Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to make a contribution to the debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2015-2016 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2015-2016 and, in supporting supply and the appropriation of around $2.2 billion, to consider in this context the economic record of the government led by Mr Turnbull. All of us here remember the now Prime Minister's commitment to changing—or perhaps 'finding' might be a fairer way of expressing it—an economic narrative for this government. Well, how is this going? The member for Wentworth was right, of course, to identify this as a key failing of his predecessor, but instead of addressing it he and his hapless Treasurer have compounded the problem. They are telling the same story absent any conviction.

Having promised sophisticated policy debate, the Prime Minister has already walked away from the serious conversation about economic reform that Labor has been leading through the work of the opposition leader and the shadow Treasurer, and instead has resorted to a scare campaign—old politics, not innovation. It is rich in irony too; the man who spoke at some length in this place last year—who Malsplained about a not very scary scare campaign in terms of the government's clear agenda to foist on the Australian people a regressive increase in the GST—he now is playing Hanrahan. We are 'rooned' he says, over and over again, leading, or perhaps trying to lead—trying to corral—a confused reaction to Labor's positive plans. When he spoke of evidence based policy making as another one of his commitments how were we to know that the only evidence he seems to be interested in are the certainties that are in his head?

We do know one thing now, though, when it comes to managing the economy, this government are not in the business of helping Australians maintain their standard of living and they are not interested in investing in the foundations of a fairer future. And so, as we consider the bills before us, we must recognise that inequality is rising in Australia and that this has been happening not simply by reason of some force of nature; it has been accelerated by political choices made by this government, under this Prime Minister and under Prime Minister Abbott. The Prime Minister and his Treasurer both are unconcerned by inequality and its consequences for individuals and the wider economy, and they should stand condemned for this. They should also be concerned. They should be undoing those decisions which are exacerbating inequality and failing us not only when it comes to equity but equally when it comes to economic growth. This is beyond a callous ideological indifference to those who deserve a government fighting in their corner; it is a rejection of evidence from around the world, from bodies like the IMF, to the effect that inequality harms growth.

When we look at the Prime Minister's contribution to economic debate since coming to the high office he holds we see that he pointed at two areas of distinction between the government he proposed to lead and that led by the member for Warringah. Firstly, he talked about innovation. In this regard, I think he gets plenty of marks for his salesmanship. A reheated bundle of policies late last year, heavy in rhetoric, allowed him to attract some temporary support, but the lack of substance in this agenda has shown through, and this is even more so when it comes to the other policy area he sought to emphasise, in terms of his avowed appreciation of the need for the Commonwealth to take seriously urban Australia, to take seriously a cities policy. Again, how has this worked out under Prime Minister Turnbull? We had one cities minister appointed and then very quickly unappointed, and now the role has been degraded to half the responsibilities of an assistant minister. We now have a part-time parliamentary secretary dealing with one of the Prime Minister's two priority areas. This is deeply concerning in a country like Australia which is an urban and indeed a suburban nation, where the infrastructure challenge we face is huge and the role for the national government critical if we are to maintain productive, livable and sustainable cities, the places where eight in 10 Australians live and a similar proportion of GDP is generated.

These bills before us go to many of the changes from last year's Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. Obviously that is where the appropriations are located. This statement is a pretty troubling and telling indictment of the government's record, where we see a deficit that has blown out and debt that has increased. Projections of economic growth have been slashed. Living standards are falling. Capital expenditure is falling. And consumer confidence is falling, roughly in line with the confidence of backbench members in the performance of the Prime Minister's leadership.

Many of the changes in MYEFO are reflected in these bills, and they go to deep standard-of-living concerns for people in the Scullin electorate. This is especially so at a time of such high unemployment, with worse to come in Melbourne's northern suburbs as the automotive shutdown takes effect, and especially in the context of the news today of record low wages growth. In this regard, it is more than a little ironic that the Treasurer has become interested in bracket creep. Of course bracket creep is a concern, of course it is a regressive impost, but to be concerned about bracket creep now, with wage growth at a record low level, is confusing to say the least.

Last year's Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook contained serious cuts, including cuts to diagnostic imaging and pathology services, another attempt to undermine Medicare and universal health care in Australia, this time through the back door rather than the direct approach the former Prime Minister took. MYEFO also confirmed that this government, under this Prime Minister, continues to endorse some of the most regressive, most unfair and indeed most unpopular policies of the former Prime Minister, including $100,000 university degrees, the increase in the pension age, $80 billion worth of cuts to schools and hospitals and an increase in the cost of pharmaceuticals.

In this regard, I have been spending the summer listening to people right across my electorate, in suburbs as diverse as Epping, Thomastown, Bundoora, Diamond Creek, Wattle Glen and Yarrambat, and they are giving me very similar messages, wherever they come from: 'Why is the Turnbull administration, despite the sense of hope the Prime Minister sought to engender in the community, continuing the harmful policies of the Abbott government? Why is he continuing to attack vital services, the foundation of the Australian social compact, in universal health care and quality education?' Fundamentally they say to me this: 'What is the point of Malcolm Turnbull and not Tony Abbott being our Prime Minister?' There is no sense of excitement today in Melbourne's north when it comes to this government.

The people in the communities that make up the Scullin electorate all know that governments now should not be cutting vital services, making health care and medicines more expensive and making education—the key to sustainable and secure employment—unreachable for many. They know there is no justification for forcing hardworking people to work longer before they can access their pension and retire in dignity. In the Scullin electorate we are a vibrant multicultural community. This government's recent but deeply cruel and unfair changes to portability rules mean that pensioners who wish to go and visit family and friends overseas—often elderly and unwell family and friends—will lose their pension after only six weeks. This has infuriated not only the pensioners themselves but also their children and grandchildren.

It is important, as we consider these bills and providing supply—and of course Labor supports the continuation of government—to reflect on the massive human impact of the policies referred to in these bills. Australia is facing some significant challenges. That is not in doubt. That is why Labor has proposed some significant changes—significant changes to capital gains tax and to negative gearing, targeting multinational tax avoidance practices, reducing superannuation concessions for those earning very high incomes, increasing the tobacco excise, abolishing the ridiculous and wasteful Emissions Reduction Fund and scrapping the baby bonus that has recently been introduced by this government. These policies together represent a very significant budget overhaul. They are positive reforms, reflecting a positive, indeed exciting, vision for Australia and for Australians. A Labor government will use this approach to economic management to invest, to make sure that every child has the best resources available to them at school, to make sure teachers have the support they need to teach. We will ensure that our hospitals are properly funded and likewise other health services such as IVF and diagnostic imaging, which are presently under extreme threat.

Labor does stand for growth and opportunity. Members opposite talk about this a lot. Our approach to growth and opportunity is that they are for all, not just the top one per cent. If Australia is to prosper in the coming years, we need to make sure that no Australian falls through the cracks. This is the lesson of inequality's harm at a wider level as well as at an individual level. We need to ensure that every child gets their fair chance at education and everyone can afford a first home, not a seventh. We need to invest in protecting our natural environment and to secure the great opportunities that are presented in renewable energy.

The coalition, whether under Prime Minister Abbott or Prime Minister Turnbull, are all scare campaigns and no substance. It is clear that the Australian people, having had an opportunity to take a good look at the new Prime Minister, can see through him. The Australian people are concerned to see economic leadership, this being the very thing that Mr Turnbull said he would bring to the table. But again, as in so many other areas, his words do not match his actions. This is just another addition to a long list.

We have a Prime Minister who says he supports same-sex marriage, yet he supports a damaging plebiscite when many members of his government have said they will not heed its result. The Prime Minister stepped down, of course, as opposition leader, saying that he would not lead a party that does not act on climate change, and a few years later he discarded that principle as well. The Prime Minister committed to serious evidence-driven policy debate and economic leadership, so perhaps we should be unsurprised that he has walked away from those commitments as well.

Greg Jericho in The Guardian summed this up when he wrote a couple of days ago:

Turnbull should leave the dopey fear campaigns to his predecessor, and Morrison should either learn the basics of economics or tell his boss to trade in his treasurer for a newer model.

That is bluntly put but a fair reflection of where this government's economic leadership is at. In the short life span of this government—under two prime ministers—we have seen several clumsy and unfair attempts to punish everyday families in the supposed goal of budget repair. Cuts to Medicare, cuts to schools, cuts to disability services, cuts to the age pension and threats of an increase to the GST. It seems that this government, whoever leads it, has never met a low- or middle-income family that it did not want to take money from. It has also compounded these by failing to support our families through a meaningful infrastructure agenda—the sort of national building that Labor governments, from Whitlam, Hawke, Keating, Rudd and Gillard, made a priority.

In Victoria this is particularly acute. With Melbourne growing at an extraordinary rate, it is simply unacceptable that Victoria could be receiving eight per cent of the Commonwealth infrastructure spend when we have such vital projects like the Melbourne Metro and, indeed, the Aherns Road interchange in my electorate that need to be progressed if we are to maintain our productivity, as well as addressing bus congestion and maintaining the liveability of our suburbs. These are critical questions that require proper engagement with infrastructure and action, not simply words, when it comes to national urban policy.

It seems the Treasurer is discovering that government is hard work. You cannot pass by in that job with four-word slogans, and, as has been observed in the papers today, you cannot pass by without being able to have a conversation with the Prime Minister. You also need ideas and a shared vision. The Prime Minister and his Treasurer have wasted 5½ months dealing with infighting and indecision. This policy paralysis has crippled confidence, not just on the government benches but it is holding Australia back. If we are to meet the challenges of the future head on, the Prime Minister and his Treasurer need to look to Labor's example and articulate a cohesive and comprehensive policy direction and stop treating the Australian people like mugs.

Thousands of people in the Scullin electorate stand to be worse off because of the policy agenda of this government. I stand here representing and defending their interests. This government's continued support for unfair attacks on working people should not be tolerated simply because we have a different salesperson.

The bills before us now reflect MYEFO—a document which is symbolic of the contempt this government has shown for the Australian people, particularly low- and middle-income people, particularly for Victorians and particularly for Melbourne's north. I am very proud to stand here as a member of the Labor opposition that is offering a very clear alternative: a pathway to a sustainable budgetary position that will fund the investments we need for a fair future, a pathway for ordinary Australians to buy a first home, a pathway to jobs and secure jobs for our children and our grandchildren, and a pathway to a society in which everyone has a fair say and a stake.

See this speech in context