Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the opposition for the opportunity for a crossbench spot to contribute on this very important debate on the government's complete failure to have a plan. It is either a failure to have a plan that is going to sustain Australia in to the 21st century or they do have a plan—that is, to deliver only for the top end of town and the rest of the Australian population can fall behind.

We are increasingly running out of money to fund the services that Australians rightly expect. In Australia, we should be able to—

Mr Taylor interjecting—

No, you can send your kids to a good public school and get a world-class education.

We should be able to know that if we get sick or someone in our family gets sick, there is a public health-care system that will look after us. We should be able to know that the government are going to invest in productive infrastructure that will set Australia up for the 21st century—things like renewable energy and building more public transport.

We should be able to know that if you lose your job or you fall on hard times, there is a safety net that will hold you until you get your next job. We should be able to know that when governments boast about rising employment figures that they are actually meaningful jobs, that they are not just part-time or casualised jobs when actually what we are after is a full-time or a secure job.

If we do not have an economic plan, we will keep seeing governments like this one decide that the only way to balance the budget is to make average Australians pay more to go and see the doctor. We are going to keep seeing governments like this one say that there is not enough money for public schools and whatever promises they make prior to the election they are going to defer off to the never-never. We are going to keep seeing governments like this one say that the only way to balance the budget is to rip half a billion dollars out of renewable energy or take money off students start-up scholarships, or take money out of aged care, or take money out of the research and development tax concessions—measures that will drive and grow the industries that will succeed in this country in the 21st century and set ourselves up for what counts as real growth. Sadly, that is what this government have done, and sadly they have done it this week with the support of the opposition.

Why are we finding ourselves in this situation where there is so much pressure on the budget and we are finding it more and more difficult to fund the services that every Australian rightly expects? In large part, it is because this government continues to give unfair tax breaks to those who, frankly, do not need it. At a time when everyone else is being asked to tighten their belts, this government is quite happy to hand out billions and billions of dollars to those in the top one per cent who really do not need it.

When everyone else in this country goes and puts petrol in their car to fill it up, they are paying 39c a litre in tax. When the likes of Gina Rinehart put diesel in their trucks at a mining site, they get that tax back. Wouldn't every Australian love to be able to get that tax back? Well, no, they are not Gina Rinehart, who has the ear of this government. That costs us a few billion dollars each year.

We also know that the big banks are enjoying world-leading, record profits and the IMF has told us that the big banks get the equivalent of several billion dollars each year in subsidies. Does the government go to them and say, 'Perhaps you could chip in a bit more so we don't have to ask everyday Australians to pay to go and see the doctor?' No. They say: 'We'll keep giving handouts to the big banks. We'll keep giving the handouts to Gina Rinehart.' Then we wonder why there are these pressures on the budget.

A real economic plan requires courage. It requires standing up to those who have significant power in this country. It requires standing up on behalf of the Australian community to the big banks, to the likes of Gina Rinehart and saying: 'Maybe you could afford to pay a bit more. Maybe you don't deserve quite as generous a tax break as you are getting at the moment.' If we had the guts and the courage to stand up for those powerful vested interests and say, 'We're going to wind back some of the tax breaks that you get because there are pressures on the budget,' that would count as a real economic plan.

The government loves to come in here and tell us about the threats to the AAA credit rating. But they do not tell us that the rating agencies are saying there is also a problem on the revenue side. This government have a problem on the revenue side. What is the best way to fix a problem on the revenue side? It is not to come after students, as the government have done this week. It is not to come after the aged-care system. It is to say to those who are already doing very well, thank you very much, 'Perhaps we don't have the capacity to pay you the unfair tax breaks that we used to.' That would be a real economic plan.

See this speech in context