Brian Mitchell (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Well may you laugh, member. Facts speak for themselves. He said:

The politically inspired inequality of the Liberals is poisoning our society, and the power of big money is crowding out our democracy. Exhibit A of that is an unfunded $50 billion corporate tax cut, where the Treasury modelling shows it will not have the power and the influence over jobs and growth that the government claims it will.

We all know that 0.1 per cent growth to GDP in 10 years time will be the magnificent achievement of this $50 billion corporate tax handout. It beggars belief. How much more could be done with that money? I agree with the member for Lilley when he says Australians of the future will rue the day when the ultralow interest rates of this period were not used to invest in critical economic infrastructure across our regions and cities, and all because of an ideological obsession with avoiding debt. Imagine: we could even have invested in more base-load power stations.

The facts are that public investment in infrastructure in Australia has been substantially cut by the coalition, whether it is in the regions, the rural areas or our cities. Not one dollar was provided in the 2017 so-called 'infrastructure budget' for new infrastructure in Tasmania. The facts are these: in the 2015-16 financial year the Turnbull government cut infrastructure investment by nearly $3 billion—a 35 per cent drop from what it had promised in its 2014 budget. That is theft from the future prosperity of Australia. The private sector simply isn't doing that job, as we can see with power generation. Seven plants have closed since this government came to office. The private sector is not champing at the bit to build more. The public sector needs to step up. The public sector needs to invest in critical capital infrastructure, especially across our regions, in order to drive private sector growth. That's the route recommended by the IMF, which states that interest rates are so low that deficit reduction will actually occur faster due to the higher growth that infrastructure drives than it will through spending cuts of equivalent moneys.

One option could be to locate government agencies in regional areas, establishing well-paid, secure employment anchors in towns now suffering from a reliance on low-paid, insecure and seasonal work. Towns with council staff in them do better than those without them, as do towns with schools and medical centres. The benefits of well-paid, secure and permanent work are not only personal to the employees involved but also social. They provide a foundation for community growth and security.

What I'm proposing is a planned regional rollout of satellite offices in areas where placement fits the community and where public sector employees can settle, raise families and work directly with communities and where they join their local footy and bowls clubs, the CWA, ambos and firefighters without having to worry about where the next job's coming from. I'm focusing on the growth that this will bring to communities, with jobs created for services, retail and local government. As towns grow, more people will be needed—firefighters, police, council workers, support staff for people with disabilities, aged-care staff for people who are aging, childcare staff for the working parents and more teachers. Then, satellite university and TAFE sites may develop or grow. Then, doctors and specialists will need to be based in those areas, along with allied health professionals and community nurses. Where towns struggle with population, it is government that can give them a boost. This is a long-term plan, and it runs counter to the neoliberal economic agenda that has run rampant across Australia in recent years—an agenda that has seen our regional communities hollowed out and services shut down and moved to cities, sacrificed on the high altar of economic rationalism and efficiency.

We are a society, not an economy. Where market solutions fail, government must step in. Some say governments should be run like a business. I do not hold to that view. I say that governments should be run like a family. A family still needs to live within its means, but its motivations are very different to that of a business. In a family, we care for our grandmothers and grandfathers, despite the cost; we love our pets, even though they have no productive value; we take care of our homes and gardens, because we feel better when we live in pleasant surrounds; we go into debt to take on a mortgage; and we care for and love one another not because of profit but because we are human beings. I would much rather have a government that treats citizens like family instead of units of production.

Good governments not only invest in education, health, infrastructure and national security but also invest in the arts, libraries, national parks, the ABC and junior sports, none of which might get a look in on business grounds. Those arguing for smaller, leaner and meaner government see these things as burdens rather than assets, and they are forever arguing for them to be cut back to the point where they are already bleeding. The fantasy that has been woven around the supposed need for smaller government has allowed this government to treat people requiring income support as criminals and bludgers. It's allowed a culture to develop that it's somehow a shameful thing to accept government money, unless, of course, you're a billionaire or a corporation with your handout for a massive tax concession or business break. The ideology of smaller government is a myth that damages our society and our economy. It is a flawed, right-wing ideology that strips society of much-needed capital and human investment and that threatens to accelerate the hollowing out of our regional communities.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.

See this speech in context