Laura Smyth (La Trobe, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to be speaking in this afternoon’s debate because I am particularly pleased to see that the opposition has finally, in this near final sitting day for 2010, determined that cost-of-living issues are a matter of some significance. I am very pleased that they have reached that conclusion. We on this side of the House have known for quite some substantial time that these are issues that are of significance to ordinary Australians, which is why we have embarked on a very significant and comprehensive series of policy initiatives and reforms and have done so from day 1 of our term in office.

Those reforms have spanned areas such as taxation, superannuation, pensions, child care, education and skills development, jobs and job security and, recently, the cost of PBS medications. In contrast to that, the opposition, as was noted by the Minister for Defence Materiel earlier this afternoon, has come up with no positive or constructive policies. They are yet to enunciate anything that would in fact address the issues that they so vehemently say are matters of concern.

The one thing I will say, however, is that the shadow Treasurer mentioned earlier in today’s debate that something they would be seeking to do was to cut spending, presumably in the areas of health and education as we saw during the years of decay of the Howard government. What he unfortunately failed to indicate to us was the margin for error in that $50 billion figure that he mentioned in spending cuts. Unfortunately, call me a nitpicker or a pedant, I tend to think that a margin of error of plus or minus $11 billion is somewhat significant if one is aspiring to position oneself as a Treasurer in this country.

I am very pleased this afternoon to be able to articulate in a bit more detail the significant areas of reform that we have embarked on in those particular areas of taxation, superannuation, pensions, child care, education and skills development, jobs and job security and the cost of medications. We know that this government has delivered tax cuts for three years in a row to assist working families. These are real and practical measures that will impact upon Australians’ cost-of-living concerns. We know that this was achieved even against the backdrop of a global financial crisis, so our dedication to these issues is clear and consistent. Our tax cuts mean that a worker earning $50,000 is paying $1,750 less tax in 2010-11 than they did in 2007-08. These are fairly significant practical changes that this government has delivered. We have doubled the low-income tax offset, which has increased the tax-free threshold from $11,000 to $16,000. As many Australians know, we have also reduced the marginal tax rates faced by many workers, which means that they get to keep more from an extra dollar of income.

We know that this government has increased the childcare tax rebate from 30 per cent to 50 per cent, which is something that has an incredibly significant impact in my electorate, which is a growing area that has a significant and growing population of young families, who will rely on and benefit from that significant policy change. Yet, again, in more than a decade of Howard decay, none of these initiatives for Australian families were delivered.

We will deliver the new family tax benefit arrangements to assist families with teenagers, who continue to bear the significant costs that come with raising teenage children. We all know that this is a very significant reform and reflects our hope that teenagers will stay at school and develop skills for their futures. Yet again, it is a practical reform that provides financial assistance to families and is targeted at ensuring that teenagers remain at school and develop skills.

We also know that this government has delivered a historic pension rise, which is something that the Howard government did not prioritise. During more than a decade in office professing to have an interest in and regard for older Australians, it gave nothing back to them. It took this government, in its first term and once again against the backdrop of a global financial crisis, to achieve a significant increase to the age pension.

Another significant issue that will be of relevance to older Australians and to pensioners in this country relates to a reform that this government has achieved in only the last week, and that is the reform to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. We have made changes to the PBS which will mean that the price taxpayers pay at the pharmacy for PBS medicines will now more accurately reflect the market price instead of the current listed price, which is often much higher. The opposition did not support this measure. Tellingly, the people who profess to be concerned about the real costs to the pockets of ordinary Australians facing cost-of-living pressures were precisely the people who objected to this measure. Here is the alternative they so helpfully suggested: they proposed that we take up the proposals of the Generic Medicines Industry Association, which would have meant that pensioners would pay an extra $5 per script for their medications. To a pensioner $5 per script is a fairly significant amount of money. I am sure that most members in this place would be aware of that. So, we have increased the pension by a historic amount during our first term in government, and the opposition’s terribly constructive proposal, in the manner in which it proposes to regulate the PBS, is to take money away from those people whom we have given that increased pension to.

I say again that I am particularly glad that the opposition, in a rare moment of illumination this afternoon, has come to understand that cost-of-living pressures are something to consider. Unfortunately their rhetoric and the reality of their behaviour in relation to these matters are somewhat at odds. We on this side have been taking measures for some time to address cost-of-living pressures. It is extraordinary that the opposition, which has once again taken an opportunity to berate the very successful BER program and which let the education sector flounder without adequate funding for so very long during the Howard years of decay, should talk about the need for attention to the cost of living. Because what better way is there of assisting the long-term prosperity of our young people, and their capacity to earn a decent wage, than through investments in their education and then securing their employment? On both fronts this government has been leading the way.

We have almost doubled the education funding of the Howard government in our first term, again against the backdrop of the global financial crisis. We have created, as the Treasurer mentioned again today, an estimated 650,000 jobs during the last three years, achieving much of this through the stimulus spend and through other endeavours to sustain the Australian economy during difficult global international circumstances.

When people have studied and worked hard to get an education, to get qualifications and to get jobs, we would really like them to keep those jobs. That is why in our first term we moved to restore fairness in workplaces around this country, something which those opposite persist in questioning today. Indeed, we have heard that the member for Moncrieff has once again raised whether industrial relations ‘reform’, as they put it, should be revived in the Liberal Party’s agenda. We showed during our first term, and we continue to show, that it is possible to work with industry and workers for the best outcomes. We implemented the Fair Work Act and we abolished Work Choices.

The only measure that the opposition have proposed in addition to their spending cuts, which again have that plus or minus threshold of a mere $11 billion—pocket change!—is tax increases which they need to support their paid parental leave scheme. I am pleased to say that on this side of the House we have been able to initiate and implement a paid parental leave scheme without needing to impose additional taxes which would have flowed on to consumers and thereby raised the cost of groceries and other everyday ordinary items, increasing cost-of-living pressures for ordinary Australians.

The final point I will make is in relation to superannuation. This government is seeking to increase the superannuation guarantee to 12 per cent. We all know the public position of the opposition on this. What better way to provide for the long-term quality of life and economic circumstances of our retiring Australians than to provide appropriately for superannuation.

See this speech in context