Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this MPI. I think the reason those on the other side are so sore is that this resolution actually expects too much out of the Treasurer. It actually expects him to be able to come up with an agenda that will last five minutes—from the man who is the thought-bubble wand of the coalition. One day he will hop on a flight to London and he will explain to the people over there who are listening to him, by saying words he would never say here. He would never actually deliver 'The Age of Entitlement' speech here before an election. This is a speech where he said:

So, ultimately the fiscal impact of popular programs must be brought to account no matter what the political values of the government are or how popular a spending program may be.

Those are big words; a tough speech. As a result of that, the Prime Minister took that into account and developed his paid parental leave policy. Here he had his soon-to-be Treasurer lecturing all these other people that they should be ending the age of entitlement, and one person was not listening: the Prime Minister.

Residents in the electorate of Chifley speak to me about this. In particular, one age pensioner, who I have recounted in times past, said, 'I'm on a pension of $24,000 a year and yet there are people on the other side of the city who are on three times or four times what I'm getting—$75,000.' He cannot understand how the age of entitlement is supposed to have ended.

A few weeks ago in the lead-up to the G20 in an interview with Laura Tingle, the Treasurer was scratching his chin and said we may need to see the G20 collectively assist emerging markets that are having trouble dealing with the aftermath of tapering. He was talking about using the G20 to collectively assist. When the IMF was talking about helping out Europe, what did Joe Hockey say? He said the government must explain to taxpayers whether it would be in Australia's national interest to contribute and from where the government plans to fund such a contribution. One minute he will tell you that things should not be done or that we should stop entitlement or that we should make reform happen and the next minute he changes his mind. And then he goes to the G20 and talks about an agenda for growth, about jobs, about infrastructure. Let us talk about growth. He has got no idea how he is actually going to fund it.

You have seen all those opposite clutch Real Solutions. Their knuckles were going white they were clutching it so hard. Every time you wanted an answer out of them they said, 'It is in this book, read on. It is in the plan'—and somebody else will tell you what is in there.

Mr Bowen interjecting—

I watched Jamie and learned everything. One of the pearlers in there was 'one million jobs in five years'.

Dr Chalmers interjecting—

Let us go to a tally—and I thank the member for prompting me. It is roughly 250,000 jobs a year the government has to create. Those opposite have been in office for less than six months, and how many jobs have gone? There are 63,000 jobs gone. A job has gone every three minutes, and they have to create 250,000 in year 1. Look at the jobs that have gone: Holden, SPC, Ford. You can see what is happening. There is a callous disregard from those opposite about supporting people in those jobs to make sure that they stay, to make sure that they have incomes, to make sure that economic activity continues in this country. Their view is if it is in Real Solutions then it has got to happen, but reality demonstrates something completely different. Here they are telling the rest of the world they have to focus on growth, while jobs are being burned.

See this speech in context