Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is the first time I have seen no member of the Labor Party on the other side of the chamber—with the exception of you, Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell. We hear the same lines as always from Labor. They are even still talking about a GST increase which the government has never advanced. They are trying to paint the Prime Minister falsely, according to old lines from six or 12 months ago.

The one consistency amongst all this is that the Labor Party always is the roadblock to the future of this nation. The history of the six years of their government was one of taking this country from a black ink position, where there was money in the bank and there were surpluses being run, and taking this country down into the red. You would think that there would have been lessons learnt from those days, but at every turn now we see—today in the MPI and today in question time we saw—the same old Labor Party: the Labor Party that will get in the way of every attempt to fix up the budget situation for the country. Labor has no credible savings plan. They plan to extort and raise massive amounts of money from those who are addicted to smoking—there is certainly that plan. But, really, when we talk about trying to reduce outputs—to reduce expenditure on the federal budget—the Labor Party is always in the way of trying to fix these problems up.

The member for Bendigo talked a lot—both before she was interrupted and at the conclusion of her remarks after the MPI—about the 20,000 families in every electorate who she says will be affected by the measures included in this bill. Well, I worry about a future where every family around this country will be impacted by our inability to get the budget under control. That is the future I worry about.

When I look at kids in the length and breadth of Cowan—whether it is those young kids just starting this year in kindy at Hawker Park Primary School in the west of Cowan, or those all the way over in East Beechboro Primary School and Lockridge Primary School in the east of Cowan, or those at Tapping Primary School in the north, and even Emmanuel Christian Community School's primary kids right in the south of Cowan—I worry about their future, when I see the debt that faces us and the interest payments that face us now. If we cannot get more savings and if we cannot reduce expenditure, I worry about what their future is going to hold.

I understand that currently it is something like $12 billion to $13 billion just in interest payments for the debt levels of this country's federal budget. Unless we get some assistance from the other side, what is that going to look like in 15 years' time when those young people are going to be paying taxes? What is that interest payment going to be then, and what won't be able to be afforded then? They will look back upon this time and say, 'Why were we betrayed?' If they want to look back in the history books, they will be able to see what happened at the time. But they will want to know why they were betrayed—why their future was sold out, because no-one wanted to actually fight the fight here and no-one wanted to take some decisions here.

The Labor Party has been very good at saying to people, 'Just think about yourself. How evil is the government for trying to cut the money the taxpayers give you! How cruel the government is! How unfair and terrible the government is!'

In 15 years from now or 30 years from now, one or two generations in the future, what is going to be the Australia they inherit if there is crippling debt that was not reined in because this parliament—mainly the Senate—refused to do what needed to be done? Let's live now with handouts and those payments continuing, but what will happen in the future when future governments say: 'Actually, we don't have any money left for age pensions anymore.' There are not going to be any schoolkids bonuses in the future when interest payments get to $30 billion or $50 billion per year. Unless something is done, unless we get some cooperation or some realisation from the other side of politics that there is an issue that must be addressed, I do worry about the future. It will be my kids, your kids, your grandkids and my grandkids and, in the end, they will not be thanking us for what has happened in the last seven or eight years. So we have a responsibility and we recognise that on this side.

We can talk about the promise from the other side for Gonski. What happened with Gonski was that for four years there were modest increases in school funding that the other side of politics promised before the 2013 election and then they said, 'But in years 5 and 6, the ones that we don't have to include on the balance sheet, that's when the money goes sky-high.' Then we came to government and we realised that the payments in those years were not affordable. We are trying to pay for the NDIS, we are trying to pay for Defence spending that is necessary to replace ageing equipment and we need to pay for our welfare system. We cannot afford everything.

The bill is about trying to restore the budget and it is also about trying to improve the economic productivity that is going to come through a readjustment of $3 billion for the Jobs for Families Child Care Package. This has certainly been a focus of the government. It is important to put the resources in places where economic benefits are going to add value to the future, where Australian families and businesses can benefit whilst, at the same time, the economy grows through greater participation and productivity. It is absolutely the case that, through the childcare package that we are trying to finance, this will further add to the circumstances that we currently see, where female participation is at an all-time high. Productivity and participation rates—this is a good moment. A lot has been achieved and more needs to be done. Currently, the family support payments cost $28 billion a year. That is a very large figure. It comprises the family tax benefit at $20 billion, the childcare benefit currently stands at around $6 billion and there is about $2 billion in the Paid Parental Leave scheme. Nothing is actually unfair about the measures proposed in this bill.

There are three elements to the bill and they include an increase of $10 per child for family tax benefit part A fortnightly rates up to the age of 19, a change to the rules and rates for family tax benefit part B, and a phased end to part A and part B supplements. There is no doubt that this is about an emphasis on those in most need, but it also acknowledges that there is a system that needs to be sustainable. It is not the Labor way, of course, to have a program that is sustainable, but that must be the way we proceed from here.

With regard to the government's plans, what is actually going to happen? As we recall, with the assistance of the opposition there have been some limits placed on family tax benefit part B for couple families, other than grandparents, when their youngest child turns 13. We are proposing to make these changes from 1 July 2018, so that will give people plenty of warning of the changes to come. As I said before, the first element of this legislation is to, from that date, increase family tax benefit part A fortnightly rates by around $10 and also, in order to help align with family tax benefit part A, increase the fortnightly rates of youth allowance and disability support pension. It is in this case that, by the start date, there will be an increase to 1.2 million families around the country.

Obviously, as I said before, what we want to do is try to increase participation rates. More support is provided under family tax benefit part B when the children are born and more is asked for when the youngest child is older. From 1 July this year, family tax benefit part B, for those with a child under the age of one, will get a $1,000 per year increase. As previously announced, there will be a continuation of current standard rates for families with a youngest child aged between one and 13. Recognising the challenges for older parents, those standard rates will also be held for single parents 60 years and older and for grandparent carers and great-grandparent carers with a youngest child aged between 13 and 18. Where a parent is under 60 years old, there will be a reduced standard rate of $1,000, and that is in the case of a single-parent family where the youngest child is aged between 13 and 16. We know the role of parents and the importance of parents in raising their children properly. They should have support, but it must be targeted and based upon their abilities, and that must be sustainable as well. Ultimately, it must be paid for and it must be affordable.

As I said at the start, we also have the proposal to phase out the end-of-year family tax benefit supplements. The supplements will be reduced in 2016-17 and 2017-18 before being abolished in 2018-19. They were created to reduce the risk of unexpected debt repayments due to what amounted to difficulties with predicting income levels over the financial year. Technology has moved on and in the coming years more accurate reporting of real income will eliminate or greatly reduce the risk of any such debt.

I say again that none of what is proposed is unreasonable. It is not unfair. What would be unfair is imposing massive debt on future generations or possibly there being no safety net or family support in the future because of debt and deficit levels. As the minister has already said, it is great that Labor has supported the changes to family tax benefit part B for couple families, other than grandparents, but $520 million in savings is not enough to get the job done. All the savings are required to fund the childcare package and to help restore the budget. Targeted savings, a plan to increase productivity and participation, while at the same time helping to fix the budget, is what this country really needs now and what future generations expect of us.

I go back to where I started. Looking to the future, we need to act now. We need to fulfil our responsibility to those who follow us so that they do not look back upon this time and ask, 'Why did they sell our future for the gains of the moment?' It is time to live within our means and do something for the future of this great country, so I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context