Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

This week the twisted priorities of the Abbott government have been placed in stark relief, there for all to see. Arguably, more than any other week of this government's life, the twisted priorities of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, in particular, are there for all Australians to see. On Tuesday we had fuel tax day. The government decided, 'If we can't beat 'em, ambush 'em.' They said, 'If we can't beat 'em, blackmail 'em.' That is what they said about the fuel tax. The government had a very clever plan. They said they were celebrating it. 'We have a very clever plan: if we can't get the legislation through the parliament, we'll do it without the parliament's approval.' So arrogant and so desperate is this government that they have engineered a situation whereby, if the parliament does not submit to their will, they will be required under legislation to refund the tax paid not to Australia's motorists, but to Australia's oil companies.

The Minister for Finance, to give him credit, has been honest about this. The Prime Minister has been asked on several occasions about this and refused to answer and fess up that this is their plan. The Minister for Finance, I acknowledge, has indicated that this is the case. But then he says, 'Well, that's a matter for Bill Shorten and Christine Milne.' Well, no it is not; it is a matter for the finance minister and it is a matter for the Treasurer because they have engineered this policy. The Treasurer was nowhere to be seen on Tuesday. He did not have the guts to turn up to make an announcement about the government's plans here. He might remind people of his views about fuel tax. He might remind people about his views about poor people in Australia. 'We wouldn't want that,' said the Prime Minister's office—I gather. 'We wouldn't want the Treasurer reminding people what he really thinks; we'll just get the finance minister to do it.' But the finance minister had a very clever way of announcing this. He said, 'No, no, no, this isn't new policy, this isn't a tax increase; these are revised implementation arrangements.' I am surprised he did not call the increase in fuel tax a 'reverse reduction' that they have engineered!

But we had a continuity of this Orwellian policymaking yesterday, with the direct action policy. It would be better known as the direct subsidy policy, but of course under this Orwellian arrangement we have 'direct action'. Direct action is now the climate change policy of this nation. But what they have done is create a great big money-go-round, with winners and losers. If you are a motorist on this money-go-round, you lose $2.2 billion. If you are a polluter, you win $2.5 billion. That is the money-go-round that this Prime Minister and this Treasurer have created. They decide who gets government support and the circumstances in which they get government support! That is the plan that they have cooked up. This Treasurer has not shrunk the state; he has shifted the state. He says he is ending the age of entitlement, but what he is doing is actually deciding who is entitled.

We have got a Treasurer who says, 'If you're a millionaire having a baby, you're a winner; you get $50,000'—no worries from this Treasurer. But, if you are a pensioner looking for fair indexation of your pension, it is 'No Way' Joe. You are a loser if you are a pensioner. If you are a company wanting a subsidy on your pollution, 'No problem,' the Treasurer says, 'Big tick. Cheque coming your way—$2.5 billion.' If you are a potential university student who wants to better yourself and study at university, without a crippling debt for the rest of your life, then it is 'No Way' Joe. You get a bad deal from the Treasurer. You get a big cross.

If you are a multinational company embarking on profit shifting and tax evasion, if you are a multinational company shifting profit around the world so that you do not pay your fair share of tax in Australia, well, you have got a friend in the Treasurer, because he has got $1.1 billion coming your way. On the money-go-round, you are a winner. He has got a deal for you does this Treasurer! But, if you are a single parent whose child is over six, then you are a loser with the Treasurer. He is 'No Way' Joe again—because the Treasurer is in touch; he knows that children get so much cheaper when they are older than six! Their school uniforms magically become cheaper! What they need for their schooling is cheaper all of a sudden because they are over six! The Treasurer knows that and he says, 'No; you're a loser on the money-go-round of the Abbott-Hockey government.'

If you have got more than $2 million in your superannuation account and you want a continuation of what is unfair tax treatment, then the Treasurer is your man, because you are a winner on the money-go-round of the Abbott-Hockey government, because this government has continued the tax arrangements which the previous government put measures—modest measures—in place to stop. When this government came to office, it said: 'No. That's unfair. If you've got $2 million in your superannuation account, you deserve the support of the government.' The age of entitlement is over for everybody, but not if you have got more than $2 million in your superannuation account! But, if you are a young person who is unemployed, you are a loser, because you are not going to get Newstart. The Treasurer has decided. It is 'No Way' Joe again. He is not going to pay your Newstart. He says: 'No, no, no. You should become a millionaire and have a baby—that should be your plan—and then the government will step in and look after you.' That is the age of entitlement under this government.

We know that the government are addicted to moving money around, and they are doing it again this week, taking money off motorists and giving it to polluters. If their policy had at least some public policy justification, then we would have at least some respect for it.

Ms Henderson interjecting—

Why don't you just have a coffee and calm down? Just have a coffee.

If it had some policy justification, then we might have some respect for it.

But let us look at what the Liberal Party feel about their own policy and some home truths given to the coalition by none other than the now Minister for Communications, when he was not Minister for Communications; when he was a backbencher and he could tell home truths. He wrote a cracker of an article. I can see you are pensive, Madam Speaker. I am not going to repeat it, because some of the language is unparliamentary. I would not do that. I have too much respect for the House to do that. I will not repeat the unparliamentary aspects of the article, but there are some that I can repeat. Talking about home truths, he says:

… as we are being blunt, the fact is that—

He refers to the now Prime Minister as 'Tony'—

Tony and the people who put him in his job do not want to do anything about climate change. They do not believe in human caused global warming. As Tony observed on one occasion "climate change is crap"—

That is on the borderline of parliamentary, Madam Speaker, but I am going to let that one through—

or if you consider his mentor, Senator Minchin, the world is not warming, its cooling and the climate change issue is part of a vast left wing conspiracy to deindustrialise the world.

These are the people in charge, and this is what the Minister for Communications really thinks about them and their policy. This is the Minister for Communications speaking home truths.

This is what we know about the government's policy. There are plenty of economists who say it will fall way short of meeting Australia's emissions targets, and they are right. And I suspect the Minister for the Environment knows it. I suspect the Minister for the Environment agrees with them. We know what the Minister for the Environment thinks. He thinks the polluters should pay. That is what he told us many, many years ago. Now he says the polluters should be subsidised, because that is what is happening on the money-go-round. If you are a polluter and you are emitting carbon into the atmosphere, you get a great big cheque—$2.5 billion coming your way. Courtesy of the Prime Minister, the environment minister and the Treasurer, $2.5 billion is coming the way of Australia's polluters. And what do they say, the economists who have looked at this policy in great detail? They say that it will deliver 20 to 30 per cent of the required emissions reductions and that it would take $4 billion to $5 billion a year in extra expenditure from the government to achieve the ambitious target of reducing our emissions. I accept the government is not going to do that, because the government says it is not. What I accept, as a result, is that Australia will not meet our emissions target.

Opposition members: Shame!

That is a shame, as honourable members behind me say, because Australia should be meeting the target which both sides of the House agree on. This government pays lip service to the target, as they pay lip-service to fairness and as they pay lip-service to proper public policy development. What they engage in is prejudice and a money-go-round in which average working Australians are the losers.

See this speech in context