Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak on these appropriation bills and to declare at the outset that the budget is still unfair. It was unfair last year; it continues to be unfair this year. It is built on unfair cuts delivered in last year's budget. The $8 billion cuts from schools and hospitals remain intact; they have not changed. The one thing that has changed, though, is the rhetoric. Last year, the Liberal Party campaigned on the so-called budget emergency. Their first act on coming into office was to massively increase government debt with an unnecessary $9 billion loan to the Reserve Bank—one that the Reserve Bank did not request in any way, shape, size or form, and one that most of the markets are still shaking their heads over today.

This budget doubles the deficit again from $17.1 billion to $35.1 billion, and we hear that things are going well, that the economy is growing and doing well, and that the deficit is under control. No, it is not. It has been doubled, and it has been doubled by this government. This is not a fair budget. It is not even a reasonable budget, and it is one that needs to be scrutinised very carefully.

The budget does not present a credible path back to budget surpluses. It relies on an overly optimistic assumption and bracket creep. When are we finally going to deal with bracket creep? We are not, because people keep wanting to rely upon it as a short-term measure to resolve their economic problems. Who does bracket creep hurt? It hurts all working families. Bracket creep will impact mostly on middle- and low-income families, and it will increase heavily over time. The budget increases government debt by around $39 billion. Again: whatever has happened to the so-called budget emergency when you are prepared to increase your debt by $39 billion? The budget shows that the government will spend $9 billion more than it saves over the forward estimates, and there is no genuine attempt in this budget to address structural deficit. The great promise of fixing the budget was just another lie.

There is also nothing in this budget that will assist in job creation. The furphy and the froth and bubble around job creation coming from assisting small business is, again, something that is not sustainable. Whilst we all welcome assistance to small businesses—and many in my community run their own small businesses or run fairly successful medium and large sized businesses—I have not had one phone call from a small business operator in my electorate saying that the budget is great. I had lots of concerned phone calls from pensioners and self-funded retirees—actually many, many phone calls—concerned about issues in the budget, but not one small business operator has picked up the phone, sent me an email or been in touch. I think there are a whole lot of issues in the budget that they would see as being progressive but not really assisting them in the areas that they need the most. Those areas, of course, are science, technology, education and health. A small business relies upon them as much as they do on an instant asset write off.

The higher education space greatly impacts on my electorate, which is home to two very large universities where many within my constituency our employed. People are employed in many industries; a lot in my electorate are employed in higher education. Last year's budget proposed the deregulation of university fees and a 20 per cent cut to tertiary education funding. Fee deregulation will lead quickly to out-of-pocket fees of $100,000 or more. This step is still enshrined in this year's budget. Indeed, the budget papers point out that fee deregulation will be introduced next year. That is quite clearly stated in the budget paper. This deeply unfair measure is stalled in the Senate, and the minister offered to drop the 20 per cent cut to get it through.

This budget not only relies on full deregulation of university fees but also relies on the 20 per cent cut to higher education funding that the minister offered to drop. Again, the 20 per cent funding cut is still enshrined in this very unfair budget. The federal government cannot be trusted with higher education. It cannot be entrusted to ensure quality of access for all students.

We can talk about a wonderful thing called Commonwealth scholarships, but these scholarships are actually going to be funded by university students—so one student subsidising another. Where is the fairness in that? As I have often said before, in my electorate, where Monash University is in downtown Clayton, the likelihood of a child in Clayton getting a scholarship to go to the university across the road from their home is Buckley's and none. If we are talking about access and equity, we actually need to genuinely know what that means. A 20 per cent cut and deregulation will not ensure greater access and equity for all to higher education, which is what we need now if we are to build for jobs for the future.

But the biggest impact in this budget is on families. This budget continues to place the heaviest burden on those who can least afford it. Middle- and low-income families will be the hardest hit by more unfair cuts. NATSEM modelling has revealed that nine out of 10 of the lowest income families lose under the Abbott government's budget, while nine out of 10 of the wealthiest families benefit. A single parent family with two children, one in primary school and one in high school, with an income of $55,000 will lose $3,715 this financial year or $71.40 a week as a consequence of all of the 2015-16 budget changes. These losers will increase every year, losing $4,865 in 2016-17, $5,960 in 2016-17 and $6,108 in 2018-19—a total of $20,648 by the end of 2018-19. That is a staggering amount out of a family's budget.

This is compounded in electorates of mine, where housing prices are staggering. So they are already living in an area where they are under the weight of a massive mortgage. The majority of my electorate—over 65 per cent—choose to send their children to private secondary schools and they carry their private health insurance. So all these additional benefits that are taken away impact on families more substantially—and these families do not know how they will make ends meet. By contrast, a couple with two children, both in high school, with a dual income of $120,000 will lose just over half that amount—a smaller $11,575 over the next four years. How is this fair?

The government has kept the $15 billion of unfair cuts to families from last year's budget and is adding new cuts to child dental programs and community health programs. Again, people in my electorate rely upon this assistance to make ends meet. The budget freezes indexation on family tax benefit payments and also maintains the freeze on the Medicare rebate. This is just a GP co-payment by stealth. But it is not even the $7; this is an $8 GP tax by stealth. Family budgets will continue to be radically eroded by this budget.

The budget offers families a $3.5 billion childcare package. The Labor Party welcomes the government's willingness to address the shortfalls in childcare funding; however, this budget proposes immediate cuts to family budgets while the increase in childcare funding will slowly roll out over five years. So it is not even apples and oranges. So people will immediately lose money from their family tax benefits but the increase in funding for child care will not come straightaway. The budget sees single income families with children over six years old lose family tax benefit B. This means that families with a three- or four-year-old in child care will not receive any benefit from changes to childcare funding while there child is in care currently and in two years or so when their child commences school they will have their tax benefit slashed to pay for increased childcare funding. How is this fair? These parents will cop more now and lose more later. It is just not fair.

When the budget came down, UnitingCare put out a press release entitled—and I think this sums it up—'Jobs for families is a bitter sweet package'. The press release says:

UnitingCare Australia says the highly anticipated Families Package is bitter-sweet for Australian families.

'While greater investment in childcare is very welcome, elements of this particular package are badly targeted, and also risk limiting families’ choices in the long-term,' said Lin Hatfield Dodds, National Director of UnitingCare Australia.

She says:

More funding for quality childcare is something we welcome, but some of the detail of the package is disappointing. The Government has chosen to give big subsidies to very high income families. Families earning $300,000 a year will still be able to access $10,000 per child for childcare. This money could be more effectively spent in other areas to increase living standards and enable greater social mobility for the most vulnerable families.

The Productivity Commission last year recommended a much sharper taper rate at the top end for the childcare benefit than the one the Government has chosen. It is disappointing that the Government has decided to tip the scales more towards providing middle-class welfare—the very thing they are attempting to tighten through age pension changes.

So, again, it is sort of bittersweet—taking with one hand and giving with the other. You are saying to families, 'You've got a choice: you can get better childcare benefits, but to do it you've got to give up family tax benefits now.'

Meanwhile, the budget does nothing to address the long-term structural revenue issues which continue to hurt people on low and middle incomes. This budget does not sufficiently address the issue of multinational tax avoidance. Labor has proposed a measure that will amend the current thin capitalisation rules to reduce the amount of debt the multinational companies can claim deductions for in Australia, saving the budget $7 billion. Huge companies like Apple, Google, BHP and Rio Tinto cannot be allowed to spend billions of dollars offshore while middle- and low-income families are expected to pay even more tax. It is a pretty basic principle: you should pay tax on the money where you earn it. How can we keep having this situation where we are hitting families more and more but not asking multinationals to pay their fair share? I am not asking them to pay more than their fair share, but, if you earn the money in a country, you should pay the tax on the money you have earned. We know that BHP funnelled 42 per cent of its profits through its so-called marketing hub in Singapore, and we know that this is standard practice amongst our biggest multinationals.

Labor has also proposed reducing the excessive superannuation tax concession for very high income earners, saving $14 billion. The Australia Institute research shows that superannuation tax concessions will cost the budget $50.7 billion by 2016-17, outstripping the cost of the pension scheme, which is $39 billion. Again, we are giving to the top end of town and not looking at what we need to ensure fairness. The unfairness here is that low- and middle-income earners receive significantly less or no benefit from the huge tax concessions. We cannot allow a situation where our retirement system costs more than $70 billion but does not distribute the benefit evenly or fairly. The government's own financial system inquiry found that 10 per cent of Australians receive 38 per cent of Australia's super tax concessions, more than the combined benefit of 70 per cent of Australians. What this budget does is focus on the entitlement of part pensioners stuck in the middle and continue with the freeze on compulsory superannuation contributions, while ignoring the real issue for the budget bottom line.

As I said, I have been approached by many part pensioners in my electorate—and there are many—and I have a couple of emails here that I would like to read from:

Dear Anna,

I have recently read of suggestions that the tax treatment to defined benefit pensions be reduced from the 40 to 50 per cent range to 10 per cent. This would have a direct effect on my wife and myself by preventing us from receiving the "full pension card" when … I reach 65 in October 2015. We do not want any more than $1 each of age pension. We do want the side benefits associated with the card. I am happy to outline our specific circumstances if that is helpful. Needless to say our circumstances are not dire nor straight forward. Suffice it to say, I would be interested in your views and how you see this playing out. Thank you for your years of service. You are and have been a credit to the electorate, the Labour Party and Parliament.

That was from Douglas. So the concern is: what does it mean and how is it going to work? David writes:

Tony Abbott says that you cannot penalise people for saving for their retirement—he is so two-faced his brain appears to be fazzled.

He is obviously only talking about the super wealthy when he makes that statement—people with millions of dollars in their superannuation funds. Those people were obviously able to take advantage of the tax system to avoid paying over 15% on the higher end of their comes.

That is good for them but us lesser mortals who do not have high incomes and struggled to put extra money into the superannuation and to save money and who purchased shares are to be penalised for going without to ensure that we could have a reasonable retirement.

…   …   …

A wealthy retired person will be other to improve their lifestyle every year under Tony Abbotts plan.

This cannot be remotely considered fair. But I suppose being fair is not in the Liberal Party's DNA.

Again we see this concern about what it actually means and how it is unfair.

One of the issues that have been raised with me—again from a constituent—is about the changes to the funding for suffers from PKU. Again, it seems like a small amount, but it is the direct consequences on these people's lives and their ability to ensure that they do not die of brain injury. It is a situation where we actually test everybody at birth for this condition to ensure that we are not giving them high protein substances. Again I read from Deborah:

I urge the government to reconsider their decision. My daughter relies on her special medical foods to function successfully. The consequences of ceasing the payments will be devastating and cause more drain on the public health system.

This budget is unfair. (Time expired)

See this speech in context