Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

This is an astonishing piece of legislation. This is a situation where recently—on 10 October this year—the government borrowed, according to the Australian Office of Financial Management, $150 million in one day, repayable in 2040. That's one for the grandchildren, because of the government's failure to manage their debt and deficit. When we left office in September 2013, we faced the debt trucks of the then opposition leader, the member for Warringah—and we faced the member for Wentworth—saying that a $300 million debt projection was absolutely gigantic, and a debt-and-deficit disaster. Well, the budget figures clearly show that since September 2013, when the Labor government lost office, government debt has risen by $231 billion to now be $504 billion. According to the Australian Office of Financial Management, they're not going to start paying off some of these borrowings until 2040.

Just last week, the Australian Taxation Office revealed—whilst they patted themselves on the back for clawing back $1 billion from multinationals in corporate Australia—that $3.5 billion in tax revenue had been lost by multinationals engaged in tax evasion. Now, $3.5 billion could do a lot. But the government now feels that it can afford to give away $65 billion to corporate Australia. Most of those who will benefit will be the big multinational companies, including the big banks. Their dividends will be imputed—and most of their shareholders are big corporates overseas. So Australians won't benefit; even of the corporate shareholders, very few will benefit. But if Thatcherism and Reaganism showed one thing, across the 1980s, it is that budget deficits blow out, and budget debts blow out. In fact, society has become more unequal. That's what happened under Thatcher's UK and Reagan's USA. This government feels that we're going to follow the failed policies of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan—trickle-down economics—which will result in greater inequality in our country.

This is at a time when disposable income is just $29,640 per household—below the 2013 level of $31,650. Annual wages growth at 1.9 per cent is the lowest rate ever recorded. The proportion of the Australian total income to GDP—wages are now the lowest since records began in 1959. In fact, the situation is that the decline in terms of household income over the last six months for the nation was a staggering $20.4 billion—the steepest percentage drop since the 2002 recession. For the 10th time recently, jobless figures in this country revealed that over 700,000 people—currently 725,000—are unemployed. The last time that happened was before the coalition was elected in 2013: Deputy Speaker, guess when it was: it was in 1997. So at a time of economic growth in the country but with stagnant wages growth, rising inequality, household consumption down and household income down, the government feels—at a time when profits have gone up by nearly 40 per cent per annum, but wages have remained stagnant at about 1.9 per cent—that they can afford to give more money to large companies, mainly multinationals, to benefit those companies and their shareholders—overseas shareholders—and Australian households will suffer.

The coalition and the conservatives never learn. They seem ideologically obsessed with Thatcher and Reagan and do not understand economics at all. In fact, we get lectures in question time about economics and engineering, but they don't seem to understand anything about economics. Why pursue failed policies? Why pursue them at all?

We've got a situation where this government's got a structural deficit. It is really important to understand this—I see the member for Fisher smiling. The Abbott-Turnbull government added $231.9 billion in gross borrowings in a matter of 48 months. That's $4.83 billion per month during the strongest global recovery since the 1950s. In the last financial year, 2016-17, the coalition government added $6.71 billion in borrowings per month. And they've got the nerve to lecture us! What a hide this mob have! It's extraordinary that they would lecture Labor in relation to this. But, at the same time, they are prepared to give $65.4 billion in tax cuts to corporate Australia and $16,000 a year in tax cuts to millionaires. At the same time as households are doing it tough, at the same time that disposable income is the lowest it's been for some considerable period of time, they want to increase the tax on those persons with income above $21,000 a year. The inequity is rank. The hypocrisy is extraordinary.

As many of my colleagues have pointed out, the figures are quite clear. The government says we're out of touch with the world in terms of our corporate tax rate, but that's not true. The figures are crystal clear, and many of my colleagues have referred to them. In the past, the US Congressional Budget Office said that the headline rate might be 30 per cent in terms of the corporate tax rate in 2012. The average rate in Australia is 17 per cent, so the effective tax rate is 10.4 per cent. And I mentioned dividend imputation before. That's one of Labor's greatest economic reforms. But the truth of the matter is, this government is committed to an ideological pursuit here. This is an absolute special from those opposite: big business and high-income earners—millionaires—get tax cuts, but anyone earning above $21,000 per annum gets a tax hike.

This is all at a time when, from the middle of this year, 700,000 Australians face penalty-rate cuts. The hypocrisy and inconsistency of the government's position is extraordinary. They give us lectures about energy reliability and affordability, but they oppose the supplement of $365 for pensioners and $550 for pensioner couples which is designed to assist them with their energy needs. They want to get rid of it; that's their policy. And, at the same time, they say to us, 'If our policy's accepted and you give us bipartisan support, some might be about $100 per annum better off in 2030.' That's a couple of dollars a week. Even on these particular government figures, the people are only going to be better off by a couple of dollars in a decade. So where's the benefit of this particular corporate tax cut they're giving? It's not there.

I think government budgets, just like budgets in the household, reveal people's values, their ethics and their priorities. Recently I met with Geraldine Mackenzie, the new USQ vice-chancellor, and Ian Hawke, the director of advancement in the Office of the Vice-Chancellor at USQ, in my electorate. That's a great university, but the government wants to slash funding for universities. This is a regional university that's hit its Bradley target with respect to low-socioeconomic students—for many students, it's the first time anyone in their family has ever gone to university. This is a university with campuses in Ipswich and Springfield in my electorate. But what is this government doing? It's cutting $3.8 billion of funding to universities in the higher education sector. Ian Hawke says: 'Clearly, the decline in funding means Australian students will be paying more for potentially a lower-quality experience. And, of course, the further risk is an international student market thinking Australia is a poorer-quality proposition because the government has reduced its commitment, and the uncertainty is destabilising.' They can't find the money for the university sector, but they can give the money to multinationals? It's a warped sense of priorities.

They've taken $637 million out of TAFE training and apprenticeships, cut $2.5 billion out of skills training, and they've cut $17 billion out of needs-based funding for schools. But they do this all in the context of giving back $65 billion in tax cuts for big business. It does not make sense. If we want future growth and productivity and to make sure we're an economy that can compete in Asia, we're not going to do it by slashing penalty rates. We're not going to do it by slashing wages and salaries in this country. We're going to do it by the ingenuity, creativity and skills of our people. Investing in TAFE, in higher education, in the tertiary sector and in our schools is the way to go. Don't give a tax cut to multinational companies; invest the money in education. Because, long-term, that is better in terms of productivity and economic growth. And with economic growth will come social justice and equality of opportunity. It'll give a fair go, and Australia will have both a productive and growing economy and a strong and prosperous future, with an equal say for people from all backgrounds. It will be an equal society. There'll be greater equity in the economy and our society.

We've had 130,000 people employed in our university sector, and I'd like to see more people employed. It supports another 40,000 jobs. I'd like to see our universities be cathedrals of learning. I'd like to see our schools as palaces of education. I'd like to see our preschools—our kindies—as places where kids can come and learn as best they can, with teachers who are best trained to care for them, who want their advancement in life.

Education is the great equaliser in society. But the government thinks the great equaliser in society is Reaganism and Thatcherism, and it's not. They're going to raise fees, cut university funding and put a greater financial burden on graduates, universities and their students, and resourcing. That's the priority we should have. We shouldn't be debating this legislation; we should be debating other legislation with extra funding in the budget for universities, for TAFE, for schools, for preschools and kindergartens. That'll make a difference in our region. Just think about that.

I'll finish where I started, with the $150 million they borrowed, which will be refunded in 2050. We've just wasted about $120 million on a marriage equality survey. They can afford to do that—honestly! I voted 'yes', and we'll be voting again in weeks to come, when I expect the 'yes' campaign to win. We'll be voting in this parliament in relation to that issue again. We should have done that and dealt with this issue months ago. Those are the warped priorities of this government. They're getting it out of whack. We need access to fair and well-funded education in this country. That's one of the most effective tools to fight against inequality. But this government is about an unequal Australia, not an equal Australia. It's about inequity, not equity. It's not about social justice; it's about social injustice. This is a government that has its priorities all wrong. That's the difference between us and them in terms of the economy. We're about the economy, and we're about equity. The government is not about the economy and it's not about equity. They claim they're the great champions of the market. They claim they're the great champions of economic growth, but they're not. They're not about a prosperous future for this country. They're not about that at all. We should not be supporting this legislation. It is not fair on the country. It is not good economics and it's not good for society.

See this speech in context