Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

If I were them I wouldn't be staying for this debate either to be honest. You have the build-up as to what will be the first policy that a Leader of the Opposition is going to stand for? What's going to be the career defining thing that as leader you say, 'That's the hill that I'm prepared to die on'? Normally we get those in budget reply speeches. We thought that maybe last year we'd get something in budget reply—but nothing, not a single policy. The reason, clearly, that we weren't getting a single policy was that the Leader of the Opposition, to his credit, likes a bit of suspense. He likes a build-up. And the build-up has come all the way to the parliament. Until today when we discover the first policy, the first commitment—if there were ever a Dutton government what would be the first thing that it would do? What would be the legislation that it would implement? What's the first inkling he has given the Australian people as to what he would stand for? The first tax policy that he decides to deal with is people who have more than $3 million in their superannuation account.

Two things happened in the year 2006. First of all, the Leader of the Opposition, in 2006, became the Assistant Treasurer of Australia. The other thing that happened in 2006 was there was a movie called TheOne Percent. The One Percent was a movie from the United States about the one per cent who were the wealthiest in the economy—good on them—and it had interviews with a whole lot of them. It opened up a whole economic debate about whether you're only looking after the one per cent. What we didn't realise was that for the Leader of the Opposition looking after the one per cent was too broad based and he has now gone for the half of one per cent as the hill that he's prepared to die on. The half of one per cent is the big tax policy that he is willing to say he will repeal should there be a change of government at the next election. So for all the sense of wanting to appeal to a broad base of the population, for all the different ways that the Leader of the Opposition might want to say he wants to broaden the base of support that the Liberal Party received the last election, he's decided he has found a pathway, and the pathway is the half of one per cent. It's a funny way to get to a majority but that's the pathway that the Leader of the Opposition has started on.

Let's make clear we have to deal with a trillion dollars of Liberal Party debt. We have to deal with a trillion dollars of Liberal Party debt and it's extraordinary to hear those opposite just think you don't have to deal with it, as though that were not the fastest-growing section of the budget. The interest payments on the trillion dollars of Liberal Party debt are now the fastest growing part of the Commonwealth's budget. And if you're not going to deal with it this way exactly how you going to deal with it? They say they they'll stop various funds but the funds that they're arguing against are largely off budget funds, all of which go to growing the economy in terms of getting manufacturing going in Australia, growing the economy in terms of increasing the stock of housing in this country, growing the economy in terms of having proper investment in clean energy in this country.

All of these things are issues that will grow the economy and give us a greater capacity to pay down the trillion dollars of Liberal Party debt. But make no mistake—the mere fact of this revenue measure is of course not going to do this on its own. Of course there are other areas of restraint that we have to deal with as a government. But this is part of it, and this is something where the Leader of the Opposition is saying he would repeal it. He is promising to take to the next election to deliver money back to half of one per cent of the Australian population, with every dollar of it borrowed. All of it would be borrowed money and would add to the debt that has to be paid back. All of it would add to the interest burden that falls on the Australian taxpayer, and he's willing to do this because people he has to make sure he defends are the half of one per cent of the Australian population.

There are cost-of-living challenges, but when you start with the cost-of-living challenges in Australia you probably don't start with that half of one per cent. You do start with ordinary wage-earners who have needed to get their wages moving. This government brought forward legislation to get wages moving, and those opposite voted no. This government took forward a submission to the annual wage review which resulted in a 5.2 per cent increase for the lowest-wage earners in Australia, and those opposite were opposed to that approach. This government took a submission arguing that people working in aged care deserve a decent pay rise, which has resulted in a 15 per cent pay rise for those workers, helped with the cost of living and helped with what is happening in aged care, and those opposite were opposed to that approach. Their alternative was to say that low wages were a deliberate design feature of the economy. They oppose something as simple as a dollar an hour for the people who are on the lowest wages in this country.

We haven't just dealt with wages but prices as well. But look at the two different approaches. Our approach in the area of health means that now, with cheaper medicines, we've had the first reduction for the average Australian in the cost of the PBS in its history, with PBS medicines coming down from $42.50 to $30. What was their approach? Their approach was they wanted to have a $7 GP tax. And who do you reckon was the health minister when they had the $7 GP tax? Who do you reckon that was? Their approach on wages—make them lower! Their approach on health—make it cost more! Their approach on child care—make it cost more. Starting on 1 July we have cheaper child care, helping around 96 per cent of Australian families, who will be better off. Childcare out-of-pocket costs rose 47 per cent under the last government. In terms of energy price relief, we had a special day of sittings last year to be able to put limits on what could happen with energy prices. And what was their response? Which way did they vote? They voted no.

If those opposite want a debate on the cost of living, bring it on! But I'm really not sure why they're the ones calling for it. The cost of living is about the difference between your wages and the prices. You have a government trying to get prices down and wages up, and you have an opposition with the exact opposite philosophy, who decide the hill they're willing to die on is to fix revenue by opposing a measure—a really modest measure that's still a concessional tax rate, just not as concessional as it is at the moment—for half of one per cent of the population.

But it would be wrong of me to claim that those opposite don't want to do anything about debt and the debt-servicing cost. We've seen their form and we know what their approach was. We all saw robodebt. We know their approach on how to try to get budget numbers down. We saw budget after budget that was been backed in by two things—consistent underspending on the NDIS and robodebt. They went after the people who needed assistance from government the most, and decided they were the ones to target. They went after the people who needed assistance from government the most and decided they were the ones to target. They went after them in a way that was unlawful, and that wasn't enough—that was unfair, and that wasn't enough; that was indecent in the way it was treating people, and their response was to just put out threats of, 'We'll send you to jail.'

The trillion dollars of Liberal Party debt is a challenge for this nation. It needs to be dealt with. But why on earth would an opposition that is doing the exact opposite of what needs to be done on every cost-of-living issue decide to bring this motion forward and when it comes to the budget decide their key issue is, 'Do what you want to people who might otherwise need help,' but defend as the last bastion and the hill to die on the half of one per cent? This suspension is a joke and should be voted down.

See this speech in context