Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Hansard source

Welcome to 'anything but the budget' week, because that is what is going on here. This is the government's attempt to talk about anything but the budget during the course of this week. This legislation could have been debated in previous weeks. Let's not forget the number of times this parliament has run out of legislation in previous times because the Leader of the House cannot manage a government program. Now they try to make sure that, for the course of this week, they have debate on as many different issues as possible for one reason—and one reason only—and that is to try to avoid their own backbench from having to make speeches defending the budget.

We will have, in a moment, another resolution that this will become relevant to—to have all the debate held on the one occasion, to make sure that speeches on cuts to lower income families and on cuts to pensioners are limited. The strategy that the government is employing here is cumulative, with the different resolutions that are in front of us. This one is to make sure that the mining tax is being debated at the exact same time that the cuts to family payments, cuts to the pension and increasing the pension age to 70 are being debated. In doing that the government is making sure that $13.4 billion worth of cuts will only have three hours of debate. This week, the government is going to be spending $63.8 million a minute in cuts. They are spending $63.8 million in cuts every minute for debate in this chamber.

Those opposite are adopting a very clear strategy, trying to make sure their backbenchers are not caught by their own constituents defending cuts to pensions and family payments. We just had a speech from the Leader of the House saying that they are about cutting taxes, when they have just brought in a budget where the first measure to go through the parliament was an increase in income tax. The same people opposite want to increase petrol tax. The same people opposite want to make sure, with their budget and these budget measures, that this parliament makes a direct attack on the cost of living of the exact same people they made commitments to.

The reason they are gagging debate with these resolutions is to try to protect their own back bench from the fact that this is a budget, and a government, of broken promises. Those opposite do not want to have to come into the chamber and make speeches defending the fact that, even though it was said there would be no cuts to education, there are cuts to education; that, even though it was said there would be no cuts to health, there are cuts to health; that, even though it was said there would be no changes to pensions, there are changes to pensions; and that, even though they promised there would be no new taxes, there are new taxes. So the strategy adopted by the government this week is to pile into one week—in the same parliament that in previous weeks has run out of legislation completely—as many different issues as possible, all of which have to reach their conclusion by Thursday, to try to ensure those members opposite can somehow go back to their electorates and disassociate themselves from this budget.

Those here should not believe for one minute they are going to be able to escape the reality: their constituents are going to know exactly what they have done in this chamber. Those opposite should not believe for one minute that the pensioners in their electorates will not know exactly what they have done. They may be able, through these motions, to avoid having to make speeches on these issues. They may, through these gag motions, avoid the scrutiny of putting up an argument. But they will not be able to avoid the scrutiny of coming in here and voting. During this week, even though the debate will have been gagged—even though the Leader of the House will have done his best to protect those behind him from having to defend, in speeches, the words of the budget—they will have to come in here and make a decision about whether or not they intend to vote to shift the pension age to 70, regardless of what they tell people in their electorates. They will have to vote to force people into a situation where, year on year, the real buying power of the pension becomes less and less.

I see one of the members opposite right now waving to people in the galleries, but the member for Reid will not be waving to his constituents about the way he will be voting this week. I would not be surprised if the member for Reid is one of the people who uses these debate management motions to avoid coming in here to make speeches defending these budget measures. He will avoid coming into this chamber to make speeches defending what is, by every single analysis, a budget of broken promises.

The purpose of the resolutions the Leader of the House has brought here today is absolutely transparent. When was the last time we had debate management motions on bill after bill, all introduced in this way? Their strategy is absolutely transparent. It did not need to be this way. I do have some sympathy for the back bench and the situation they have been put in. I understand that this is their strategy, because it is not only difficult for them to come in here and defend the budget measures because they break promises, it is not only difficult for them to come in here and make speeches to defend this budget because it is unfair, but it is also difficult to expect the back bench to come in and defend a budget that even their front bench could not get the details of right. Even their front bench, when interviewed, could not get the details of this right. So we end up with the poor public servants trying to work out what on earth this government wants to do. Is it the budget as it was agreed to by cabinet or is it the budget as it is claimed to be by the ministers in interviews, or even by the Prime Minister when he comes here to the despatch box?

We end up with billions of dollars—$13.4 billion worth—of cuts, all aimed squarely at hitting lower- and middle-income earners. They are all aimed squarely at hitting pensioners and making sure the real buying power of the pension goes down year after year, at every six-month increment. Those opposite come in here and claim that is not a cut because, even though it does not keep pace with buying power for the products that pensioners buy, they want to pretend that somehow they have kept their promises.

A motion like this in this chamber will mean, by definition, that people will lose the democratic right to stand up for the people who elected them. While those opposite might not be willing to come in and defend their constituents, on this side of the House we are here for the people we represent. We are in here on this side of the House saying we want to be able to stand in the chamber and defend the people this government wants to hurt. This government has come into this chamber wanting to hurt people in a range of ways, but it is particularly aiming at—targeting squarely—the people who can least afford it, make no mistake.

We are asked what was in the mining tax bills. It is as though the Leader of the House has never heard of the schoolkids bonus. It is as though the Leader of the House thinks the schoolkids bonus is not directly under attack in the issue we are debating right now. It is part of this bill. It is part of the legislation that is now being gagged. It is something that people in every electorate represented by those opposite and on this side of the House rely on for the expenses of looking after their kids and for the extra expenses that come at the beginning of a school year and halfway through. The people represented by those opposite might find they have no local member of parliament to stand up for them, but those on this side will stand up for the people we represent.

I say: we will be the ones standing up for the seats represented by those opposite us. Your constituents will not miss that fact. The pensioners in the electorates represented by those opposite will not miss the fact that, when it came to the crunch, people on this side of the House defended them and people on that side of the House did not. People on this side of the House were willing to come in to make speeches and defend people when they were being hurt; people on that side were willing to keep mindlessly inflicting pain, squarely aimed at those who could least afford it.

See this speech in context