Sally Sitou (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I appreciate the contribution from the member for New England. I know that he, in his former life, was an accountant. That's why we had the long explanation about assets, dollars and making the books balance. My question to the member for New England, then, is: how would you explain—how would you advise—a party that had a $600 billion black hole in their books? What advice would you be giving to your coalition members about how you would be filling that black hole? What sort of asset would you be investing in? Because, to me, that sounds like a dud asset.

We all know why we are standing here to debate this MPI proposed by the shadow Treasurer. It's because he's running scared. He refuses to debate the Treasurer. Why is he refusing to debate the Treasurer? It's because he has no policies to debate the Treasurer with.

But there was one debate that he agreed to participate in, and that was with the member for Parramatta, my colleague here. I guess that made sense to him. The shadow Treasurer and the member for Parramatta, Rhodes scholar and Rhodes scholar—he thought he had an even match. Unfortunately, he was wrong, because the member for Parramatta, by all accounts, cleaned up in that debate. So he's now said no to all debates, and I can understand, because there is no long-term vision in their plan.

We do have a vision—a long-term vision—and I'll take the premise of this MPI. Let's not take it over five years; let's take it over the lifetime of a child. I'm going to talk you through what the four budgets that we've had mean for an eight-year-old child. That's the age of my son. Let me talk you through what we are going to be doing not just for the next five years but for the remainder of his life. This eight-year-old child is most likely going to attend a public school. In this budget the Labor government will lift our contribution for public schools from 20 to 25 per cent of the schooling resource standard by 2034 in New South Wales so that public schools will be fully funded—something that students in New South Wales have been waiting more than a decade for. That's $41 billion of investment into our public schools in New South Wales so students will get smaller class sizes, better learning resources and additional support for teachers. So that means that that eight-year-old child will get high-quality education, and, as he grows up and decides whether he's going to go to TAFE or university, we've got plans to help there. We're making free TAFE permanent and introducing 100,000 more places, ensuring that young people can pursue further education without financial barriers. This is good for the child because they get the skills for a lifelong career, and it's good for the country because we can get workers into areas where we've got skills shortages. If he chooses to go into university, next year we are going to wipe 20 per cent off HECS debt because university is an investment, and it shouldn't be a burden.

This child's family will benefit from Labor's tax cuts because every taxpayer will receive a new tax cut of up to $800 over the next two financial years. Because of successive tax cuts by the Labor government, the average New South Wales taxpayer will receive around $2,500 in tax cuts by 2027-28. This means more money for school supplies, extracurricular activities and family expenses. And each time we've wanted to give all Australians a tax cut, those opposite have opposed it.

Good health care is also essential for that child's future, and we are making health care more affordable. We've tripled the bulk-billing incentive for concession cardholders and children who need to see a GP, and the Medicare data shows that this investment is restoring bulk-billing for more than 11 million patients who this change covers. More than nine in 10 GP visits are now bulk-billed for those patients.

So the alternative between this side of the House and that side of the House is clear for that eight-year-old child. The shadow Treasurer has no policies and no vision, and it's no wonder he can't debate the Treasurer.

See this speech in context