Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I just did some maths on 30 people times $1,300—and $1,300 is actually a conservative estimate, because let's say there's a pregnant woman or two amongst those people, and it's entirely possible that pregnancy will last longer than 14 weeks under the current rules. But let's say it's $1,300. Now we're using the House's time to debate hurting people by taking $39,000. That's the annual saving to the Commonwealth budget we're now talking about. You mob have run up a deficit of $23.6 billion a year, and your answer to that is to take $39,000 a year off the most vulnerable Australians. I tried to work out what percentage that is on the iPad there. I divided $39,000 by $23.6 billion and it just says 'error'. It's too small even for the iPad to calculate.

You'd think that, if you're going to address structural deficit, you'd look at the big systemic things and cast 10 years out, wouldn't you? There are things like negative gearing, which goes overwhelmingly to the top 10 or 20 per cent of income earners and enables someone to buy their 13th investment property with a big free kick from the taxman while first home buyers are struggling to get in the market. You'd think you'd look at that. Or look at capital gains tax discounts, which overwhelmingly go to the wealthiest people in the country.

But that, I suppose, is me projecting our values onto you, because what this bill shows is that taking $39,000 from the most vulnerable Australians is your answer to the Commonwealth budget crisis. What this bill shows clearly, in stark relief, if there was any doubt, is your values. Your party exists to protect those who have wealth. Your party exists to protect those who already hold capital. If there's ever a reminder for anyone listening about what our role is as a Labor Party sticking up for the most vulnerable people in society then this bill is it. Shame on you.

Question agreed to.

See this speech in context