Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Hansard source

Once upon a time there was a Labor Party that stood for the true believers. Once there was a party of the workers—those who were not doing so well and those who wanted to get ahead. Once there was a party where small business was not penalised for growing, nor was the politics of envy in play—because, to them, politics is more important than people. Once there was a party that wanted more Australians in work and worked with the parliament to make possible the dreams of those who seek to make our nation fairer. And once there was a party that was up to the job that Australians deserve of their parliaments.

Unfortunately, those days are gone. This matter of public importance debate proves it. That the member for McMahon would lecture this government about incompetence is absolutely laughable. This is the shadow Treasurer from the one-time government of Grocery Watch, the incompetent government of Fuel Watch. He was the Minister for Immigration who oversaw huge numbers of boat arrivals, and chaos at the heart of government. He sat at the Treasurer's desk for a few sorry weeks, albeit he never delivered a budget. The shadow Treasurer has written a book on Labor's 'money men'. But as Labor's money man he has never had to write a budget. He has never had to make spending add up, nor fund the promises of those opposite—

Mr Bowen interjecting—

He agrees with me! That is good. Listen up, you might agree with what I have to say. That is why he stands in opposition to the fair and reasonable spending in this budget. Now we will see if it agrees with me. Just a little more than two weeks ago, on 9 May, this government delivered a budget for all Australians. It was an 'action' budget. It was not like the budgets written by the member for Rankin, opposite, for the member for Lilley, oh no!

Australians wanted action on schools, so we took it. Australians wanted action on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, so we funded it. Australians wanted to see the inland rail between Brisbane and Melbourne built, so we are building it. And Australians in small business wanted tax cuts, so we delivered that. It was a budget of security, of opportunity and of fairness for communities large and small, inland and on the coast. No matter where people live, it is a budget, as with all of our budgets, that backs small businesses and puts them in the driver's seat to grow our economy. It backs those who create jobs. It backs those who build our nation. And it is there for those who need the support the most: the vulnerable.

It was a fair budget. But, as we look to the Labor Party to get on board with some of our budget measures—which secure better days for all Australian, which make permanent policies that should make this parliament proud—those opposite just play politics. They are happy to sell Australians down the river, happy to see small business suffer, happy to play politics, rather than do the job they were elected to do. This year's budget had our commitment to fully fund the NDIS, because it is the fair, proper, right and correct thing to do. But while this government delivers the full funding of a bipartisan testament to that which is possible, when this parliament works together those opposite, again, seek to play petty politics, and none more petty than those of the member for McMahon opposite.

Almost everyone agrees that the 0.5 per cent increase that funds the NDIS is a fair way to ensure that the scheme—of which every member in this place and every Australian should rightly be proud—is a reality for the Australians who need it the most. We collect the money only when the bills come in, because we owe it to the Australians who need it to link this levy from 1 July 2019 to the NDIS savings fund. When this idea was first introduced and the 'Every Australian Counts' campaign was asking federal MPs to pledge their support, I was the first from New South Wales to sign up, and I was delighted to do so—delighted. For me, as for the coalition at the time, this was not a question of politics or pettiness; it was sensible, it was fair and it had our full support. It also had the support of Kurrajong Waratah in the Wagga Wagga community and the wider Riverina. So, now we are asking every Australian who has a reasonable capacity to contribute to do so through a levy that fairly represents their ability. As the Minister for Social Services has said, our plans are to ask those who can to contribute, and that is only fair. He said:

A single person with an income of $28,000, to fill the funding gap they would be expected to pay $75 a year in 2019-20. A person on an income of $200,000 would be required to pay an extra $1,000. So a person with seven times more income would pay 13 times more to fill the gap.

That is a fair way to fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

Deep within the heart of those opposite is the party of the possible, of that which I outlined at the start of this MPI, but it is not in the heart of the member for McMahon or the opposition leader. We have read reports of how the opposition leader chose politics over people. We have read about those opposite who wanted to fill the funding gap those opposite left but were thwarted by the opposition leader's political games. Even Dr Craig Emerson, a former Labor minister and certainly a luminary for those on the other side, has called out the opposition leader's hypocrisy. He said:

Labor should support the full Medicare levy rise. In doing so, it would lock in the National Disability Insurance Scheme, a signature Labor reform for which Bill Shorten can take much credit from his time as the Rudd government's parliamentary secretary for disabilities and children's services.

But gone are the days of the opposition leader taking credit. Now it is just about him and it is just about politics. Dr Emerson knows the story of rank hypocrisy from those opposite. He knows that it does not stop at the NDIS. His op-ed—and really, I would urge members opposite to read it—continues:

Labor can again demonstrate its credentials as a party of social reform and economic credibility. It should support the full increase in the Medicare levy, unconditionally back the bank levy and pass the school-funding legislation.

That is what Dr Emerson—former minister, former Labor luminary—said.

Our school-funding model implements what David Gonski was calling for. We know education is the great enabler. Through delivering a needs based model of funding for schools, with investment increasing year on year over the next decade, we are skilling our kids with the tools they need for the future, from today, for tomorrow. It is $18.6 billion over the next decade to make sure schools funding is needs based, equitable and targeted. Unfortunately, once again all those opposite are doing is playing politics. There are 128 schools in the Riverina and central west electorate that I represent—a large rural electorate—and each and every one of them is going to see a very real increase in funding.

Perhaps the greatest hypocrisy of those opposite is the speed with which they have sold out small business. There was a time when the Leader of the Opposition was part of a party which wanted to create jobs. Just over three years ago he stood at the dispatch box there and said:

I invite you to work with me on a fair and fiscally responsible plan to reduce the tax rate for Australian small business from 30 to 25 per cent—not a 1½ per cent cut; a five per cent cut.

And further:

Small business represents aspiration. It represents people who want to break away from a salaried job.

Yet today he sells small business down the river. His Labor Party voted against our tax cuts and made clear that those opposite do not understand small business and they will raise its taxes in government. That is what they will do if they ever get back here. If ever they get back on this side, they will raise taxes. The member for Rankin is smiling. He has that smile about him, thinking:, 'That's who we'll hit: small business. That's who we'll work on. We will jack up their taxes and take away the instant asset write-off. That is what he will do if ever he gets a position of power in which he can do that.

Given multiple opportunities at the National Press Club last week, the shadow Treasurer could have confirmed whether Labor would keep the coalition's tax cuts for small business. He could have. But instead the shadow Treasurer dodged, ducked and weaved and failed to answer the questions. Why? The answer is simple: we back small business. Our budget backs small business. It funds the NDIS. It funds needs based school funding. It is fair. It delivers a budget for all Australians and for equity. While we are the ones who will deliver the fairness, the opportunity and security Australia needs, those opposite will just backflip again. I cannot understand why Labor does not want to back the 27½ per cent tax rate. It is the lowest it has been for many, many decades. All those opposite want to do is ramp taxes back up. They do not see that the definition of a small business should be a $10 million turnover. They confuse turnover with profit. They do not understand the difference. They do not understand that many, many thousands more small businesses will now have access to the instant asset write-off so that they can buy the capital equipment that they need in their small business to create more efficiency, more productivity and more jobs.

See this speech in context