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

I rise to speak in support of the amendment moved by the member for McMahon to the second reading of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan) Bill 2016. I was interested to be in the chamber for the contribution of the previous government speaker, the member for Dunkley, a few moments ago. A couple of his assertions require some response. He invited those of us on this side to come to Frankston and look his constituents in the eye in respect of our opposition to the measures contained in this bill. I am very happy to do that. I am very happy to go to Frankston and other suburbs in his electorate and ask his constituents whether they would like their member of parliament to be preferring $50 billion of tax cuts mostly going to big business, in particular the big banks, or whether they would like a government that is on their side, a government that is committed to standing up for penalty rates, a government that is committed to maintaining our social compact. I think I know the answer, and I hope that the member for Dunkley is prepared to have these conversations all the way through to the next election.

There were a couple of additional matters that he raised. In supporting the bill, he spoke about job security and he spoke about wages growth. These are pretty extraordinary contributions in the times that we find ourselves in. If the member for Dunkley is concerned about job security, there is plenty he could do. He could start perhaps by dusting off former Minister Abetz's Productivity Commission inquiry into our workplace laws and reject pretty much everything that is in it. There is much that could be done by this government and any government concerned about Australian people if it were minded to look at the way the world of work is changing, and not for the better, for everyone who works for a living.

The attack on penalty rates, the refusal to stand up for the 700,000 Australians who depend on penalty rates to make ends meet, is the tip of the iceberg in terms of what is happening in Australian workplaces. Job security is an enormous issue. It requires the attention of a government that takes developments in the world of work seriously and looks at measures which should be taken to increase job security. Of course, the agenda of this government is precisely the opposite. He also talked about wages growth. This is quite extraordinary but perhaps goes to the heart of the ideological presumptions that underpin this bill and indeed this government. Wages growth, as you would be well aware, Deputy Speaker Mitchell, is at a record low in Australia, and the government has no interest in doing anything about it through the measures contained in this bill or otherwise.

Government is, of course, about choices and it is about priorities. This bill actually makes that pretty clear. The Prime Minister and his Treasurer have chosen to stake Australia's future wellbeing on a $50 billion tax cut. This is the sum total of the much-vaunted economic plan they trumpeted last year. It is all they have to say. So much for the sophisticated economic narrative that the now Prime Minister promised in the course of his job audition, when he took the leadership from the member for Warringah. This is the sum total of the plan, but it is also telling that they have taken their time to say it, given that it is not exactly complicated stuff. We are well into March now, 10 months after the budget which announced these measures with such fanfare, and this bill continues to meander its way through this place. It was introduced into the House last September, roundabout when the Prime Minister was still of the view that section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act should not be changed, in part because it would not create any jobs. I wonder how many jobs the current amendments will create. I think we know the answer to that.

We have seen a government this week—and every week in the life of this parliament—which is deeply ideological and which at the same time lacks the courage of its convictions. We saw that demonstrated far from eloquently yesterday in question time by the Treasurer, who was asked a couple of pretty simple questions by my friend the member for Rankin and also by the shadow Treasurer about the status in the budget of the tax cuts—the centrepiece of the government's economic plan and of this legislation. He could not answer the question—well, he did not answer the question, and I suspect it was because he could not answer the question. He is obviously waiting on instructions. Perhaps he will find out the answer when he is given his speech to read out on budget night. We saw bluster and ranting—a long way from an economic plan, much less a good one. The Treasurer is sound and fury which signifies absolutely nothing. That is the government's plan; that is their commitment to implementing it.

On the other hand, Labor makes different choices and has different priorities. We are concerned to maintain our social compact, and we are for a couple of reasons. The moral basis, the moral reason which brings all of us on this side into parliament, is to ensure that every Australian can have a decent standard of life, that they are supported through the vicissitudes of life and that they are entitled to every opportunity based not on the circumstances through which they begin life but through being part of Australian society. That is the moral case, but there is also an instrumental case, which makes the government's attitude to these issues all the more galling, We now know that excessive inequality, which is the trend that is being experienced in Australia as well as across the developed world, is not only inherently bad in a moral sense or according to how some of us see the world and our obligation to those who are less fortunate than us but also instrumentally bad. Bodies like the IMF have formed a very clear view that excessive inequality such as that we are trending towards in Australia is a very significant brake on economic growth. A government which was serious about maintaining economic growth as the basis for maintaining the living standards of Australians into the future would be concerned about this. This government cannot even bring itself to speak the words, much less attend meaningfully to solving this problem.

Labor does see this as a problem, and we see it as our obligation to respond to it. Over the life of this parliament we have made it absolutely clear that there is an approach open to Australia that is very different from this blind faith in trickle-down economics. There are decisions and interventions government could and should make to improve the position of Australians and improve the position of the Australian economy. A stark contrast to the government's proposal contained in this bill is the approach that Labor took to the last election and continues to prosecute: the changes to negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount in order to improve our revenue but also to improve the distribution of wealth and to restrict the growth of wealth inequality in Australia, at the same time opening up to more young Australian families the prospect of home ownership. This is a critical decision we have taken on a critical issue that is of concern to all of my constituents—and I am pretty sure the constituents of the member for Dunkley as well—but a matter upon which the government has nothing to say. If you listen to the Minister for Urban Infrastructure—and I do not advise that you do that, as a matter of general principle—housing affordability is not something that people should be talking about. He is wrong on this, as in so much else.

It is not just about negative gearing and capital gains tax changes, as important as these are; it is about an entirely different approach to boosting economic growth and making sure that the foundations of that are in equity. In this regard I think of the key difference between our philosophical approaches, which is made evident through the provisions of this bill: $50 billion in tax cuts, or critical investments in productive infrastructure. Government members' contributions to this debate have seen many references to our productivity challenge, but not an answer to some of the big questions that we have to grapple with. Perhaps this is some recognition that it is not so much labour productivity that is the brake on economic growth in Australia but questions about managerial performance and the incentives that drive managerial performance or underperformance, and our failure to have proper investment in infrastructure, with the tearing up of the work of the last Labor government in supporting Infrastructure Australia in turning Australia's infrastructure investment around—fundamental failings.

It is not just hard infrastructure; it is investing in human capital. Yesterday we had parents, teachers and principals attend this parliament to make their case for investment in schools funding based on need. On this side of the House we are confident in the capacity of Australians. We are confident that, if we bring the best out of every Australian child, that will be a critical enabler of our ability to compete in the global marketplace. It is the high road to competitiveness, as opposed to the low road of simply dropping our corporate tax rates. There are other investments that maintain a decent society, which is so important to how we see ourselves, so important to maintaining trust and confidence in the political process here and so fundamentally important to people's lives. These decisions will continue to confront us, perhaps later today when the minister at the table, the member for Pearce, resumes our debate over changes to early learning and child care, and at some stage shortly thereafter, no doubt, further attacks on family payments as well as the pension.

As we speak, we on this side of House are very conscious that the wage share of the economy is falling. Income growth, wages growth, is at its lowest level on record, so it strikes me that one of the many canards put in support of this $50 billion giveaway is the suggestion that benefits will trickle down to workers through higher wages. This, of course, is complete nonsense. There is no evidence to support this. In fact, the evidence runs completely in the opposite direction—that the benefits will go not to workers but of course to shareholders, many of them overseas. Who wins? Not Australian workers but big business.

Extraordinarily, we have before us a plan to boost the deficit and increase inequality. It is quite a remarkable thing, isn't it, especially in circumstances where the evidence is in that excessive inequality is a handbrake on growth? The position of government members here is a homage to the position of the Treasurer: it is all rhetoric and no substance. We see in contributions to this debate the most lukewarm reheating of trickle-down economics, which failed the United States and would drag Australia backwards.

Jobs and growth were once the watchwords of this government. This is a bill that will do nothing for jobs and almost nothing for growth. The Treasury modelling, which appears from the available evidence to be generous, suggests one per cent growth in 20 years. It is pretty thin stuff, as are the arguments about competitiveness. Of course, company tax rates are an element of international competitiveness, but just one. There are many others. I touched earlier upon the high road that we could go down, which is a surer path to international competitiveness in the medium and the long term: investing in skills, maintaining all the reasons that make Australia an attractive place for businesses and people to settle as well as invest; and, of course, meeting the infrastructure challenges that are so critical but have been sadly neglected by this government.

They have been neglected by this government not in isolation but consistent with a wider series of attacks. This is a government ultimately with no direction. It relies on a series of ideological standbys, sometimes in the area of economic policy but increasingly away from that. This is a government that seems to be led by reactionaries on the backbench and reactionaries on the crossbench. It has an agenda that says nothing about Australia's future and everything about internal preoccupations. It seems that in this place we get to witness what it must be like to be in the coalition party room as these debates, these culture wars, play out in our parliament. It is not edifying and it is not good enough. What Australians need is a government that is prepared to make serious decisions about boosting productivity and about attacking inequality, not reinforcing it. That is the challenge that faces Australians. It is the challenge that we on this side of the House are firmly committed to overcoming. That is why I support the amendments proposed by the member for McMahon.

See this speech in context