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

by leave—I will now start my response to the Treasurer. The Treasurer and I agree on one thing: Australia's 24 years of uninterrupted economic growth should be celebrated and, even more importantly, it should be protected. It is a remarkable achievement—the longest period of uninterrupted economic growth for any developed country in the history of the world. Many people are responsible for it, but it is our responsibility to ensure it continues. I agree with the Treasurer that it is not inevitable that it will continue. Vigilance and reform are necessary. We agree on the end: continuing those 24 years of uninterrupted economic growth. Economic growth lifts people out of poverty and turns aspiration into reality. But we disagree on the method.

The Treasurer says the way to protect our economic growth record and our living standards is to embrace his budget, his budget which, to our way of thinking, is a fundamentally unfair document. He effectively says that the way to protect Australia's living standards is to attack Australia's living standards through the budget. The Treasurer's and the government's approach is that unfairness and regressive policies are the basis for reform and that reform must be unfair. This is where we differ.

The Treasurer, with due respect, has not learnt the lessons of history. The most successful reforming period in Australia's economic history was that period between 1983 and 1996. Never before had Australia been asked to embrace so much economic change—so much reform and so much change—and fairness was at its core. The talisman of the Hawke and Keating governments was restraint with equity. Equity was important. It was important for reasons of justice, but it was also important because it enabled Prime Minister Hawke and Treasurer Keating to make the case for reform, to explain to the Australian people that it was in the best interests of everybody to reform. If their reform package had been fundamentally unfair, it would have failed and Australia would have been worse off. That is the difference in approach between this side of the House and that side of the House.

We embrace economic reform. We do not run from it; we embrace it. We acknowledge that it is necessary to ensure ongoing growth, but we reject completely and utterly economic reform based on unfairness. At the core of the budget is the Treasurer's philosophy, which he shared with the House and with the people on budget night, dividing Australians into 'lifters' and 'leaners'. This is, again, where we differ. The way to make the case for reform is not to divide Australia down the middle. The way to make the case for reform is not to say, 'Some Australians deserve to benefit from economic growth and others do not.' This is what he was doing when he announced that the government would attempt to introduce unfair indexation for Australia's aged pensioners. This is what he was doing when he announced that he would take away the family tax benefit for children over six. This is what he was doing when he announced that the government believed it was necessary to create an underclass by taking people under 30 off the Newstart allowance. This is what the government were doing when they announced that low-income earners would receive zero tax support for saving for their future through superannuation. These are at the core of the government's philosophy and approach.

It was a regrettable thing for the Treasurer to divide Australia into lifters and leaners because, as has been said, what actually unites Australians is much greater than what divides us. We on this side of the House believe in inclusive growth. By that we mean that every Australian should be able to contribute to growth and every single Australian should benefit from economic growth. We do not divide Australians into lifters and leaners.

The Treasurer was not being original when he coined this phrase. He adopted the phrase from another politician. That politician was the vice-presidential candidate of the Republican Party, a Tea Party adherent who said that America was divided into 'makers' and 'takers'. That comment was adapted by the Treasurer. In fairness, that candidate for the vice-presidency later said that that was a mistake. He withdrew that statement. He was campaigning and an American citizen went up to him and asked, 'Can you explain to me who the takers are? Is it my aged pensioner mother who worked her whole life and is now relying on the United States federal government for the age pension? Is she a taker?' He reflected on that and he decided that that constituent, that United States citizen, was right and that he should not have said that. He withdrew it. He recanted it. He did so very explicitly and very deliberately. I say to the Treasurer that he, too, should recant and withdraw that statement about lifters and leaners in Australia. He should acknowledge that Australians do not need a Treasurer who divides them but one who unites them.

The Treasurer talked of economic growth. As I said in my opening remarks, we on this side of the House do not run from economic growth; we embrace it. We are the party of economic growth. Economic growth lifts people from poverty into prosperity. That is what drives the Labor Party. We will embrace things which promote economic growth and we will criticise things which take away from economic growth. We say creating an Australia which is more fundamentally unfair does not promote growth but diminishes growth and will in the long run be seen as a threat to growth. The government should recognise the same.

We talk of long-term economic growth. Let us focus on those matters in which the Treasurer is eating away at those long-term creators of economic growth. Let us focus in particular on education and innovation. Despite claims to the contrary, the budget contained $80 billion worth of cuts to health and education—$28 billion in education.

What is the long-term impact on economic growth of this? On this side of the House we believe that every Australian, regardless of their parents' wealth, regardless of their location around Australia, should have the capacity to grow and to be whatever they wish to be, to their full and maximum potential. We believe that as a matter of fundamental social justice. But we also believe it is very good economic policy, because we believe that if those young people are able to grow to be everything they can be, then Australia's economy as a whole will be better off. And I am not the only one who thinks that. For example, there are studies showing that measures to increase school retention rates will result in an additional annual taxation receipt for the Commonwealth of $2.3 billion, by 2040. Or, the effective increase in school and training retention rates amongst 15 to 24 year-olds from the current 80 per cent mark to around 90 per cent would have the same positive impact on the economy as increasing Australia's total migrant intake by 180,000 over the period to 2040. It would have a similar economic impact as increasing workforce participation rates of older workers by 6.6 percentage points, from nearly 53 per cent to nearly 60 per cent. And it would boost annual GDP by 1.1 per cent, the equivalent of $9.2 billion in today's figures.

This is the transformational, generational impact of an investment in education. Again there is a difference here. We see every dollar spent on education in this nation as an investment. Every single dollar. We see it as an investment in Australia's economic future, as well as the future of those individuals.

Let's look for a moment at the issue of skills and vocational education and training. It is another area that has been cut by this Treasurer and this government. This is an area where we can make a huge difference for individuals, their careers and their lives, and for the Australian economy. For example, closing the equity gap between people from low socioeconomic backgrounds and the general population, through vocational education and training, is estimated to increase real GDP by $3.9 billion by 2020, and in doing so will generate over 37,000 full-time equivalent jobs. That is an investment in the future. It is good for Australia's economy. Or, closing the equity gap between the general population and Indigenous people and people with a disability, through vocational education and training, is estimated to increase real GDP by $12.12 billion by 2020, and to generate 118,000 full-time equivalent jobs. This is the transformational opportunity of vocational education and training for our nation, one being eaten away by the short-sighted cuts of the Liberal Party and National Party in office. This is what we talk about when we say that this is a budget that is anti economic growth. I accept the intentions of the Treasurer when he talks about the need for economic growth, but I say to him that this government's actions eat away at the future sources of economic growth.

Then we come to innovation, that other great source of economic growth for Australia into the future. This is a budget that has cut the CSIRO funding, and just in the last fortnight we are seeing the impact of that cut—a cut in the CSIRO staffing levels that is very dramatic and will do Australia harm for many years to come.

We all know that science and research is primarily driven by the private sector, as it should be. But what governments do is important. We know that the CSIRO invented Wi-Fi. We know that the equivalent authorities and agencies in the United States and the United Kingdom were integral to promoting the internet and GPS. But we know that it is much less likely to happen in the future with these cuts.

We have seen many organisations abolished. The Treasurer boasted in his economic statement about the number of government organisations that have been abolished. Several of them are in the innovation, research and commercialisation space. That is not a matter for boasting. That is a matter for disappointment, and frankly a matter for shame. Of all the matters in the budget we are critical of—and they are many and varied—these are perhaps the most short-sighted and, frankly, dumbest cuts of all, because Australia will pay a price for many years to come.

I want to talk about the impact on economic growth in the shorter term of this government's economic policies, and the budget in particular. In his ministerial statement, the Treasurer again talked about confidence. Confidence is something we should talk about, because confidence has been smashed by this budget. Consumer confidence fell by seven percentage points in the month following the budget. It is 13 per cent lower than it was at the time of the last election. We were promised an adrenaline charge and we have had the opposite. That is on the Westpac figures. The Treasurer prefers to use the ANZ figures. So let's use the ANZ figures. The ANZ figures are not seasonally adjusted, but I am happy to use them if the Treasurer wants to use them. That is fine with me. The yearly average on the index is 111.4 for this year. The index for the last 10 years is an average of 115.2, and for the last 15 years it is 116.4.

See this speech in context