Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

There's a growing crisis in this country, and it's evidenced by the fact that one in three young people either haven't got a job or haven't got the hours of work that they want. It's much, much worse for those young people who finish school and who don't have qualifications above that school level. If you look back over Australian history, what you will find is that the youth unemployment rate is always higher than the general employment rate and that every time we get into trouble when there's a recession the youth are hit harder and they have a disproportionately higher rise in their unemployment rise, so more of them are jobless.

What we also have usually found, looking back over history, is that give it a couple of years and, as better economic times come, the two come back into line and young people tend to start finding jobs again. But that hasn't happened since the GFC. Since the GFC, unemployment and underemployment for young people has continued to get worse, not better. We're almost a decade on from it, and we now have this appalling situation in this country where one in three young people can't find a job or don't have enough hours of work. They are getting screwed. The old measures that previously might have pumped up employment don't seem to be working any more. We are increasingly turning our backs on a generation of people who will find themselves without ever having had meaningful employment.

When the government does one of the most important things it does each year, which is hand down its budget, you would expect it would have laser-like focus and put up in lights the fact that so many people in this country are finding it very, very difficult to make ends meet and it's especially hard for young people. But there was nothing for young people in this budget. This is a budget that gives the middle finger to young people in this country. If you think about those one in three young people who either haven't got a job or aren't getting enough hours of work, many of them will be reliant on youth allowance and, if you get a bit older, they will be reliant on Newstart. The number of people who are in that situation where they're forced to rely on welfare because the government has not done enough to create meaningful jobs for them is growing.

The government trumpets its job-creation figures and ignores the fact that, really, those job creation figures are just keeping up with population growth and that we have unemployment persistently stuck at over five per cent. If you again look back over history, you will find that between World War II and the 1970s the average unemployment rate in this country was two per cent. The government is consigning a whole bunch of people to the scrap heap. It's even worse for young people, and the budget has nothing for them. While they're looking for work that is not there at the moment, many of those people them are reliant on welfare. They are trying to find jobs that aren't there, and they're reliant on welfare in the meantime. What we know is that if you are reliant on Newstart to try to make ends meet while you're looking for another job, you are living in poverty.

Everyone is now screaming from the rooftops that the level of Newstart is so low that it's actually a barrier to people finding work. Why? Well, you spend all your time just trying to stay alive, trying to make ends meet, because you've got $40 a day. At the same time, the cost of rent is going through the roof. We find that in Melbourne, for example, if you're reliant solely on Newstart, there is not one rental property in the greater Melbourne area that is affordable for you. So we have people living in poverty.

This low level of Newstart is now becoming a barrier to people finding work because it's becoming a poverty trap. It's not just the Greens saying that. It's not just welfare organisations saying that. The Business Council of Australia has said that trying to get by on $40 a day, at a time when energy bills and housing are going through the roof, means that you don't have enough money to get yourself that extra haircut or to go and buy some extra clothes to get yourself ready for a job interview; you don't have the capacity to go and do the extra training that you need; you spend most of your life just trying to survive.

Many people were hoping that this budget might deliver something for all of those people who are looking for a job, and that it might help lift some Australians out of poverty while they're looking for a job. And the budget gave the middle finger to them as well. The budget said: 'There is nothing for you from this Liberal government if you are trying to find jobs that aren't there because we're not creating them. And if you're living in poverty just trying to make ends meet, well, we don't care.'

So not only was the opportunity to help make Australia a more equal society passed up because the government refused to do anything on that front. They also turned their back on last year's budget, when they said that housing was the most important issue. Remember that—when they said that making housing affordable was one of their priorities? There was not a single dollar in this budget to help make housing more affordable.

Things have changed a lot in the last couple of decades in Australia. People are going into record debt because the cost of housing is going up and up and up and other forms of income are not going up at all. And again it is worse for young people. Back in the 1990s, the average cost of a house was six times the average young person's income. Fast forward a couple of decades and the average cost of a house is 12 times an average young person's income. The Treasurer made a big song and dance about that a year or so ago but now seems to have completely forgotten. So there's no money in this budget to look after the people who are falling through the cracks, and there's nothing in this budget to address housing affordability, when we know that, if we had the guts to rein in negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions, for example, we could use that money to build more affordable housing.

Start building more affordable housing that's available to people at the lower end of the spectrum and you'll kill a number of birds with one stone. You'll start putting people into work as we start to have a construction-led employment recovery. You'll also start bringing down rents because the housing will be affordable and you'll take a bunch of people out of that very tight rental market by delivering them public housing. Start building some affordable housing for key workers in our cities as well and you'll start to ease the pressure on them so that cleaners, nurses, ambulance officers and firefighters can afford to live near the places that they're servicing. That would be a sensible thing to do.

Nothing—nothing—from the government on that. Why? Because they want to make inequality worse by ending progressive taxation in Australia as we know it and giving a handout to big corporations and the very wealthy. It's going to cost $140 billion—money that we could use to build more affordable housing or to lift Newstart or to get dental into Medicare. Instead, the government says that the way to increase inequality in Australia—because that's ultimately what they're on about—is to get rid of Australia's progressive taxation system.

As a result of the proposals that this government is putting forward in this budget, in a few years time, when they get rid of and dismantle the progressive taxation system in Australia and phase 3 of the tax cuts kick in, someone who is earning the minimum wage will pay the same tax rate as a CEO on $200,000. Now, that is not fair. That is not fair, and it is a direct assault on egalitarianism in this country. We have a progressive taxation system for a reason. There is an acceptance in this country that if you earn a bit more, and especially if you're right at the top end, you can contribute a bit more. There is an understanding in Australia that we will be, and remain, a more equal society if we use money to invest in services like free health care and free public schools so that no matter how much you earn you've got the same rights as everyone else to get good quality health care and good quality education.

We understand in this country that the key to avoiding going down the US road and becoming a dog-eat-dog society, where everyone has to look after themselves, is making sure that every child in this country can get a world-class public school education if they want it and that you're never turned away from a public school because you're worried about the quality of the education. You know, as of right, that you've got that. And you know that if you get sick, you will be looked after in the hospitals in this country. And you also know—although this is increasingly coming under threat—that you're able to get to a GP as and when you need one without the gap costing you too much or being a disincentive for being able to go. Now, to do all of those things we need to ask big corporations to pay their fair share, not give them a tax cut. But we also need to maintain a progressive taxation system in this country.

If there's one thing that the budget has achieved, though, it's that they've successfully fired the starting gun in what's going to be a tax cuts auction going to the next election. And it's very, very disappointing to find that in this parliament the Greens are the only ones standing up saying: 'No, no tax cuts. Let's put the money into services instead.' And in doing that we are standing with the majority of the Australian people, because the majority of the Australian people know that whether it's $10 a week or $20 a week, most of that is going to disappear as power bills going up, as the cost of housing goes up and as the cost of going to see the doctor goes up. If you ask most people: 'What would you rather? Would you rather $10 or $20 a week? Or would you rather that money go into making sure you don't have to pay so-called 'voluntary' school fees when you send your kid to public school? To making sure that the gap between the cost of what Medicare provides and what you have to fork out of your pocket when you go to see the doctor gets brought down? Making sure that we re-regulate power prices?' they say that they would much rather government get involved and ensure that Australia remains an equal society. They know that $10 or $20 a week gets eaten up just like that.

And the best way to look after low-income earners is to lift the minimum wage and the best way of looking after people who are falling through the cracks is to lift Newstart. That is a better road to go down than engaging in this tax cuts arms race. Every time the opposition falls for the bait from this government on tax cuts and engages in this macho 'my tax cut is bigger than yours' contest going into an election, a little piece of the welfare state dies and a little piece of social democracy dies. We need to defend proper taxation as the price we pay for a civilised society. If we keep getting sucked into this idea that people want bribes of $10 or $20 a week instead of government taking action on the things that are actually putting people under pressure, then we're all going to lose.

So what should the government do instead? Well, let's re-regulate power prices in this country. That will save people more than $10 a week. Let's say that electricity is an essential service that shouldn't be run for profit, that should be in public hands and should be regulated. Let's do that. Let's build more affordable housing and bring down the cost of renting. That will save more than $10 or $20 a week. Let's put the money that's meant to be going into tax cuts for millionaires and instead put it back into public health or into Medicare and we'll bring down the cost of going to see a doctor. That will make people's quality of life much better.

I think the Australian people would accept a fair level of taxation if they thought the government was spending it properly, if they thought it was going on public schools and public health and making sure Australia remains a more equal society. Most people would rather we do that than have this bribe-fest at every election. This is an appalling budget and I hope that very, very soon this government is no longer the government, but I hope that when there's a change we can shed this idea that we've always got to cut taxes, and, instead, put the focus on services.

See this speech in context