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

Yes, he's not here to hear the praise. But I am sure that will get back to him. But in terms of family tax benefit payments, we are providing to no less than 650,000 children and their families—650,000 Australian teenagers between the ages of 16 and 19 who deserve a go in life and who deserve the best chances that this lucky and wealthy nation can provide—payments of up to $4,200.

Mr Tehan interjecting—

The member for Wannon interjects but what I understand is that I live in the real world and I judge budgets and political rhetoric by how they affect individuals and families. What we see here are higher pensions under Labor and what we see is an education tax refund being introduced. What we also see in this budget is the extension of education tax refunds to some of those incidental but fundamentally necessary costs of life such as payment for school uniforms. We are doing things from the teen dental plan and the low-income tax offset right through to what we are doing for small business. Small business and the private sector are the engine rooms of the Australian economy, and this government understands that very clearly.

Our Prime Minister and our Treasurer have both spoken in question time about the need to spread the prosperity of the minerals boom right across the Australian economy. Let us be clear: whilst the minerals boom mark 2 is an unvarnished benefit for certain regions and certain industries in Australia, the high dollar is making it harder in other areas. There is no question about that; these are matters of record. What we are seeking to do in our policies, in our budget and in our actions is to share the benefits of the mining boom throughout this great nation of ours. Upon the successful passage of the minerals resource rent tax we want to see the corporate tax rate in Australia reduced from 30 to 29 per cent. We want to extend this benefit very quickly to small business and then in subsequent years to larger business, but it does not stop there.

We also recognise that Australians need to save more for their retirement. That is why this government is taking up the mantle of the Keating government by increasing superannuation from nine to 12 per cent. We on this side of the House understand very clearly that people do not have enough money to retire on in many cases. That is why we need to increase the level of superannuation. One way we can afford this measure so that Australians can retire with more money than they might otherwise have is to offset the loss in Commonwealth revenue from the concessionally taxed amount of income being increased, through the ability of the minerals resource rent tax to help make up for lost Commonwealth revenue.

Superannuation is an issue which the opposition like to gloss over. We want to increase superannuation from nine to 12 per cent because we think that, for people as they approach retirement, having more in their savings account will assist them, when they cease working, to deal with cost-of-living pressures. So it is with some great frustration that I note the comments of the opposition that they are against increasing compulsory minimum superannuation. I do not accept their logic that somehow it is a tax on business. It is not; it is offset with real wages growth. I do not accept the logic that it is not in Australia's interest to increase our national savings pool. What frustrates me at a personal level is that they do not practise what they preach. They are happy to receive defined benefit payments, or 15 per cent tax on superannuation, yet they would not provide 12 per cent to their voters. They are prepared to have one lifestyle themselves and yet they would not support their electorate and their constituents receiving a minimum payment over seven years of 12 per cent.

This leads me to the bigger challenge of cost of living, and it leads me to a comparison between those opposite and the government. The Treasurer in his budget night address recognised that we are an economy in transition. Determined to get the budget into surplus, recognising that our historic terms of trade will not remain as high in future years and recognising the importance of getting our budget into surplus, he has overseen the fastest fiscal consolidation since we have been keeping the numbers—a remarkable accomplishment. But he also recognises that we are an economy in transition. The world does not owe this nation a future. Change is not something you should just let happen to you automatically; sometimes you have to be ahead of the change curve.

We recognise in this nation—despite the disparaging remarks and the bullying tone of the Leader of the Opposition talking about a surplus made in China—that this is indeed the Asian century. We recognise that seven of our top 10 trading partners are Asian economies. We recognise the rise of Asia. We recognise that, whilst the commodities boom is a great gift to Australia, it is not an indefinite gift. We therefore need to make sure that we have the most skilled workforce.

We recognise that our economy is in transition with the ageing of our population. We recognise that we need to take steps now to ensure that as our Australians grow older they do not retire poor. We on this side of the House recognise the power of information and the information pipeline. For Australian business, for Australian tourism and for Australian society and education, we need to be able to capture information, absorb it and disseminate and utilise it quickly. That is why we are pushing the National Broadband Network.

We recognise that, in this economy in transition dealing with the transformative forces which are occurring throughout the world, we are not immune. We recognise that we need to carbon-proof our economy. We need to create a more sustainable economy. We also recognise through our actions that, as much as we are proud of our manufacturing and as much as we are proud of our mining, we are also a services economy. That is why we put such emphasis on our education and of course our participation rates in our measures. However, when you look at the cost of living, you cannot just judge the government in isolation from what the opposition say. Those opposite are indeed a material threat to the economic wellbeing of this nation. They are a threat.

Opposition members interjecting—

No doubt the truth hurts, judging by the remarks of the opposition. Let us talk about some of their economic irresponsibility. First of all, during the election they had a black hole, unfunded promises, of somewhere near $11 billion. But it does not stop there. They proposed a paid parental leave scheme which would have been a tax on business which would have ultimately been passed through to consumers. What a silly idea.

Now they have this Direct Action policy. They know that they have to be seen to do something about climate change. They are caught between two stools. They do not really want to accept that climate change exists, but their annoying, irritating polling keeps telling them that a majority of Australians—and, indeed, the vast majority of scientists—say it is happening. They know that Australians do not like the idea of great pollution in their cities and they know that they have to do something, but they are just not quite sure what. So they have proposed a Direct Action policy where all they will do is pay high-polluting companies lots of money. That is their plan, and of course families will have to pick up the tab because of a reluctance of those opposite to accept that we are an economy in transition.

Let us not forget that, when the going gets tough, the opposition get going—somewhere else. When we proposed the flood levy for that catastrophic damage, of course on all sides we recognised the tragedy of the loss of life, but in terms of the economic damage done to infrastructure—to roads, to rail—on this side we understood that we had to reallocate priorities within government. We had to find cuts. We also supported a flood levy. Those opposite have the proverbial magic pudding. They were not prepared to support a flood levy but they were just going to say, 'We'll find the money elsewhere.' After one abortive attempt, tangling with foreign aid, they gave it up as a bad job. Anyway, in terms of cost of living, I am confident that the government are the best people to manage these issues. (Time expired)

See this speech in context