Mal Brough (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

In the truncated period that I have in this debate, could I just turn it on its head for a moment? Please do not take offence at that. Can you imagine for a moment, the hypocrite sitting opposite, if the coalition were standing here today saying, 'This is what we would like to propose to the parliament. We would like to increase the assets test from $823,000 to $1.15 million for home-owning couples'? They would be screaming at us that we are Liberals looking after our blueblood millionaire mates. That is what they would be doing.

You see, hypocrisy knows no name like the Labor Party. Let me make a warning to everybody in this place and in the gallery. I was here in 1996 when the member for Jagajaga stood in this place and ripped apart a coalition policy to put a bond on aged care. She said it was the most disastrous, despicable, nasty, evil—the same word that was used by the member for Sydney today—policy. Guess what? When I came back into this place in 2013, surprise surprise, the Labor Party, led by the member for Jagajaga, had put a bond on aged care facilities. In other words, when it suits their political purposes, they know nothing but political opportunism. So if we were to stand here today increasing those assets tests at the upper echelon, the same people—the member for Griffith, the member for Sydney, the member for Jagajaga—would be screaming blue murder at us for helping our millionaire mates. But there is no recognition whatsoever that the person who is on $202,000 today will have $250,000 before their pension is impacted at all, and that is for a single homeowner.

It is not as though these people who are having some money removed do not have other assets with which to replace that income. Those opposite use the example of a hardworking family having $1,000 taken off them. Well, if you have $700,000 assessable assets as a non-homeowner, you will need to access 0.01 per cent of your assets to replace the income you have lost. You are not about to run out of money any time soon, are you? Even the Labor Party can work that out. Even the member for Lilley could work that one out.

Government members: No, they cannot.

Well, maybe they cannot. My learned colleagues behind me remind me that they cannot.

I was the minister when we changed the taper rate from $1.50 to $3 because we could afford to, because we had taken the hard yards in government and because we had put our finances in this country onto a solid footing. Because of the waste, because of the mismanagement, because of the myriad mistakes made by the Labor Party that have been articulated by my colleagues, that is not possible. So when the member for Sydney talks about this policy's architecture, that is wrong. We are reverting to what this policy was. It was a $1.50 taper rate. It was increased to $3 under the Howard government because under good economic management we could afford it. What we have done here is look after those least able by increasing their assets test, we have removed it from the higher echelons, we have given people a sustainable system, we have put fairness into the system and that is what you can expect from an economically sound Liberal government.

I would say to the shadow Assistant Treasurer, the economic rationalist over there, I am not surprised you were not part of the debate today because you would have joined us in saying this is good politics. Unfortunately your colleagues are bereft of ideas, bereft of honesty and you have let Australians down again.

See this speech in context