Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Like many on this side, I imagine that over the past week some on the other side would have been out and about in their constituencies, talking to families and looking people in the eye, and they would have probably discovered what we did: mums and dads out there are certainly not happy with this budget; pensioners think it is diabolical; road users think they are being used and abused; and the group which surprised me a little bit when I met them was the doctors—they thought all their doctors clinics had been turned into tax collection agencies.

In looking at this budget, where have they targeted? They have targeted pensioners, they have targeted families, they have targeted young people and they have certainly targeted job seekers. This government has confected a budget emergency—and I heard the diatribe from the member for Longman, who spoke prior to me—but the fact is that Australia's debt ratio is 12.1 per cent of GDP. When you look at the OECD countries that we compete with, you see that their average debt ratio is 75 per cent of GDP. So the government should not run around talking about this confected emergency.

No wonder those opposite were complaining when jobs were being created in every school that had new science blocks or new school halls built. They might want to whinge and bleat about it now, but you would remember, Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell, what they were like in those days. They used to run along and jump up like Where's Wally to get their photo in the local newspapers. They would not miss out on that. They got caught out time and time again saying how wonderful it was that there was this investment in education, as if they had something to do with it!

Bear in mind what happened when the global financial crisis hit, when they were sitting on this side of the House. Their shadow Treasurer's view was, 'We should wait and see how bad this gets.' They were not taking advice from Treasury. They were not taking any advice from economists. Their plan was to wait and see how bad it got. But they come in here and expect to be treated as economic geniuses!

All they have been doing is hoodwinking people about what is in this budget. But we on this side know—and I am sure they do too, because they did not like their seats being mentioned, I noticed, this week—what pensioners think about this. We know what pensioners think about having to make a $7 co-payment every time they go to their doctor. Maybe those opposite do not know; I accept that. My mum lives with me. She is 85. I know how often she has to go to the doctor because I take her. I know how much medication she needs because I go and get it for her. Now, if those fellows opposite think that people on age pensions go to the doctor with the same frequency as a younger, fit person, they have rocks in their heads. They have shown they do not understand.

By the way, that point was made to me loud and clear last week, when I attended the national seniors forum. You probably won a few votes off them last election. But now that they will be paying another $7 every time they visit a doctor and paying another $5 for every medication they get, they think that they have been used and abused. Now it has come out that the age pension age will increase by six months every two years. Those opposite said it today. What they are not saying is that they have adjusted the indexation rate. If the indexation rate that they have introduced now, which is indexed to the CPI, was applied five years ago, our age pensioners would be $1,600 a year worse off. The only reason you have changed it from indexation to average weekly male earnings to indexation to CPI is you know you are going to rip off pensioners. This is designed to make a cut. As a matter of fact, looking at the budget, you are seeking a $400 million benefit out of that.

When it comes to looking after people—when it comes to looking after the aged, people seeking employment, young people who want to go to university—there is only one side of this parliament that stands up for those people. Those opposite might be jumping up and down now, but they were not doing it last week in their electorates, were they? They were not out putting advertising in their newspapers. They did not go out there and justify what they did in this budget. Why? Because they were so embarrassed. They did not know, in their own party room, what was about to happen. They kept their heads down. They should keep them down because they should hang them in shame. It is shameful what they have done.

See this speech in context