Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Hansard source

I have never seen anything like this. This debate has now been going for an hour. I am the seventh Labor speaker to speak in support of a government motion that they will not talk about. Not only will they not talk about it but the minister refused to even read the motion out loud. The notice of motion says: 'I give notice that on the next day of sitting, I shall move the following orders of the day, government business, be discharged.' I thought I should read this out, because he never did. This has not actually gone onto the record yet:

Second reading—Resumption of debate:

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payments Structural Reform and Participation Measures) Bill 2016;

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Budget Repair) Bill 2016;

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 2016; and

Fairer Paid Parental Leave Bill 2016.

With the enthusiasm from the opposition to vote for a motion moved by the minister, you would think that at some point some member of the government would stand up and explain to the House why these bills should be discharged and why these bills were a bad idea. But instead they are like Jim Carrey in that Liar Liar movie, where Jim Carrey knows that if he opens his mouth he is going to say the truth, so he is constantly just holding back, trying to make sure no words come out.

We know their beliefs have not changed on any of these issues. Every piece of legislation that this motion is taking off the Notice Paper is a piece of legislation that every single member of that government supports. Every piece of legislation that is referred to in this motion and that the minister is asking us to take off the Notice Paper is a piece of legislation that the minister has himself introduced to the parliament, advocated for and ridiculed people for opposing it. And now he comes in here and will not give us any reason.

The Prime Minister was forced into a situation in an interview this morning where he was asked if this means they are bad measures. He had this beautiful quotation: 'It's not a question of good or bad. They were measures which we thought, which we believed, had merit.' Their beliefs have not changed, and the reason we know their beliefs have not changed is the moment we opened the budget papers themselves. Every other policy change has a reason as to why the policy is being changed. You get an argument from the public servants as to why the government has arrived at this decision. And what is the reason? 'Decisions taken as a result of Senate positions'—no policy reason but an acknowledgement that these were measures which they were not going to get through the parliament.

It is not the first time they were told that. As recently as today the government was still arguing that there was a $16 billion gap that they had between them and Labor at the last election. At the time when they were arguing this, we said: 'Hang on. That includes a whole lot of measures that will never pass the parliament.' And now we find they are acknowledging that $13½ billion of that amount will never pass the parliament.

So today ends the argument claiming there is some big fiscal gap in terms of their and Labor's proposals. But there is a fiscal gap if you are a family trying to make ends meet. There is a fiscal gap if you are a young unemployed person, who they really believe should be left with nothing to live on. There is a fiscal gap if you are a woman who wants to go on maternity leave, because you are dealing with a government that still believes these women are double-dippers, that still believes these women are rorters. They have believed it ever since Mother's Day a few years ago.

They come in here, ridicule those who oppose them and ridicule the opposition for holding their ground, but be in no doubt: this budget has found new ways of hurting ordinary Australians. This budget has found new ways of letting down everybody else. But you are not let down if you are in the top tax bracket. You are not let down if you are a millionaire. You are not let down if you are a multinational company. They all do pretty well out of this budget. But, if you have a kid at school, you are not doing real well. If you are reliant on Medicare payments, this government continues the cuts. If you are in any situation of looking at when you will get the pension, they are still pursuing the oldest retirement age. And so those opposite have not changed. If they had changed, the next speaker would be one of them, but we know that when one of them rises it will not be to give a defence of the motion. When one of them stands up, it will be to move that the question be put. They will stand up because they will have had enough of people standing up and agreeing with their motion. They will stand up because they are fed up with Labor standing up, supporting and giving reasons why we should back in the motion moved by the minister. They will say, 'Enough of all of that.' They will move that it be put, and that will be the first time that anyone rises at that dispatch box.

Between now and then, be in no doubt: every time those opposite come after vulnerable Australians, come after everybody who is not in the top end of town, we will stand in their way. We will stand between them and the people they want to hurt. Labor doing that shows those opposite will not even have the courage of their convictions to give an explanation as to why they are giving up on certain measures. The reason is simple. They are living right now with quotes about how they support these measures. They do not want to give a speech saying they do not support these measures, because that will be used against them in years to come when these measures reappear. That is what they do not want to have on the record. They do not want the contradiction to appear on the record when these measures return to the budget.

If they were not planning to bring them back, they would give an explanation as to why they are a bad idea. If they were not planning on bringing these measures back, we would hear the speech as to why these measures were unfair, as to why the 2014 budget was going down a path that was not a sensible way for Australia to go. For every other measure in the budget, they will give that sort of speech. They will not give it for these measures, because that would plant the seed of contradiction for when these measures return. Everything in the budget papers, in the budget speech and in the language of the non-speech we heard this morning is setting the parameters, setting all the bases and the foundations, they need for these measures to be reintroduced.

Be in no doubt, the concept of giving a young unemployed person nothing to live on is the wrong thing to do. It is an unacceptable, abhorrent thing to do. That is why these measures should be discharged from the Notice Paper. Calling women who are going on maternity leave 'rorters' and 'double dippers' is an appalling approach to public policy. A lot of focus has been put on the fact that the announcement was made on Mother's Day, which was out of touch and bizarre; however, they announced the 18C changes on the day to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination, on Harmony Day, so this is just sort of what they do. The policy itself meant that women planning to take time off to care for a child were going to be put in an impossible situation. Even though they had negotiated with their employer for particular benefits to give them additional time, that part of the negotiation was going to be thrown out the window. That was not fair on those women; that was not a fair outcome for those women.

These measures meant people losing payments that they relied on. It was the wrong thing for the government to do. We will keep making these speeches in the parliament, because we know every one of these measures is on the way back. If they are not, then the next speaker to stand up will be a speaker from the government to explain to the House why these measures should be taken off the Notice Paper.

See this speech in context