Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to make a contribution in this cognate debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2018-2019 and other appropriations bills. There's probably one thing that we have learnt since the handing down of this budget by the Treasurer, and that is that it is only a Labor government that understands and knows about the delivery of fairness. Fairness is not about what you say or the words you might want to couch your budget in. Fairness is about what you do; it's all about actions. This government, once again, has failed that test. As a matter of fact, they've failed it five times.

This is their fifth attempt at a budget delivering so-called fairness to the Australian community, yet, despite the rhetoric of those opposite, this is really a budget about big business. We've heard in the past about trickle-down economics. We have heard that, provided we give it to the big end of town, it will eventually work its way down to the workers. We know that over the last couple of years businesses have been making reasonable profits, and yet we are seeing the lowest wage growth in living memory at the moment. They want to take this whole concept further—to say, 'Well, just trust us,' and, 'Let's make our key signature policy giving $80 billion to the big end of town in the hope that that's going to stimulate the economy and create jobs, and that everyone's going to live in a land of prosperity.'

After five years, I think the tired old government over there should be starting to think about giving it up. Let's face it: that's what the electors are thinking. The previous speaker might want to get bolshie about this, but he, like any of those on the other side of the parliament with margins under 5 per cent, knows what the polls mean. They know that people have turned off. They're no longer listening. It's one thing for the Liberals to want to come out and say that they're concerned about fairness and about returning fairness to the Australian economy and to working families. But to make your key signature policy all about big business is really not delivering much in the way of fairness for working families of this country.

In fairness, the tax plan does give a modest $10 a week to Australian workers. As I say, it's modest, and we will support such a modest increase. But don't forget that they're giving with one hand while, with the other hand, savagely making cuts to pensions, cuts to education and cuts to health. I'm not sure they can actually sell that at the election. I invite them to try! They've got to get out there and say, 'We'll give you something and we'll take all of this from you.' It simply is not going to work, because, as I say, people have turned off. They're no longer listening, despite the talk around the corridors here, and I know, regrettably, you guys don't get a bounce out of this. I'm not sure what that means—should you go to a longer period for elections, or which leader should you take to the election? All that is in the hands of you and your party room. But the realistic aspect about this is that a $10 tax cut for Australian workers does not cut it when you want to do things such as take $17 billion out of education and cut into health and pensions. People are aware of this stuff. This is not something new. They've seen this before. This is a government that is showing all the signs of being tired. It's out of ideas, and the only thing it can come up with is: 'Let's throw some money at big business.'

Bear in mind, this mob opposite is the same mob that protested vigorously about having a royal commission into the banking industry. They said, 'We know what's happening in our financial institutions. All the royal commission is going to do is make lawyers rich.' I'm not sure how the lawyers on the other side would take that. They said, 'It would only tell us what we know.' I really hope those opposite and those in the Treasury didn't know about all the things we now know about—things about AMP and what is occurring with the Dollarmites at the 'which bank'. All those things are happening. It's a far cry from what they wanted to do and say about a royal commission into trade unions—absolutely. They were looking at one prosecution as a result of the trade union royal commission, but I think that's been withdrawn now.

See this speech in context