Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I wish to make it absolutely crystal clear up-front that I do support reform of early childhood education and I do support reforms that would genuinely make it more accessible and make the payment arrangements more streamlined. I also want to make it abundantly clear that you will not find a stronger advocate for and supporter of the National Disability Insurance Scheme than me in this place. It is absolutely vital that the scheme remains true to its original intention of being a demand-driven program where anyone who genuinely needs support can go to the NDIS and get that support and that it not be capped by a budget or a shortage of money. So what I am about to say in the next little while should in no way be taken as any absence of or lesser support for early childhood education—and indeed early childhood educators, who do a wonderful job—and the NDIS.

But the bill before the House at the moment, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Omnibus Savings and Child Care Reform) Bill 2017, frankly, is a shocker—an absolute shocker—and I will not support it and I do not know how anyone in this place could bring themselves to support it. I am sorry; I must have said this a hundred times in this place, but it seems I have got to say it again: we are one of the luckiest, wealthiest, most fortunate countries in the world; a country with an annual federal budget of—it varies from year to year but it is in the order of—$400,000 million. Surely we are rich enough and lucky enough to look after, properly, the people who need to be looked after. Surely we are rich enough and lucky enough to be able to afford to support the most disadvantaged members of the community. Yet here we are—and I associate myself with the comments we just heard: we should not be here debating this; we should not have to come in here to debate whether or not to reduce the social security payment budget by $7,000 million a year. We can afford to pay that money. We can afford to not make these cutbacks to some of the most disadvantaged people in the country.

These are harsh cuts. These are very harsh cuts. And they are very harsh cuts directed squarely at the most disadvantaged members of our community. I regret to remind members in this House that Australia's poverty rate, to this day, remains above the OECD average. I will say that again: Australia's poverty rate remains above the OECD average, despite us being one of the richest and most fortunate countries in the world and despite us having a federal budget in the order of $400,000 million a year.

In population terms, there are almost three million people living below the poverty line, after taking account of housing costs, in recent figures. The poverty rate for children in this country is in the order of 17.4 per cent, or about three-quarters of a million children—three-quarters of a million children living below the poverty line in one of the richest countries in the world. That is a scandal! And it is a black mark on this place and what is has failed to achieve in recent years.

By family type, lone parents experience the highest poverty rates, at 33.2 per cent. I will say that again—it seems to be necessary to say these figures again: something like a third of single parents are below the poverty line, in one of the richest and most fortunate countries in the world. But we are in this place today talking about whether or not we should cut another $7,000 million from the welfare budget! I cannot believe we are having this conversation.

And it is not like we spend an outrageous amount of money and that we need to pare it back, because when I look at some very helpful figures provided by ACOSS—and I will read them in so that I get the figures just right—I see that they say:

Expenditures on social security payments are lower than comparable countries …

In fact, using recent figures, we spend about 8.6 per cent of GDP on social security payments, compared with an OECD average of 12.4 per cent. In other words, we are only spending about two-thirds of the OECD average on social security, but yet we are in here talking about cutting another $7,000 million from welfare payments. This is not defendable, and this bill is not supportable.

It is not good enough for the government to come in here and say, 'Well, it's swings and roundabouts, so people ultimately will be better off.' Again I will quote from ACOSS; they have been very helpful here. They give an example: the increase to the family tax benefit part A for families with children will increase by $10 a week, but it does not make up for the cuts to the supplements. A sole parent with two children aged 13 and 15 will still lose between $14 and $20 per week, or around $1,000 a year.

So it is not the case that these people will ultimately somehow be better off. In this example of the sole parent with two young children, they are going to be $1,000 a year worse off. These are not people on obscene incomes like we enjoy in this place; these are people who have no money left over already. Where will they get that $1,000? What will they cut back? What will they go without?

I have met people in my community who already, in the middle of winter in Hobart, are not turning the heating on, because they cannot afford the electricity. I have already met people in my electorate, in Hobart—in a capital city in one of the richest countries in the world—who go without meals to pay for their medicines. I have met older Australians on the age pension who will even eat dog food—in a capital city in one of the richest countries in the world, with an annual federal budget of close to $400 billion a year. Yet we come in here and we are talking about cutting another $7,000 million from the welfare budget.

I am the first to agree with the government that we need to reengineer the budget. We do need to find savings. We do need to find other sources of revenue. We do need to get the budget back into balance over the economic cycle. On the government's own figures, by fiscal 2018-19, our total federal government debt will be in the order of $356 billion—a quarter of a trillion dollars. We do have to fix that. But why on earth are we going after some of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable people in the country? Is it because they are not the people putting big donations into the political parties—the people who are currying favour?

Why don't we come in here and collegiately talk about big reform? I can tell you that we will not repair the budget even if we go ahead with measures like those contained in this omnibus bill. Seven billion dollars is an enormous amount of money to take away from disadvantaged people, but it is a drop in the ocean when it comes to repairing the budget. The budget needs deep structural reform. The country needs big, inspiring political leaders telling us what needs to be done and guiding us through it. In my experience, the Australian community will support big bold governments when the need for reform is explained to them and the package reforms is sold effectively. But we are not seeing that at the moment. In fact, in this country we have such a shortage of big, inspiring leaders—people you would follow to war. As I look around this place, I can tell you that there are precious few people I would follow to war. I see a generation of professional politicians who are tinkering around the edges and thinking that the solution is taking $7 billion from Australia's most disadvantaged and vulnerable people.

I will tell you about the sorts of things we should be talking about. What about a genuine clampdown on multinational tax avoidance? That would be a strong start. I do note that in recent times the government has taken some small steps, which, if they are successful—

Mr Christensen interjecting—

Member for Dawson, I have said good on the government for taking some steps. However, by your own figures, those steps might only bring in about a billion a year. That still leaves, by some estimates, $4 billion to $5 billion of tax avoidance going on, even after those measures are implemented and if they are implemented effectively. So there is $4 billion to $5 billion to be had out there from multinationals who, through all sorts of devious means, are avoiding their reasonable tax obligations. We are talking about $4 billion or $5 billion. That is $16 billion to $20 billion over the budget and forward estimates—three times the amount of money that is going to be saved by this bill—just by making the big, rich multinationals pay their fair share.

What about domestic firms? I have been unable to come up with an exact figure—and I do not think anyone knows—or even a rough figure of the scope of tax avoidance by domestic companies. But I did find this figure showing the difference between what corporations pay in tax in Australia currently—what they actually pay—and what would be paid if they all paid their 30 per cent. That shortfall is $8 billion a year. Of course we cannot hope to recoup all of that, because businesses have all sorts of reasonable deductions, but we could recoup some of that. Let's say we recouped a quarter of that—$2 billion a year; $8 billion over the budget and forward estimates. That would more than pay for this ruthless cut to welfare for some of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable people in the country.

What about a proper super-profits tax? Last year, the banks made $30,000 million—and not just in gross terms but also a significant profit as measured as a return on their investment. How about the banks, with $30,000 million, pay a bit more tax? And how about any company in this country that gets a super return on their investment, no matter how big or small, pay a bit more tax? They could afford to pay a bit more tax. They could afford to pay a bit more tax a darn side easier than the most disadvantaged and vulnerable people in this country could. A single mum with two young kids will have to afford to go without $1,000 and will go without meals, will go without medicines and will go without electricity, while the banks get off scot-free. In the last six months, BHP made $8,000 million profit. Well, good on them, but it would be better if they paid a bit more tax and helped out the community that has supported them over many, many years.

What about capital gains discounts? We talk a lot about negative gearing—and that is fine—but let's talk about capital gains discounts, which most experts would agree are skewing the housing market. Let's get rid of those discounts. That will save us a billion dollars a year, $4 billion over the budget and forward and estimates and more than half the amount of money that we are trying to save today. Why don't we get rid of the $50 billion in tax cuts for big business? These are the sorts of measures we need, but they will only happen when we have politicians who are visionary and strong and prepared to make the big decisions. I tell you what: the public will accept big, bold decisions when they are necessary, when they are explained and when they are sold by inspiring leaders. To help sell them, why don't we all take a 25 per cent pay cut? That would make some of the tough decisions in the broader community more palatable. I look around and everyone is staring at me—I will not say as though I have grown two heads.

Honourable members interjecting—

Seriously—please, colleagues and Mr Deputy Speaker—the community will accept big, bold reform when it comes from big, bold, inspiring leaders, when it is sold well and when everybody, including us, shares in the cutbacks. But at the moment we have a government trying to take $7,000 million from the most disadvantaged and vulnerable people in the community, while at the same time wanting to give a big tax cut to big business and taking no action against the banks while they pull in $30,000 million profit and no action against companies like BHP that make $8,000 million profit in six months.

This is a shocker of a bill. I will not support it, I am pleased that the opposition will not support it and I hope my crossbench colleagues will not support it—and I tell you what: if some of the members of the government had any guts, they would cross the floor and not support it.

See this speech in context