Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

The masters of carp; masters of carping and bleating. The opposition are the masters of fearmongering. We heard the shadow Treasurer in this matter of public importance discussion talk about Australia. The phrase used was ‘We go with a begging bowl to the rest of the world,’ when the reality is that we stand here today with one of the lowest public debts in the world. We heard the shadow Treasurer talking about our economy ‘being in peril’, when the OECD has just said that we have one of the most robust and resilient economies in the world. I think that I heard it right when I heard the shadow Treasurer talking about Australia in the same breath as Ireland and Portugal. This is fearmongering at its worst; this is carping and bleating at its worst.

What we have seen with the shadow Treasurer over the last few weeks when he has tried to mount an argument in relation to the cost of living or the banks has been thought bubbles here, knee-jerk reactions over there, a slogan next and him jumping up and down with ever greater feverishness on the one spot like a hyperactive frog. The shadow Treasurer is a man who has absolutely no solutions whatsoever.

Despite the carping and the bleating of the opposition, despite the slogans and the populism, despite the cynical politicking and despite the utter absence of any solutions whatsoever to the real issues that are facing the Australian people, on the positive side we have a government that has recognised from day one the difficulties that are associated with balancing the family budget that are being experienced by everyday Australians. And not the least of the reasons why they are experiencing those difficulties is the state that they were left in after 12 long years of the Howard government. We saw what was happening with interest rates in 2007 when the Howard government came to its end. We understand the difficulties faced, such as rising grocery prices, paying the mortgage and petrol prices. We know the difficulties that are being faced in balancing the household budget.

That is why we took the action that we did at the height of the global financial crisis at the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009. And if you want to talk about ‘decisive action’—words used in this matter of public importance—that action was decisive. The Labor government took decisive action to bring direct stimulus payments to those who most needed it: families, pensioners, carers and self-funded retirees. It is a great example of how this government has from day one been keenly aware of the pressures that families are under.

That is why we have taken other decisive actions, such as raising the pension. Since September 2009, the pension has been increased by $115 a fortnight and $97 a fortnight for couples. We have indexed that to wages, which are growing faster than the rate of inflation, so that pensions have a degree of protection from price increases in our economy. This is the biggest reform to the pension in 100 years. There are 2.1 million age pensioners receiving that benefit, 764,000 disability support pensioners and 167,000 care payment recipients. It stands as decisive action in stark contrast to the inaction on the pension by the Howard government over a period of 11 years.

We can also look at paid parental leave. From 1 January next year, 148,000 new parents each year will be eligible to receive 18 weeks at the minimum wage, a value in excess of $10,000. Applications for that are being taken right now. That is again decisive action that stands in stark contrast to the inaction of the Howard government over 11 long years.

When we are talking about the cost of living, one of the most important things that we need to understand is that it is not just about what needs to be paid out; it is also about what you can bring in—the revenue, if you like, for a household; the wage packets. The most decisive action of this Labor government was abolishing Work Choices. Work Choices will be etched on the tombstone of the Howard government. Work Choices monstered the household budget and income by giving rise to a loss of penalty rates for working on weekends, for example, a loss of shift work allowances and a loss of overtime. Studies have estimated that casual and part-time sales assistants lost 12 per cent of their earnings under Work Choices. Full-time working women under Australian workplace agreements—that legislated scheme of workplace contracts—were $87.40 per week worse off than their counterparts working under collective agreements.

In that brief window of light that the then Howard government allowed to be shone upon the scheme of AWAs, we learnt very rapidly that 64 per cent of AWAs were cutting annual leave loading, 63 per cent were cutting penalty rates, 52 per cent were cutting shift work loadings, 51 per cent were cutting overtime loadings, 46 per cent were cutting public holiday pay and one in five were providing workers with no pay rise at all and in some cases preventing a pay rise for up to five years. That is what we had under the Howard government.

As much as Work Choices is etched on the tombstone of that government, we have seen attempts to resurrect Work Choices by the Abbott opposition. In the lead-up to this election—on day one, I think—we heard Tony the politician talk about giving the Fair Work Act a go.

See this speech in context