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

I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Omnibus Savings and Child Care Reform) Bill 2017. This government does not seem to have learnt that the Australian people do not want the axe taken to people who have just lost their job and are trying to get onto their feet, while at the same time the government says that it needs to give a tax cut to the big banks. This government has not learnt that it is not their front man that is the problem—it is the policies. It is what they stand for. It is the fact that in this bill we are seeing, resurrected, many of the zombie measures that the Senate and the public so resoundingly stood up against and defeated when former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, the member for Warringah, tried to introduce them.

This is not only a version of the Abbott budget that was defeated; it actually contains many of exactly the same measures. If you want to get a sense of what this government thinks is a fair way to balance the books and raise revenue, you only have to look at what we in this parliament are being asked to debate this week. On the one hand, this bill says, 'We're going to cut support to families; we're going to cut welfare for young unemployed people; we're going to force people to wait longer before getting assistance when they're trying to find a job; and we're going to cut paid parental leave'. The government comes in here and tells us that it is an absolute priority that we cut spending on those who need it most because they are looking for a job or for parents who are wanting to spend time with their young children. Yet on the other hand the government says, 'There is another bill that we want you to debate this week—a bill to give some of the biggest companies in Australia a tax cut. There's a bill that is going to cost $50 billion to the public purse over the next decade so big companies can pay a bit less tax; so that the banks, who are making world-leading record profits, can have about $7 billion extra in their coffers.' The government comes in here says, 'On the one hand we want to take $4 billion away from families, in terms of family tax benefit, and away from supports for people who are seeking work; on the other hand we want to give $7 billion at least to the big four banks, who are making world-leading record profits.'

That should tell you everything that you need to know about the priorities of this government. We in Australia are witnessing a growing gap between the very rich and everyone else. We are seeing unemployment, especially among young people, remain at persistent highs. What does the government do? Instead of saying, let's put in place the kind of nation-building programs that might allow young people to get a job; let's do something about the fact that in many country towns unemployment for young people is norther of 20 per cent; instead of saying let's create jobs the people, what do they do? They say, 'No—we are going to punish young people for not finding the jobs that are not there in the first place.'

So this bill, for example, seeks to reintroduce a waiting period of several weeks before you are able to get unemployment assistance if you find yourself unemployed. The landlord does not care that the reason you have no money is that the government has taken it away. The landlord just wants you to pay the rent. The electricity company just wants you to pay the bill to keep the lights on. They do not care that you are trying to find another job, a job that may not be there because you are in an area of very high unemployment. That is why, in this country up till now, up till this government, up till this bill, we said, 'If you find yourself doing it tough in Australia we will look after you.'

At the moment I can say—I do not think government members appreciate this—that living on unemployment benefits is no easy ride. It is so far below that poverty line that it is actually a barrier to people getting into work. The unemployment benefit at the moment is so low that you do not have that extra money to get a haircut to get ready for the job interview or to buy some nice clothes or to put yourself through a training course. That is why people have been screaming, right across the spectrum from the Greens and welfare organisations right across to business groups, saying that we have to lift the level of unemployment benefit because it is becoming a poverty trap that people might get stuck in and never be able to get out of and get a job because the helping hand is not there. What does the government do? The government says, let's take that hole in the safety net and rip it open even further by making people wait a month to get unemployment benefits in the first place. What are people meant to do during that time? Turn to crime? Do things that are unsavoury in order to pay the rent and pay those electricity bills? That is what this government is asking.

Then it comes along and says, 'We want to add that. We want to take away a big chunk of family tax benefits that are paid to people. Even though it's going to hurt those on the lowest incomes the most, frankly we don't care because we've got to find a way to fund the tax cuts for the big banks. So we're going to do it by taking away money from single parents and other families.' You could not dream this stuff up! When the government did dream this stuff up in 2014, the Senate and the Australian people resoundingly said no.

Many of us hoped when the government got rid of the former Prime Minister and put in a new one that they had heard what the Australian people were saying. But it seems this government has a completely tin ear. If this government thinks the problem is just the front man rather than the policies, then it should come as no surprise why every poll at the moment says this government is on a hiding to nothing. So a bit of free advice for the government: if you want to turn around your appalling standing amongst the Australian people, do not come to parliament and ask us to cut money that is going to families and do not come and ask us to cut money to people who are doing it tough as they try to find a new job so that you can fund a tax cut for the big banks. The Australian people have seen through you. It is why you lost your first Prime Minister. And if you think that repeating the same thing over and over again is going to get you a different result, that is pretty much the clinical definition of insanity.

You need to go back to the drawing board, government, and come up with a fairer way, a way that involves saying to young families, 'You've just had a baby and we know that the best thing that can happen for families is to have as much time as possible at home with their new babies—ideally six months.' What you do not do is what this government has done. There is a small scheme that is in place at moment that allows you to take 18 weeks, and in some workplaces they have been able to negotiate something on top of that—because that scheme was always meant to be a floor not a ceiling—and the government has come along and said, 'If you're in one of those workplaces where you've negotiated the right to spend more than 18 weeks at home with your newborn child, we're going to take money off you'. This is the party that talks about family values. It has the temerity to come in here and attack members from across the political spectrum and say that the kind of progressive Australia that we are advocating for is somehow opposed to traditional values, and yet they say, 'In order to fund a tax cut for Gina Rinehart, would you please—new mum, new dad—pay for it yourself by having less time at home with your kids?' What an outrageous proposition!

The Australian public is rejecting it in droves. The Greens are rejecting it as well, because we know that there are fairer ways to raise money than by taking the axe to the young and the old and the sick and the poor, as this government does day after day after day. And if money is tight in the budget, as the government says, well do not spend $50 billion on a tax cut for big business, do not hand out $7 billion to the banks. It is not going to result in any extra jobs being created; it is just going to result in money going straight into shareholders' pockets. Straight into the pockets of the one per cent.

If we want to raise the money to pay for the services that Australians rightly expect, if we want to make sure in this country that there is child care available that is affordable for everyone who needs it when they need it, if we want to make sure that new parents can spend six months at home with their kids as is the case in many other countries—six months where you get a decent supplement to look after yourself while you are doing that—if we want to make sure there is enough money available so that everyone can go and see the doctor when they get sick without having to fork out a co-payment, or a co-payment by stealth that the government is proposing, out of their own pocket, then let us have a bit of guts and say that perhaps there is money at the moment going to those who quite frankly do not need it and who could look after themselves. Why, for example, does the taxpayer spend about $2 billion every year so that the likes of Gina Rinehart and her associates can get subsidised fuel to put into their trucks on mining sites? Everyone else pays above 38c a litre in tax when they go to the bowser to fill up, but when the likes of Gina Rinehart do it they pay the tax and then they get it back courtesy of the taxpayer. They get to have cheap diesel fuel. No-one else gets that kind of cheap subsidy, certainly not the general population in Australia. Farmers get it. They deserve it. Keep it for farmers. But the likes of Gina Rinehart clearly do not need it. Wind back on that tax break and there is a couple of billion dollars, which means you do not have to take the axe to people who have just had a baby and are wanting to spend time at home with their new baby.

Why don't we ask why it is that the tax system in this country gives billions of dollars in handouts to people who already own their first house to then go and buy their second, third or fourth house? Why are we subsidising people who have already got a house to buy more than one house at the same time as young people are finding it impossible to break into the housing market? Let us get rid of negative gearing and the capital gains tax concessions that say: 'If you're wealthy enough to make you money through shares or property, we'll give you a 50 per cent discount. But if you're a poor sucker who makes their money through working and paying wages on a pay-as-you-go basis and paying your tax like that, you have to pay the full rate.' Let us get rid of that and we free up tens of billions of dollars that can go to education, that can go to paid parental leave, that can go to build renewable energy to make sure that power bills go down. The Australian Industry Group today has said bringing more renewable energy into the system is going to drive down power bills. Let us build some more renewable energy so that we drive down power bills.

If we have the guts to stand up to the very powerful in this country we can find the money we need to pay for the services Australians expect without having to take the axe to the young, the old, the sick and the poor. But it takes guts to do that, while this government has shown nothing but cowardice. This government has shown nothing but a willingness to deliver for the big businesses that fund their campaigns and put them in parliament.

Well, you know what? People in this country have had enough. They can see that this parliament is being run in the interests of a powerful few rather than being run for the good of the many and they have had enough. They have had an absolute gutful. It is astounding and outrageous but probably not surprising that the government still persists with these cuts. What makes it even more reprehensible is that they are trying to hold the parliament hostage by saying: if you do not pass these cuts then we might not put more money into child care and it might affect the National Disability Insurance Scheme. What an outrageous way to behave.

This parliament is not to be held hostage by a government that is itself just doing the bidding of big business. This parliament is here to give voice to the will of the people. And we know that there is a better way of finding the money to fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme or to fund increases to child care. The Greens refuse to be held hostage by this government and the Greens refuse to join in the attack on people who cannot afford to pay while so many people are getting by with so much money courtesy of the government. If the government wants to go away and rethink its approach to raising money for the services of Australians expect, I think it will get a pleasant surprise. I think it would do well in the polls. But, as long as it does not rethink its approach, the Greens will stand up and block these measures in full in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. This bill should be opposed.

See this speech in context