Justine Keay (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

If this budget is fair, than I must be on a different planet—and so must every other Australian in this country who does not believe a word that comes out of the mouths of those sitting opposite. It is quite clear that this government do not listen to people in their own communities, those people who actually elected them to sit over there; they do not even listen to them. They do not even take any notice of evidence, of research. They should take a grassroots approach to policy development by actually going and talking to the people who elected them. Or, if they cannot do that, they should take an academic approach and look at the evidence provided by researchers and independent people. I question whether they have the ability to do that—or else they would not have arrived at this unfair budget.

A headline today in The Sydney Morning Herald reads 'Twice as many households worse off under coalition's Medicare levy rise plan'. Let's look at this in a little bit of detail, if you are not convinced by that. The article says:

Twice as many households will be worse off under the federal government's plan to raise the Medicare levy by half a percentage point than under Labor's alternative, according to new modelling by the ANU's Centre for Social Research and Methods.

And middle-income earners will do much more of the heavy lifting under the Coalition than under Labor …

It continues:

If the Liberal policy were in place from July 1, 2019, according to the ANU modelling, 60 per cent of households would be worse off, 39 per cent would see no change, and just 1 per cent would be better off.

Now I reckon 60 per cent of those households would be in the seats of a number of those sitting opposite—maybe not the member for Wentworth, we can understand that. But many of the members over there, particularly those in regional and rural seats, would have to look at this research and question whether they support this measure. And I bet that one per cent are sitting in the seat of Wentworth. Who are these people listening to—the people who elected them or the Prime Minister? It beggars belief.

When I look at the Medicare levy, I try to imagine how the government arrived at this measure. They are saying we have to give big business a tax cut. But they do not even look at their own Treasury modelling, which suggests that in 20 years time it will deliver economic growth of 0.1 per cent—negligible growth. They are not even looking at their own modelling!

Let's go back to the conversation the Treasurer probably had in his office with his advisers and so forth: 'We want to give big business a $65 billion tax cut. How are we going to fund that? What are we going to do to make our budget return to surplus at some point in time? The Medicare levy was really popular when Labor introduced the NDIS'—which Labor fully funded, mind you. 'People actually thought that was a pretty reasonable measure. So let's just say that the NDIS is fully funded and we will raise the Medicare levy to pay for that big gap of giving big business a tax cut!' We have a party sitting over there saying they are the party of lower tax—that is, lower taxes for millionaires and big business, not for the rest of our community.

Let's look at another measure—the energy supplement. I do not know about those sitting opposite, but I have been listening to my community because I have been inundated with letters from people in my community about the government's plan, in its budget, to remove the energy supplement. The carbon tax does not exist any more, but we know that energy prices are rising. So Bill from Penguin says, 'Stop whacking the poor and the pensioners—have a go at the rich individuals and the large companies.' Helen from Wynyard said, 'Dear elected representative, I'm horrified to read that the public are facing another threat to the clean energy supplement. Families are struggling with daily living costs. Every dollar counts. I urge you not to push people further back into poverty.' Aileen from Somerset says, 'As a pensioner in Tasmania, it costs more than a pensioner can afford to keep the heater on from about 5 pm, when it gets very cold, until a sensible bed time. Surely it is not expected that we put up with being cold. Most Aussies would not think this is fair.' Then I go to Malcolm from Devonport: 'I am a pensioner. If these Liberal mongrels have their way they will try to get rid of the energy supplement, putting a heavier burden on the poor, and look after their rich mates in the coal industry.'

So we know the priorities of this government. It is not the pensioners. It is not the low-income and middle-income earners. It is the rich and big business.'

See this speech in context