Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

It is fitting that, at the end of the first sitting week and marking the anniversary the election of this Prime Minister, we have further confirmation, if we needed it, of the shambles at the heart of economic policy making in this government. The Treasurer and the Prime Minister have had two signature policies over their 12 months—two signature policies with which they went to the election: superannuation tax changes and a cut in company tax. That is their big economic agenda. That was the centrepiece of their budget and the centrepiece of their re-election campaign, and today it is 'take out the trash day'. It is garbage day in Canberra, because those policies hit the wall. The Prime Minister was asked just last week: 'What are your greatest achievements in your first year in office?' The Prime Minister had an answer already to go. He said, 'Superannuation tax and business tax.' What achievements they are! And how well has it gone!

Let's deal with superannuation first. Let's talk about economic leadership—the failure of economic leadership provided by that side of the House and the economic leadership that has been provided by the Leader of the Opposition and this side of the House. The opposition released a superannuation taxation policy in April 2015. The Prime Minister was claiming, even at question time, that it did not exist. It was announced in April 2015 and the government has had multiple positions on this. At first they said this is outrageous. 'Nobody should ever touch superannuation taxes,' said the member for Cook and then the Minister for Social Services. He promised they would never increase tax on superannuation. 'That was an outrageous attack on retirement incomes,' said the now Treasurer. Then, of course, he became Treasurer and stood at that dispatch box and announced superannuation tax increases which were ill-thought out and based on no consultation. And now today that has come crashing down, as he has dropped the most egregious measure.

This is interesting. We had a press conference earlier today. I thought: 'This is a serious announcement. Clearly, the Prime Minister will be at this press conference.' He was not to be seen, because he might have been asked why, before the election, when asked 'Are there any circumstances at all after the election that this could change,' he said, 'No, this is absolutely iron clad.' The Prime Minister was in his office, perhaps hiding under the doona while the press conference was on, hoping that it all went okay.

It is not just about from before the election to now that the government has not been able to keep a consistent position. Over the course of a week or two their position has changed. In response to the proposal that the Leader of the Opposition and I released to the government to say, 'We will help you fix your problems; don't do the retrospective measure; and drop the other spending measures, including the mature workers measure, our old friend the minister for revenue was outraged. She said that it was going to disadvantage older Australians. She asked the question: 'Why is Bill Shorten attacking aspirational Australians—people who work hard and want to get ahead and save for their retirement?' Then the Treasurer said: 'This is a 1970s approach. It shows Bill Shorten is discussion in the 1970s.' They announced the policy a few hours ago. It was exactly the same policy as they were condemning! They cannot hold a line over a period of a couple of weeks. They condemn themselves by their own words.

I have a personal favourite, and it happened today. The Treasurer and the minister for revenue were out there announcing that they were dropping the older workers measure as part of their package. The minister for revenue was asked about it, and she said, 'We're very committed to the measure.' She was abolishing it during that press conference. I would hate to see it if they were not committed to the measure. It would not stand a chance. Measures they are very committed to hit the wall. If they are not really committed, I do not what happens to them.

And then we have corporate tax. Remember the $50 billion ram raid on the budget that the Prime Minister was so proud of. It was the centrepiece of his budget. Remember we probed the economic growth impacts, and we were told that it was going to increase the economy by a per cent—a full per cent we were told—in 10 years time. So in 20 years time the corporate tax cut would deliver a one per cent increase to our economy, and that was with the full suite of measures. Now we are told we are going to get the tax cut for businesses with a turnover under $10 million, but after that they will struggle. Well, I wonder what dividend that provides for economic growth in Australia? If the full measure provided one per cent in 20 years time, I wonder what this half-baked measure was?

We are told: 'We would love to do it, but we just cannot get the numbers in the Senate.' We are told: 'It is all too hard. It is very hard in the Senate.' The Labor Party has not had a majority in the Senate for one day since 1949. We managed to do a few things over the years—Medicare, superannuation, the greatest economic reforms of the eighties and nineties—without a majority in the Senate. This Prime Minister says: 'Oh, it is a bit hard. I cannot get the numbers in the Senate.' That is the economic leadership he has provided.

We have had the greatest hits of this government. From the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services we have had the greatest hits over this last year. The Prime Minister said he was going to be a new type of economic leader. He was going to have a mature conversation with the Australian people about such measures as increasing the GST and broadening the base of the GST. We said that we would not be in that because 60 per cent of the revenue raised would need to be used to compensate low-income earners, if you were to be fair, and there would be no economic growth dividend.

The government, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer said we were being backward and we were not being constructive. Then, lo and behold, the Treasurer got up in that famous 47-minute address to the National Press Club and said: 'We decided not to do this because 60 per cent of the revenue would be required to compensate low-income earners and there is no economic growth dividend.' Well, that is economic leadership Morrison-Turnbull style.

Then, of course, you had the Prime Minister thinking that economic reform was about the federation, so he had the Penrith oration—the member for Lindsay, unfortunately, is no longer with us. But it was in the Penrith oration, at a very similar location to where the former Prime Minister promised no cuts to health and education before the 2013 election, that the Prime Minister came out and said that he knew the answer: 'You cannot increase the GST, so we will have double taxation. We will let the states increase tax as well and we will withdraw all investment in public education.' The Penrith oration lasted 48 hours. That is economic leadership.

Then we had the greatest hits of the Treasurer. He stood at the dispatch box yesterday and said that it is outrageous that the Labor Party want to reform negative gearing. They are going to crash housing prices—forgetting that he had said to the cabinet that negative gearing should be reformed. I have to say, though, that it is one thing to be rolled by Peter Dutton; it is another thing completely to be rolled by George Christensen. You have to draw the line somewhere. Can you imagine Paul Keating or Peter Costello saying, 'Oh, well, George would not let me do it. I got rolled by the member for Dawson'? That is what this Treasurer has been reduced to—rolled in the cabinet, rolled in the caucus.

We have a Treasurer who will argue anything. Some honourable members might have been in the debating team at school. Some of our children are in the debating team now. You go home and say, 'What side of the argument were you on in the debate today?' and they say, 'Well, we tossed a coin and we were over in the affirmative.' That is what this Treasurer does: he goes into cabinet and says, 'George, what side of the argument am I on today? Can we have the coin toss', and he will argue anything. He is an advocate for any cause you like, even if it is inconsistent—totally inconsistent—with what has been argued by him before.

So, we do not really know what is going on the other side, but I do have a theory. We know what this government does with failed treasurers. We know where they go. So, I wonder whether there have been any polite inquiries made of the Minister for Foreign Affairs over recent days: 'What diplomatic postings are coming up? Where could I go?' asks the member for Cook. 'Is London available soon, maybe? Alex is coming home. London would be nice. Paris, perhaps.' So, that is what we heard from the Treasurer.

Then we had the sidekick, the minister for revenue, who argued that negative gearing would force housing prices up, when the Prime Minister and Treasurer were arguing they would force them down. That was her great contribution to the economic debate in Australia. She forgot to check: 'What is the scare campaign today?' It is a simple thing for a junior minister to ask. 'What is the scare campaign today? Are we saying they are going to force the prices up or down?'—and she forgot to do that.

There is a better way, and that is to provide economic leadership by seeking a mandate for reform, as the Leader of the Opposition did and the opposition did—seeking a mandate for important changes like negative gearing reform, capital gains tax reform, cracking down on VET FEE-HELP rorts, dealing with private health insurance and actually providing an alternative vision. Well, this side is up for it. The Leader of the Opposition is up for it. The Treasurer, the finance minister and the minister the revenue should make way for a team that is ready to govern—and I have to tell you: that is not the member for Dawson, despite appearances today. It is this side of the House.

It is this side of the House which has an alternative position. It is this side of the House which has done the hard work when it comes to policy development. It is this side of the House which will carry through on its commitments. It is this side of the House which will make sure that what we go to an election with is what we implement—as we did.

We have this Prime Minister who says, 'I give an ironclad commitment that we will not change superannuation', and he did not even have the courage to turn up to the press conference where the humiliating capitulation—the humiliating surrender—to the hard Right of the Liberal Party and the National Party was announced. Well, this is a Prime Minister of whom it has been said quite accurately: he may be in office but he is not in power.

See this speech in context