Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

I listened carefully to the shadow Treasurer's speech. I think he has missed a lot of what happened in the budget last night, so I am pleased to assist and to be a torchlight of clarity in this matter of public importance debate. I am pleased to switch on the lights.

Australia is experiencing an economy in transition. We need to get our policy settings right. We on this side of the House understand that our economy is changing, and we need to make sure that government policies change to assist Australians to prosper from the transition of our economy. There are transformative forces at work in our world. On this side we understand the growth in the emergence of Asia. We understand that our population is growing older. We understand that information is king in the modern era and that the information pipeline is going to be a fundamental driver of economic organisation. We understand that, along with the high commodities prices in the mineral boom, we are also expanding as a services economy. We also understand that we need to change to a low-pollution economy.

This budget is an attempt to get away from sound bite style policy, which is, tragically, so beloved of the opposition. It is a search for systemic ways to make our nation more sustainable, more innovative and indeed more competitive. It is to help us make the transition into a digital economy, a low-pollution economy and an economy which can spread the benefits of the mining boom throughout all parts of this nation. After all, if the global phenomena of climate change and the global financial crisis have taught us anything at all it is this: everything and everyone is connected and change is not optional; it is inevitable. That is why this budget is so important. That is why Treasurer Swan's fourth budget is such a very good one. It is a statement of purpose, and the purpose is to secure our future his budget endeavours to tackle the cost of living issues and it builds upon Treasurer Swan's previous three budgets. Let us go through some of the contributions of the government to tackling the cost of living. People are paying lower taxes. Someone on $50,000 a year is paying $1,750, or 18 per cent, less tax than in 2007-08. The tax to GDP ratio—a statistic which was cleverly, selectively and disingenuously ignored by the opposition spokesperson who just gave us his contribution—has dropped from 23½ per cent in the last year of the Howard-Costello regime, when we came to office, to 20.3 per cent in 2009-10.

Since September 2009 we have tackled the cost of living pressure on pensioners by increasing the age pension. It is up $128 a fortnight for single pensioners and around $116 for pensioner couples. We have developed the education tax refund. This is where families can claim up to 50 per cent of their education costs, up to $397 per year, for every child in primary school and up to $794 for each child in secondary school. There are over one million families and 1.7 million children who have already benefited from this education tax refund. We have also extended the education tax refund to school uniforms. Parents now will be able to claim up to 50 per cent of the cost of uniforms incurred from 1 July 2011—yet again helping with the cost of living pressures.

In this budget we were pleased to announce the increase of $4,200 to families who are receiving family tax benefit A. We have committed to increasing it up to $4,200 a year per teenager to help families meet the costs of older children still at school and to encourage more teenagers to stay at school. From 1 January 2012 we will increase the maximum payment rate of family tax benefit A by around $160 per fortnight for teenagers who are aged between 16 and 19 years who are in school or studying for an equivalent vocational qualification. This is going to benefit 650,000 teenagers turning 16 over the next five years.

But of course the best way to deal with the cost of living is to ensure that people have a job. Having a decent job is the best way to deal with cost of living pressures. Since 2007, under the stewardship of our Treasurer, we have overseen the creation of 700,000 new jobs, in mining, retail, health and the skilled trades. That is 550 jobs a day, every day, since Labor took office. And now there are over 440,000 Australians in training or apprenticeships. They are getting real training for careers in construction, automotive, furnishing, tourism, plumbing and hairdressing. We will increase the number of apprenticeships over the next three years by another 50,000. Liberal policy, I am afraid to report to the House, is to cut $2 billion from training and to sack 80,000 trainees.

When we look at this cost of living debate and what this budget contributes, we need to further put the facts in black and white. If you have got children in child care, you will get the choice of claiming childcare payments more regularly—getting the money in your pocket and off the bill you have. As I said, if you have children at school, you will be able to claim for their school uniforms. If your children are teenagers, we are increasing the family tax benefit payment by about $160 per fortnight. Also, importantly, if you are one of 50,000 single parents, tax rates will be cut by up to 20c in the dollar. If you want some training, to obtain a higher wage, as I have said, we are creating 130,000 training spots. If you want to be an apprentice, or if you have a teenage son or daughter who wants to be one, we will give more support for people to complete their training, through mentoring guidance and allowing good apprentices to get their qualifications quickly. If you are a tradesperson or a small business, if you are buying a new ute or car which is necessary for the business, you will be able to claim $5,000 back in tax. That is real help in terms of the cost of living.

If you are a low-income earner, you will get more in your pay packet each week through the advance payment of the low-income tax offset. If you are finding it tough to get a job, there will be 35,000 wage subsidies for the very long-term unemployed job seekers, to help them get a job, and 30,000 training places for single and teenage parents, to help them get the skills they need. Importantly—and dear to my heart—if you have the challenges and the financial costs which arise from having a disabled child in the school system, we will be contributing $200 million to the special schools and the school systems of various states in order to better support disabled children getting an education. If you are worried about your local hospital, there is $3.4 billion for emergency departments and elective surgery. There is $613 million for new medicines and making immunisation more affordable. If there is a teacher in your family, or you are a family that places a lot of value on the quality of your child's teacher, there is $425 million to reward our top performing teachers across the country.

This is a real list of things which go to the day-to-day lives, the lived experience, of people in the suburbs and regions of Australia. But I would not want the House just to take my word for the benefits of this budget. I will quote David Koch, who is a very well-known commentator. He said in today's paper—and it is a fair assessment:

The overriding theme is that if you don’t have a job, or if you earn a comfortable income, there are no more easy Government handouts.

Perhaps that is what is worrying the opposition. Kochie also said:

Compared with the rest of the world we are an economic miracle. Economic growth will be reasonable (after the hiccup of the natural disasters), inflation on target, unemployment falling and—

despite the Chicken Little prognostications of those opposite—

Government debt tiny compared with the rest of the world.

Kochie could be viewed to be a commentator for the government, but he is not. He is independent, as I know the shadow Treasurer thinks. If Kochie were not sufficiently convincing and compelling, CommSec Chief Economist Craig James, who is hardly a member of the Marxist international, said:

Overall, it is a smart Budget, right for the times and challenges ahead.

Meanwhile, the ratings agency Moody's, who are hardly Green Left Weekly, have reconfirmed our AAA rating and said:

… Moody's notes that Australia's government debt remains amongst the lowest of all AAA-rated governments.

The chief economist of UBS, Scott Haslem said:

The bias towards reduced spending over new taxes to offset revenue shortfalls is commendable.

UBS says that what the government has done is commendable. Heather Ridout of the Australian Industry Group has said:

We believe this budget is very solid on the fundamentals. It makes a solid investment in skills … I think it will take pressure off interest rates in the longer term.

But again it does not stop there with the commentary. On Bloomberg, it says:

Australia's government will end 23 years of spending growth to ease inflation from the biggest mining investment boom in the nation's history.

But of course the opposition would not rate CommSec, they would not rate UBS, they would not rate Kochie, they would not rate Bloomberg, because they do not agree with their view of the world.

I think it is important, when we are having a debate about who is doing the best in terms of the budget, that we understand that this budget is not formed in isolation. Politics is not a one-horse race; it is a two-horse race. We have to see what the opposition would do. We all remember last year when the Leader of the Opposition got up and gave a speech and made some political points and, at the end, said, 'By the way, the shadow Treasurer will deal with the costings in our propositions at the Press Club next Wednesday.' So we all waited with bated breath—what would the shadow Treasurer say the following Wednesday at the National Press Club? Unfortunately, he got up and said nothing. He said, 'Actually, that is the shadow finance minister's job.' So what we have is sort of the opposition equivalent of the Three Stooges: 'It was not me; it is him.' 'No, it is not me; it is the other person.'

The more important point is not even the gaffe of last year. The issue is this: good budgets are not centrally just about politics and parties. They have to be about good policy; they have to be about the future. So we need to have a good-faith debate here. This budget week is not just a test of the government; it is a test of the opposition. If the Liberal-National Party coalition have real alternatives that they truly believe in, they should set them out. They should set out their alternatives—anything less than that is absolutely wasting the opportunity.

On the issue of getting the budget back into the black, the shadow Treasurer made some rather garrulous comments on 4 May and again on 6 May—indeed on any day that you talk to him. But on 4 May and 6 May he made it clear that he could get the budget back into the black by next year. When in Australian politics will there be any accountability for the comments of the shadow Treasurer? We all know that it took the Leader of the National Party to slap him down over his motormouth comments on trusts, when the shadow Treasurer said that trusts should be taxed in the same way as companies. It did not take long for the red warning light in the National Party bunker to go beep, beep, beep. And I have no doubt that the Trussinator was on the phone saying, 'This is not coalition policy.' I could just hear the Nationals going: 'Oh my god! The moose is loose; he is out again and he is making policy on the run'.

I think that what we need to do here is to make sure. Perhaps we need a little bit of National Party iron rigour— the wheaty hand in the glove—saying to Joe Hockey, 'Mate, what is our policy? What is our plan? What are we going to do? It is all right for us to bag the government—okay, that is one thing. What are we going to do?' All we have is their costings from the election and we all remember the $11 billion black hole. Tony Abbott fronted up, ran around the 36-hour—

See this speech in context