waiting lists—this is just not enough. I echo the calls from the Western Australian Council of Social Service and the Commissioner for Children and Young People for more urgent funding in this area. These are calls that the government should be taking seriously. I would have liked to have seen a commitment in the budget papers to establish an office or a commission of early childhood to coordinate investment in the very important early years, including a focus on Indigenous children. There is an obvious need but at the moment we are just not giving it appropriate focus.

I also note that it is not only very young children who are neglected in this budget; youth are also, sadly, underacknowledged by this government. The main discussion in the budget on young people focuses on the implementation of the Department for Communities’ “Youth Plan 2009–11”. This plan is a one-page document that merely highlights some areas and projects that the department will tackle in the next two years. There are no clear or measurable objectives or targets in this plan. There is no indication in the budget or the plan of how much money will be allocated to each youth program or project or what the short-term focus will be. For example, a big issue in WA is youth homelessness. The 2006 study “Counting the homeless” showed that there are 13 391 homeless people in WA. Across Australia, 43 per cent of that total number of homeless people were under the age of 25. The budget mentions that the department will work with other agencies on youth homelessness, but how will this issue be addressed? The plan merely states that the department will provide advice on homelessness strategies. The young people of WA deserve a detailed and measurable youth plan to provide some clear strategy and progress on key youth issues in WA, such as youth homelessness.

I would also like to take this opportunity to once again raise the issue of Redress WA. This scheme initially gave some hope to so many Western Australians who had suffered horrifically while in state care. It gave them some reason to hope that the government had not forgotten what had happened to them. Instead they have been hurt yet again by the state government. I have been so frustrated and saddened to hear time and again from Redress applicants who feel re-traumatised by their experience in seeking redress. Whether it was the reduction of the amount of maximum payment or the process that they had to go through, the scheme has left people with a sour taste in their mouths, once again feeling disappointed and let down. I was hoping that the improved economic outlook for the state and this budget with its surplus would provide a perfect opportunity for the government to reverse the terrible decision it made to cut funding to Redress WA. If a decision had been made to reverse the initial decision, the government would have demonstrated care and compassion for this group of very vulnerable people, a group of people who have been let down time and again. Although I am not necessarily surprised that the opportunity was taken, I live in hope and, hence, I am still very disappointed.

I would like to say a few words about women specifically. Women are among the most economically vulnerable members of our population. I applaud the focus of the Women’s Advisory Council on women’s economic security and I look forward to hearing how the work of the council has led to robust, new government initiatives to address the root causes of this because we have not heard that yet. However, our dreadful gender pay gap, the worst in Australia, will not decrease until the community sector is funded realistically, as I mentioned earlier. The continued undervaluing of this sector impacts on us all. As I said, I am disappointed that this budget does not adequately increase funding for the community services sector so that we can reflect the true cost of delivering these services and help reduce the wage gap between the community services sector and comparable sectors. As a case in point, funding for refuges is not even keeping pace with the increases in the cost of living. I want to know how long the government expects people to keep working for these appallingly low wages, because refuges and other services in the community sector did not have the money to spare in the first place and now they are starting to receive less and less in real terms.

I would like to make some comments about the environment. I have already noted that this budget demonstrates yet again that this government does not really care about the environment. That is without even talking about all the appalling legislation that is starting to come through this place. The funding provision in this budget to address pressing environmental issues is nothing short of appalling. There is no priority for the environment. There is no priority for real action on climate change. There is no attempt to reduce carbon emissions. There is no investment in renewable energy. There is no priority given in this budget to caring for and preserving our beautiful and important urban bushland or for taking proper care of the Swan River and our national parks.

One of the things we should be doing in Perth is prioritising the care of our urban bushland. We should be cherishing it. We should be keeping it free from rubbish, weeds and dieback, and vandalism. We need money for fencing and for appropriate signage and maintenance of these areas. I note the Bush Forever legislation is finally in front of us, which is a step in the right direction, but I have a grave concern that we do not have the necessary funding to back up the protection of this bushland. That will be the next very important step. I want to see more money go into the Swan River Trust. I want to see more money go into the Department of Environment and Conservation. We should be teaching our children and our communities to feel a sense of pride and ownership in our bushland and in what is beautiful about our natural environment in Perth. There is nothing in this budget that shows that this is a priority in any way for this government. There is also an appalling lack of funding for environmental protection and the regulation of industries to ensure that they do the right thing. It is abysmal. We see no positive leadership in this area of the budget.

It is the same for the area of transport. Instead of leadership and vision, we have been given increases in public transport fares. The government is going in the wrong direction with a 17.8 per cent increase in some fare categories. We know that this will particularly hit the more vulnerable people who already rely solely on public transport and are on concession fares. As I mentioned earlier, these people are already doing it far too tough. We all need access to affordable and accessible transport regardless of age, location or economic status. We need a government that is willing to start investing in long-term and sustainable public transport networks. Instead of allocating $225 million to expand Great Eastern Highway, we should be investigating other more practical and sustainable ways to alleviate traffic on this route, and to facilitate easy access to our airports from the city. We had an opportunity, with that project alone, to look at the provision of some kind of light rail service. That has not even been looked at. It is very frustrating. Building more roads is not the way to fix city traffic congestion— studies have shown that time and again. It is a brilliant way to simply attract more traffic. To quote one of my colleagues in the federal Parliament, Senator Scott Ludlam —

… when public and active transport infrastructure is built—particularly cycleways, rapid bus and light rail—people are attracted to use the service and this improves the amenity of the area. Local economies pick up and business benefits.

It is short-sighted to not look at improving our public transport networks on so many levels.

I have another disappointment on the transport side. I will not go into too much detail about this. I am very concerned about the lack of real investment in the growing freight rail network. This lack of positive leadership and sustainability planning is also clearly evident in the water portfolio. Water is crucial to our state’s economic and environmental sustainability. We should be planning for the future, yet what is the Minister for Water doing? He has been removing references to “climate change” from departmental documents. He has been blithely ignoring the best science and independent public service advice that is demanding careful stewardship of resources. It is clear that the minister does not understand the seriousness that climate change poses for WA’s water future. This is a grave concern. We have some low-hanging fruit in the area of water to deal with serious water conservation measures. The amount of money that we would save far outweighs the sorts of costs that we are incurring by putting in more and more infrastructure such as desalination plants. It seems that, for a very small outlay, we would get a huge return in the areas of water conservation, yet we have seen no leadership on this front. I suspect this is coming more from the Minister for Water rather than his own department. I notice the Water Forever program advocates a much higher level of water conservation than we are being delivered. This will only become more important. I note that Perth was recently ranked by the Australian Conservation Foundation as the least sustainable of Australia’s 20 largest cities. Our abysmal performance in the “Sustainable Cities Index”, particularly in the water and transport categories, as well as in the general environmental performance category, should be a challenge to this government. We can be doing so much better and we should be doing so much better. I urge the government to start doing better. Instead, once again, I am disappointed.

I would also like to talk about the provisions in the budget to improve occupational health and safety in WA. I have spoken about the safety of workers in this place many times. The safety of workers is so important. It should be a government priority, particularly if we are expecting increases in the mining and building and construction industries, which are notoriously dangerous industries. I am horrified that there is no increase in the budget for additional WorkSafe inspectors. It is unclear to me how the government can justify this decision. The fact is that on average a person is killed every 17 days in WA as a result of a traumatic work-related incident. In 2008 and 2009 this equated to 21 work-related deaths in WA. Although I welcome the increase in the number of mines safety inspector positions, I was very concerned to hear that the additional 72 FTEs will not in fact be inspecting on-site mine safety but working in office jobs in Perth. WorkSafe statistics show that of the workrelated deaths in WA from 1988 to 2009, 30 per cent of those deaths were in the mining industry. Six of the 21 work-related deaths in 2008 and 2009 were mining-related deaths. Why is the government not allocating mining safety officers where we need them, which is on the mine sites?

I will take this opportunity to briefly reiterate some points I have made previously in this place about my deep sense of disquiet regarding the way royalties for regions funds are allocated. When I read the budget documents, I must admit I was concerned, and also slightly mystified, at the number of things that are being funded under the royalties for regions banner. It is true that there are many worthwhile things—for example, there is some wonderful funding for education programs and also for parent support initiatives; however, the question I am asking is: should this not be normal core government expenditure? Too many things badged “royalties for regions” projects are, in essence, core areas of service delivery that have been chronically underfunded for some time. I have said before that the government’s first priority should be adequate front-line delivery of essential services. It is not doing this. Royalties for regions should not be used as a way to get around the significant cuts that have been made to areas of core service delivery. This budget perpetuates that.

There has also been a sad lack of investment in my electorate, the East Metropolitan Region. Many people in my electorate could be characterised as battlers. When I spoke about families struggling, I was speaking for many of my constituents. The increase in household costs they are facing as a result of this budget is having a significant impact on them. I note that pensioners in Bullsbrook, which is the most northern suburb in my electorate, have also been unfairly neglected. Pensioners in Bullsbrook are not eligible to access royalties for regions funding, yet they have been denied many metropolitan services. Bullsbrook was not included in the expanded areas eligible to receive the Country Age Pension Fuel Card. I understand that supporting transport for pensioners is an important initiative. I am pleased with the high take-up rate of the free public transport hours for pensioners and the expansion of the Country Age Pension Fuel Card scheme. But I ask where the equity is, because places like Dawesville are included in the scheme, yet places with virtually no public transport, like Bullsbrook, are being left out.

I was also disappointed to not see any indication in the budget papers that the government will prioritise the Swan Valley bypass. Certainly, those people who visit the area know that there is a clear and urgent need for the bypass to be built. It has been the focus of very many recent discussions in the area. Basically, the lack of this progress is killing the Swan Valley region. People want action. I acknowledge that the bypass will be built with federal funding, but the government needs to show some real direction, some leadership and some commitment to really getting the ball rolling on this one. We need to reduce the number of big trucks in the Swan Valley. They are having a significant impact on the safety of residents and also on the safety of tourists visiting the area. They are also having a detrimental impact on the tourism industry there. I have not seen anything in this budget to suggest that the government is committed to prioritising the progress of this much-needed bypass any time soon.

There are so many other areas I could speak about. I have many views on what is happening with the budget around prisons, housing, disabilities funding and health generally. I am very concerned with the diabolical state of our arts funding and, as I said, the lack of progress for renewable energy, which I could probably talk about for quite some time. There is also training. I am very concerned about what is happening with the Forest Products Commission and the way in which it is managing its money. However, I am aware that my colleagues who primarily have carriage of these areas will be keen to talk more about them, so I hope that people will get the opportunity to hear the Greens’ concerns about these areas, and more.

I conclude my comments on the budget by noting that I think this budget is a failure. It fails low-income earners; it fails workers; it fails the community sector; it fails women, children and young people; and it fails the environment. It is a budget that is reflecting the priorities of a government that does not care about the people and the environment of Western Australia. I think that we all deserve a lot better.