Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for McMahon proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The failure of the Government to develop a domestic economic agenda that reflects the G20 priorities on growth, jobs, infrastructure and tax.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you so much, Madam Speaker, for the call. This matter of public importance goes to the yawning chasm between the government's rhetoric and their performance, between what the government says they will to and what they actually do, between their rhetoric and what, dare I may call it, the real action that the government have taken when it comes to the economy. We have a Treasurer who likes to huff and puff and beat his chest and lecture Australians about how they have to work harder, earn less, pay more and receive less from the government, but we have a Treasurer who does not follow his rhetoric when it comes to his performance in the Australian economy.

The Treasurer's favourite line is about the age of entitlement. He loves to tell us that the age of entitlement is over. He tells us that SPC should not get industry assistance because the workers there are on $50,000 and they earn too much. He tells Australian families that they should pay when they go to the doctor. He tells Australian lower-middle-income earners that they should get no relief from the tax system when they save for the future through superannuation. He tells the Australian people that the age of entitlement is over and then he says, 'By the way, can we give you a cheque for $75,000 when you have a child? We do not care if you are a millionaire; we do not care how much you earn.' But this government is going to introduce an extravagant and unaffordable paid parental leave scheme at the same time that he tells us that the age of entitlement is over. So, there is a fatal and fundamental flaw to the rhetoric of this government and the rhetoric of the Treasurer, in particular.

No wonder he appears more like a c-grade actor in the North Shore dramatic society than the Treasurer of Australia, with his antics. I do fear that I might just have offended the North Shore dramatic society and I do under the chairmanship apologise if I did. Of course, this is just one part of the Treasurer's rhetoric. On the weekend we saw the G20 held in Australia—a very good thing for Australia—under the chairmanship of the Treasurer. I am more than willing to recognise those who contributed to the key role Australia has played in the G20—the member for Lilley, the former member for Griffith, the former Prime Minister and I will even pay tribute to Peter Costello for his role in formulating the G20 finance ministers. The Treasurer was not backwards in coming forwards when talking about his own role in the world economy the other day. I saw that he gave an interview to the Financial Times and he said:

I have a unique goal to try to drive the world into greater growth and prosperity.

A unique goal, he said. Greater growth and prosperity! You can just imagine the rest of the world's finance ministers saying, 'Oh, phew, we have a new Treasurer in Australia and he's going to get world growth and prosperity. We were thinking about recession and poverty. That is where we were going wrong. That is what we got wrong. This Joe Hockey, he's better than ours.' He said, 'I have a unique goal for world growth and prosperity and I am going to force it through.' Thank goodness we have that Treasurer in Australia! But what is the reality of the Treasurer's goal for world growth and prosperity?

We got the G20 communique, and it did set a target for growth—an aspirational aim for more growth—and that is something that is very welcome. But an aspirational target for more growth does not create one job.

And what is this Treasurer's plan for jobs for Australians? Let us just check in and see how he is going. We have seen 63,000 full-time jobs lost since the last election. Sixty-three thousand full-time jobs were lost on his watch, making 2013 the worst year for full-time job losses since 1992—worse than at any time during the global financial crisis, on his watch. Of those full-time job losses in the last calendar year, 57,000 happened since the last election, and then another 7,000 in January. We now have more people looking for work in Australia today than at any time since 1998. And yet we are very glad that the Treasurer has a unique goal of world growth!

What does all this mean in terms of the economy going forward? We know we now have unemployment at six per cent, and the House will be interested to know this: we have also seen participation in the workforce decline—fewer people in the workforce looking for jobs. If we had the same participation rate now as we had under the Labor government, unemployment would be a full one per cent higher. We would have unemployment now at seven per cent if participation rates were the same now as they were under the Labor government.

The Australian people understand that unemployment does go up from time to time, but they want to know that the government has a plan to deal with it. What is the plan of this government? The first thing they have done is rip up the previous government's $1 billion jobs plan and throw it out the window. That plan, which involved innovation precincts and a half-a-billion-dollar contribution to innovation and research and development in Australia—gone. That plan is even more needed today than it was when it was introduced by the previous government almost exactly a year ago. It is needed now more than ever before, and this government throws it out.

This government talks about how: 'It's all right. These people will get other jobs—high-tech jobs, innovative jobs, well-paying jobs. But, by the way, we're going to rip up the innovation plan.' The Prime Minister told the Holden workers: 'Don't worry. You can go and work at the uranium mine.' Never mind that it doesn't exist; never mind that it is not going to start; they were going to get jobs at the uranium mine, the Prime Minister told them. And then he told them, 'Don't worry, you'll get high-paying, innovative jobs,' but they ripped up the jobs plan which was exactly designed to create those jobs.

We hear a lot from the government about taxes and how we need to reduce taxes. We need to spur growth, the Treasurer tells us. Well, if that is the reality, if that is the case, the Treasurer might want to explain why he is introducing a $3.2 billion tax hike for Australia's small businesses—$3.2 billion over the forward estimates because this government is ripping up the previous government's instant asset write-off and loss carryback measures; ripping them up; taxing small businesses more. And it is not just small businesses; it is also big businesses, because this government is introducing a $3.7-billion-a-year levy on business to fund that extravagant and unfair paid parental leave scheme that their Prime Minister is so proud of. So do not lecture us about taxes when you are increasing small business tax and increasing tax on business generally.

While we are on tax, we also saw the G20 communique talk about the need to reduce tax minimisation and base erosion—a very important initiative, for which I congratulate the G20. It was a long time in the making, and both the member for Lilley and I were very clear in our views at the G20 finance ministers meetings successively, and the meeting that I attended in Moscow, that this was the most important initiative for the G20, and I am glad that the current government kept it up. I am very glad of that, and I congratulate the Treasurer for doing it. I just wish the reality would match the rhetoric. I just wish that one of his first actions in government would not have been to wind back the reforms of the previous government to reduce tax minimisation, at a cost of $700 million to the Australian taxpayer, to benefit those multinationals that think it is okay to shift tax between their jurisdictions and minimise the tax they pay in Australia. So, if the Treasurer is going to get his chest-beating mode on, he could actually do something about it: all he would need to do is not come up with his own idea, not come up with a new initiative, but simply implement the previous government's plans. That is all he needs to do. It is not that hard to just implement a good policy.

Then we have infrastructure. The previous government thought infrastructure was important, and this government says it thinks infrastructure is important. We see infrastructure again figuring in the communique, and the Treasurer says he is pro-infrastructure.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hear, hear!

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The assistant junior minister for infrastructure says, 'Hear, hear!' and good on him. Well, maybe he might want to fund the cross-river rail in Brisbane, or maybe he might want to fund the Melbourne metro or the Perth airport link or the public transport infrastructure right around the country that the previous government funded.

When the previous government, the Labor government, came to office in 2007, where do you think Australia might have figured in the world rankings for investment in infrastructure? First, maybe? Second? Third? We are a good country. We were 20th—20th in the OECD. When we left office in 2013, were we 20th?

Opposition members: No!

Maybe we had improved? Maybe we were 19th? Maybe we were 18th? We were first in the OECD—first in the OECD because of our investment in infrastructure. And the increase in spending on infrastructure under the previous government per capita went from $132 under the Howard government to $225 under the Labor government. That is how you build infrastructure. You don't talk about it; you don't write it into communiques; you fund it. It is a pretty simple concept: infrastructure does cost money, and you fund it and you build it. That is how you fund infrastructure.

Mr Ciobo interjecting—

Ninety-three. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer says, 'Oh, it's terrible—you borrowed money to fund infrastructure!' The Treasurer is talking about bonds to fund infrastructure. That wouldn't be borrowed money at all, would it! Bonds—that wouldn't be borrowed money, when you issue bonds to fund infrastructure! No wonder you are so influential on the Gold Coast! They have figured you out, haven't they? They figured you out a long time ago. That is why you came 93rd. You will be a minister one day—when Wyatt Roy is Prime Minister, you'll get there. Don't worry about it.

But this is a serious issue, because this government is strong on rhetoric, strong on acting, and strong on lecturing middle- and low-income earners about how they have got it so good and they need to pay more, but, when it comes to delivering the goods, this is a government that just does not have it.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great privilege to rise in this place, as always, and speak on the MPI raised by the shadow Treasurer, the member for McMahon, albeit an MPI that is a little misguided, as usual. He should be welcoming the great outcome from the G20 that the Treasurer was able to secure on the weekend. We on this side of the House have been utterly impressed by the way that the Treasurer was able to get the G20 target agreed to by the G20 countries. I do congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary for Treasury on his role on the weekend also in ensuring that great outcome. So we are surprised that the member for McMahon is not welcoming the outcomes of the G20, but maybe we will get that when he has finally had his meeting with the former Treasurer, the member for Lilley. The House will remember that when they hand over the Treasury they do not actually have a meeting as part of the handover because that is the disdain they have for each other.

It was interesting to hear the member for McMahon, the shadow Treasurer, talk about Labor's current approach to economic policy, which is to decide what is the best economic way forward for business, not to let business innovate themselves but for Labor to tell them what they should do. That is now the thinking on that side of the House. It is not the thinking of Paul Keating and it is not the thinking—

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who said that?

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for McMahon says, 'Who said that?' Just recently the member for McMahon has been out there backing a $25 million claim by Coca-Cola Amatil for a factory in Shepparton. He was on the record supporting—

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Have you been salmon fishing lately?

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He raises Huon in Tasmania, a promise made by the Labor Party. The member for McMahon has been supporting the $25 million bid by Coca-Cola Amatil, but it is interesting that in his book which he wrote when he was sacked as immigration minister and he had a few months while he was doing Kevin Rudd's numbers last year—

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks for the royalties.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Don't worry; it is borrowed, and it will be returned on time. He says on page 50:

Supporting manufacturing does not mean supporting protection, picking winners and introducing old-fashioned subsidies. Protection is a recipe for an uncompetitive and unsustainable manufacturing sector.

There you go. That is something we agree with. He also raised during the debate the latest fad campaign that we see from the opposition. It is a bit reminiscent—for those of us who were here in 2008—of what it is like to go through the early stages of opposition today. Seeing what has happened today on the other side does bring back some memories, I am sure, for the Parliamentary Secretary for the Treasury as well from mid-2008, watching what is going on on the other side. There will be plenty of these MPI faux leadership speeches today. We will see plenty of those. As part of his contribution the member for McMahon raised the issue of the suggestion to the Commission of Audit of a co-payment for Medicare services. He raised that as one of the latest scare campaigns.

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a fact campaign he raised.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He did raise it, member for Fraser, and I pay attention. In the last few days that we have gone back and had a look at a few of the things the member for Fraser has written over the years. It turns out that the member for Fraser wrote an op-ed in recent years, in recent times, arguing for—you guessed it—a co-payment for Medicare.

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was 2003.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So after 10 years he now does not support it. Is that right? So the member for Fraser, who is part of the economic brains trust on the other side, supports a co-payment for Medicare. He claims it as a Labor idea, in fact, in the article. He says it is a Labor idea. Yet the member for McMahon, as part of the latest scare campaign that the opposition now wants to come up with, is running around trying to create this. He should talk to the member for Fraser. He says it is his idea.

This is an opposition that refuses to accept that they left the country in a mess. The budget situation that we found when we came to government on 7 September last year was a complete and utter mess. The MYEFO update that was released in December told the truth about the situation in which we found the budget. It said that if we do not address the fiscal challenge we will have a deficit for a decade, unless we change the structure of the budget. Unless we address the budget structure we will end up with over $500 billion of Labor debt. In 2007 when the Labor Party came to government and the member for Lilley inherited the Treasury from Peter Costello there was no debt. In 2008 when there was a global financial crisis the Labor Party went, 'You beauty, it is time to spend.' They opened up the chequebook. They built school halls when schools did not need it. They handed out cash when people did not want it—

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did you go to the opening of any school improvements in your electorate?

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I didn't, not one. They were still handing out cheques last year when he was Treasurer to deal with an economic crisis in 2009 supposedly. That is how incompetent the Labor Party are. So I disagree with the Treasurer. The mining tax was not the worst policy implementation of the member for Lilley; it was the insanity of handing out $900 cheques. The member for McMahon deep down inside knows it.

Mr Husic interjecting—

Don't worry, Ed; you have had a good 24 hours, mate. You have had a great 24 hours. You are going to get quoted more often in the next 24 hours than you will for a long time.

We do have a challenge with the budget. We have a challenge with the economy. We need to address the structural challenges in the economy, and we will do that. We are going to do that in the coming months. The budget will be a forward-looking document which starts to address the substantial challenges that the Labor Party has left this country and our people. It is not just the debt that is a problem; it is not just the deficits that are a problem; it is the structure of the economy, which means that young people cannot get a chance at work.

It is shameful that in my home state, in my home town of Adelaide, there is 19.7 per cent youth unemployment in the northern suburbs. That is the record of six years of Labor at the federal level, and that is the record of 12 years of Labor at the state level. Jay Weatherill, the state Labor Premier for another 14 days, said on Monday that it does not matter—that it is all over the top; it does not matter at all—and that there is no jobs crisis. There is 20 per cent youth unemployment in the northern suburbs of Adelaide, and the Labor Premier says it does not matter. Hang your heads in shame. Jay Weatherill says 20 per cent youth unemployment does not matter. It does matter.

We will address the structural problems in the budget. We will address the structural problems in the economy. One of the ways that we are going to address the structural problems in the budget and in the economy is that we will invest in the productive capacity of the economy through infrastructure. We will invest in the roads of the 21st century. We will, for instance, build a north-south corridor in South Australia. We will invest in WestConnex, which will help people in Western Sydney reduce their travel time. It will ensure that we get the productive capacity of that city up. We will also invest in the East West Link in Melbourne. One of the things about which we absolutely agree with the secretary of the AWU in Melbourne is where he says that it is a project that must go ahead. It is a project that must go ahead, and under 'the infrastructure Prime Minister' it will go ahead. And we will have more to say about infrastructure through the budget process.

There is a budget crisis left by the Labor Party. There are structural problems within the economy which mean that our young people do not get the opportunity at a job that they should. There is an utter difference in the approach to the economy between our side of parliament and their side of parliament. They believe in the power of government. They believe in the power of government programs in creating jobs. We believe in our people. We believe in our people and the entrepreneurial spirit. We will take the tax pressure off them. We will get rid of the carbon tax. We will get rid of the mining tax. We will get rid of the regulatory burden, and we will build the infrastructure of the 21st century to create a stronger and more prosperous Australia.

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I congratulate the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development on his decade-old diggings, but I am happy to assure the House that I, like all members on this side, do not support a GP tax. The aspiration set by the Treasurer for an additional 0.4 per cent growth per year over the next five years is a perfectly reasonable aspiration, and nobody in this parliament would disagree with it, but an aspiration is not a plan.

There are two very clear plans for growth on offer in this parliament. This side of the parliament believes that growth is driven by investment, by education and by fairness. That side of the parliament believes it is driven by cuts, cuts and cuts—cutting infrastructure, cutting services and cutting wages.

On this side of House, we are committed to building the National Broadband Network. We took Australia from being 20th in the OECD for investments and infrastructure to being first. On this side of the House, we believe in education. That is why we brought forward the National Plan for School Improvement and demand-driven universities. And we believe in fairness. We believe very firmly that government has a role in looking after the most disadvantaged.

But that side of the House is cutting infrastructure. The government does not believe in urban public transport, so it is not investing in projects like Brisbane's Cross River Rail project, the Melbourne Metro, the Perth Airport link and Adelaide's Tonsley Park public transport project. That side of the House does not believe in supporting services, which of course, in a fragile period for the labour market, has a negative impact on demand. If you cut back on that schoolkids bonus, you are taking money straight out of retail spending. But, if you give $75,000 to a millionaire to have a baby, the chances are that they are just going to pay off the mortgage. The spending cuts are going to hit spending hard, and that is going to hit jobs as well.

But also those on that side of the House believe that they need to cut wages. That is their solution every time to boost productivity. You hear the head of the Prime Minister's Business Advisory Council, Maurice Newman, say things like:

… Australian wage rates are very high by international standards and … our system is dogged by rigidities …

Mr Newman gave a speech to CEDA in which he cited a number of countries, among them Canada, the European Union, Britain and New Zealand, and he said that Australian wages were high relative to those countries. What he failed to grasp, as Stephen Koukoulas has pointed out, is that all of those 'low-wage' countries have higher unemployment rates. The unemployment rate in Canada at the time Mr Koukoulas was writing was 6.9 per cent; in the US, seven per cent; in the eurozone, 12 per cent; in New Zealand, 6.2 per cent; and, in the UK, 7.6 per cent. When the going got tough, the Australian system outperformed that of other nations.

Of course, we have seen just recently new data out on wage growth which has given the lie to those who say that the secret to Australian prosperity is to cut wages. We have seen the release of the seasonally adjusted wage price index. In the December quarter, it rose 0.7 per cent, giving a growth rate for 2013 of 2.6 per cent. That is below the rate of inflation, which is 2.7 per cent, so Australian workers have had a real wage cut. This comes after a 35-year period in which wages for the bottom 10 per cent grew by 15 per cent and wages for the top 10 per cent grew by 59 per cent.

And yet those opposite, led by people like Maurice Newman, believe that the secret to Australian prosperity is to cut wages. They are utterly out of touch. And while they want to cut wages, they want to keep open loopholes. As the shadow Treasurer so eloquently pointed out, the multinational tax-shifting arrangements that the government took to the G20 were Labor's arrangements, minus the $700 million measure that the government took out and minus the transparency measure that Senator Sinodinos is going to scrap. Shame, government, shame!

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who would have thought that we would come into the chamber today for the MPI to hear the pinnacle of economic thought on Labor's side—and I am not talking about the member for Canberra. I am in fact talking about the member for McMahon, who mounted an argument built on an old Elvis song A little less conversation, a little more action.

That was the central thrust that we heard from the member for McMahon—how this government is somehow deficient because we are not taking enough action and instead engaging in a little bit too much conversation.

But the reality is that what this government and, in particular, the Treasurer—I acknowledge the member for North Sydney, the Treasurer—achieved at G20 was in fact precedence setting. He was able to collectively raise the sights of G20 nations around the globe so that they could strive for an ambitious target of an extra two per cent growth over the next five years, a target which if delivered upon will ensure that there are literally $2 trillion or $3 trillion of additional economic activity and tens of millions of new jobs on a global basis.

It was pretty rich to hear the shadow Treasurer talk about Labor's legacy and to, in some way, portray Labor's legacy when it came to our domestic economic agenda as in some way being all about action. I have news for the shadow Treasurer and for the shadow Assistant Treasurer: sometimes action is not the right thing. That is especially the case when it comes to the Australian Labor Party. Do you know what? The Australian public would have much preferred a little more conversation from the Labor Party and a little less action, because what they actually got from the Australian Labor Party over the six years that they were in power was in fact an economic record that most would run screaming away from. But not the Labor Party—oh no! They embrace it and they hold it up and herald it as though, in some way, they were great visionaries. They say: what we needed was more action.

'More action is all we needed.' Really, Member for McMahon! Let's talk about GroceryWatch, Fuelwatch, pink batts, school halls and border protection. When it comes to Labor action, what exactly does the member for McMahon talk about? He is particularly well versed to talk about border protection because he was one of the four ministers responsible for border protection. We know what your legacy is, Member for McMahon. We saw the consequence of Labor action: 50,000 people and over 750 boats came. That was the consequence of Labor action.

What about pink batts? We saw great overaction on pink batts, didn't we? We remember that $1.2 billion of taxpayers' money went into the pink batts program. What was the consequence of Labor's action there? Deaths; 200 houses caught on fire; and it cost $1.2 billion to put pink batts into people's roofs and then another $1.2 billion to rip them out again. That is the consequence of Labor action. What is another thing that we saw when it came to Labor's economic policies?

They like to say how they saved Australia from recession. What we actually know is that the consequence of Labor's action—the member for McMahon is over there, popping his chest out as though he is some kind of action man—was $123 billion worth of deficits over the forward estimates and $667 billion of debt. That is the action that is going to cost generations of Australians a very big penalty, when it will take us two, three or four decades to pay back this debt. So I say to the Australian Labor Party: we are not too thrilled about your action and neither are the Australian people.

I have to turn to the Australian Financial Review, a Fairfax publication—historically, not one of the coalition's best friends. I think the editorial from the Australian Financial Review summed it up best. It said:

The communique from Sunday's meeting of G20 finance ministers and central bank governors provides the bones of an Australian model for driving economic growth through a period of budget contraction by employing structural reforms that allow business to be the engine of expansion.

I was going to leave it there, but I really want the shadow Treasurer to listen to this. Shadow Treasurer, you are in the chamber; have a listen to this:

What a blessed contrast this provides to Kevin Rudd's response to the global financial crisis five years ago, with his government's overblown Keynesian fiscal stimulus and his grandiose declaration of a new social democratic consensus based around government intervention to supercede the "prevailing neo-liberal orthodoxy of the past 30 years".

I could not have said it better myself.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this MPI. I think the reason those on the other side are so sore is that this resolution actually expects too much out of the Treasurer. It actually expects him to be able to come up with an agenda that will last five minutes—from the man who is the thought-bubble wand of the coalition. One day he will hop on a flight to London and he will explain to the people over there who are listening to him, by saying words he would never say here. He would never actually deliver 'The Age of Entitlement' speech here before an election. This is a speech where he said:

So, ultimately the fiscal impact of popular programs must be brought to account no matter what the political values of the government are or how popular a spending program may be.

Those are big words; a tough speech. As a result of that, the Prime Minister took that into account and developed his paid parental leave policy. Here he had his soon-to-be Treasurer lecturing all these other people that they should be ending the age of entitlement, and one person was not listening: the Prime Minister.

Residents in the electorate of Chifley speak to me about this. In particular, one age pensioner, who I have recounted in times past, said, 'I'm on a pension of $24,000 a year and yet there are people on the other side of the city who are on three times or four times what I'm getting—$75,000.' He cannot understand how the age of entitlement is supposed to have ended.

A few weeks ago in the lead-up to the G20 in an interview with Laura Tingle, the Treasurer was scratching his chin and said we may need to see the G20 collectively assist emerging markets that are having trouble dealing with the aftermath of tapering. He was talking about using the G20 to collectively assist. When the IMF was talking about helping out Europe, what did Joe Hockey say? He said the government must explain to taxpayers whether it would be in Australia's national interest to contribute and from where the government plans to fund such a contribution. One minute he will tell you that things should not be done or that we should stop entitlement or that we should make reform happen and the next minute he changes his mind. And then he goes to the G20 and talks about an agenda for growth, about jobs, about infrastructure. Let us talk about growth. He has got no idea how he is actually going to fund it.

You have seen all those opposite clutch Real Solutions. Their knuckles were going white they were clutching it so hard. Every time you wanted an answer out of them they said, 'It is in this book, read on. It is in the plan'—and somebody else will tell you what is in there.

Mr Bowen interjecting—

I watched Jamie and learned everything. One of the pearlers in there was 'one million jobs in five years'.

Dr Chalmers interjecting—

Let us go to a tally—and I thank the member for prompting me. It is roughly 250,000 jobs a year the government has to create. Those opposite have been in office for less than six months, and how many jobs have gone? There are 63,000 jobs gone. A job has gone every three minutes, and they have to create 250,000 in year 1. Look at the jobs that have gone: Holden, SPC, Ford. You can see what is happening. There is a callous disregard from those opposite about supporting people in those jobs to make sure that they stay, to make sure that they have incomes, to make sure that economic activity continues in this country. Their view is if it is in Real Solutions then it has got to happen, but reality demonstrates something completely different. Here they are telling the rest of the world they have to focus on growth, while jobs are being burned.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is unique.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Absolutely. It was a cunning plan to go to the G20 and say: do you know what our idea is? We think you should go for growth—with everyone in the G20 hailing the Treasurer as some sort of genius. Yet those opposite cannot demonstrate what they are going to do here on growth, on jobs and on infrastructure. We have had people and the assistant minister talking about infrastructure. Their idea is that they will provide infrastructure by re-tolling the M4 in western Sydney, and we are supposed to be grateful for it. On every level you have the Treasurer come up with an idea that he distances himself from the minute he has an opportunity. There is no consistency in the decisions they make. Everyone knows this because we heard all they said in opposition and none of it translates or can be explained by their actions once they got on that side of the House.

Karen McNamara (Dobell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This government is getting on with the job of building a stronger economy so that everyone can get ahead. We are strengthening the economy by abolishing the carbon tax and cutting the red tape burden by $1 billion each year so that businesses can have confidence to grow and expand in order to deliver new jobs.

This government is committed to investing in productivity enhancing infrastructure that will help ensure that our cities and regions continue to develop and prosper for generations to come. Unlike the member for Charlton, I do strongly believe in my electorate and am here to represent it.

This government is committed to building the roads of the 21st century, essential infrastructure that will increase the nation's productivity, and increase growth to enable sustainable job creation. This is in stark contrast to the crippling legacy left by members opposite after six long years of unstable government, irrational decision making and policy on the run that destroyed both business and consumer confidence Australia wide.

We came to government tasked with reversing Labor's legacy to Australia, notably 200,000 more unemployed—contrary to the member opposite who suggested it was 250,000—gross debt projected to rise to $667 billion with $123 billion in cumulative deficits and the world's biggest carbon tax. It is an impressive job-destroying legacy.

Small business is the backbone of my local economy. Collectively, small business is the largest employer on the Central Coast. Dobell has 3,980 employing businesses. Only 24 of these businesses employ more than 200 people. This clearly demonstrates my region's reliance on small business for local employment. Dobell was left with its own legacy from the former Labor government. Last year the Daily Telegraph reported that due to the increase in costs of business, particularly through an increase in the cost of electricity due to the carbon tax, more businesses had shut their doors in Dobell than anywhere else in New South Wales. Unfortunately for the small businesses of Dobell, they were the victims of the former government's inept economic management that saw 412,000 small business jobs lost under their watch.

By the time Labor were done wrecking the economy and racking up levels of unimaginable debt, there were 3,000 fewer small businesses employing people than was the case when they came to office. Fifty-three per cent of all employment in the private sector workforce was provided by small businesses when Labor came to power. By the time they left there had been a ten per cent drop from fifty-three per cent down to forty-three per cent.

I have previously given the example in this parliament of a local small business in my electorate that, due to the rising cost of gas and electricity as a result of the carbon tax, had to make the decision not to employ an additional shop assistant in order to pay the bills. The carbon tax is a jobs-destroying tax that undermines the success of small businesses across Australia.

This government understands small business and listens to their concerns. That is why small business now has a voice at the cabinet table promoting and working to protect their interests. And we have a real and positive plan to bring assistance to small business to increase productivity and generate job growth right across Australia.

First and foremost, we will scrap the carbon tax to bring real relief to businesses struggling to cope with carbon tax driven electricity increases. Small businesses such as the Little Creek cheese shop should not have to make the decision between paying the carbon tax and employing an additional worker. Under this government's commitment, they will not have to make such a decision. We want to reverse the 412,000 jobs lost in small business under the opposition's watch and we will do so by scrapping the carbon tax.

Unlike the Opposition, the government understands the devastating impact of the jobs-destroying carbon tax. We also understand that red and green tape is choking the life out of the engine room of our economy. That is why this government will hold this parliament's first ever regulation repeal day—the first step in reducing red and green tape costs to businesses by $1 billion a year.

This government will also deliver vital infrastructure projects. In total, the government has committed $35 billion to fund key road, rail and intermodal projects between 2013-14 and 2018-19. One such project that was promised at no end by those opposite, yet never delivered, was the M1-M2 missing link. This government will end the frustration of Central Coast motorists by investing $405 million to start construction of the M1-M2 missing link. Unlike those opposite, we understand that this project is a vital piece of economic infrastructure that will boost the productive capacity of the New South Wales economy. For my electorate it will mean shorter travel times, reduced congestion and safer roads. For business, it will mean reduced freight costs for trucks that use this important national road corridor. (Time expired)

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was a noble aspiration that was agreed to on the weekend at the G20 that there would be an aim to lift the collective GDP by more than two per cent above the trajectory implied by current policy over the next five years. That is a noble aspiration. I have to say, though, that I am surprised that it took our current Treasurer six months to come up with that. I would have thought that, if he was not happy with the current trajectory over the last six months, he has had quite a substantial amount of time. But it has been the slowest start of any government in the history of Australian governments, and this is perhaps a reflection of that very, very low start.

It is not the aspiration that is the problem that we are talking about today—it is not the aspiration; the aspiration is quite noble. The problem that we are talking about today is that the mechanisms that the Treasurer believes are necessary to meet that aspiration—which is a priority on jobs, infrastructure and tax—have not been priorities for this government over the last six months and continue to be on the backburner. We have seen a loss of 63,000 jobs and we have seen no plan to grow new ones. We have seen cuts to infrastructure and we have seen increases in tax, particularly on small business. Once again, what the government say and what they do are two completely different things.

In the area of small business, in particular, they state over and over again that small business is the engine room of the economy and that, if you want the economy to grow, you have to back small business—and they are right. An incredibly important part of growing an economy is making sure that small business is very strong. That is what they say, but what did they do in the last six months? They ripped away $3.2 billion in tax cuts from small business. They say one thing—the friend of small business—and do something else. Also, they are raising taxes for large business by 1.5 per cent with their levy to fund the incredibly expensive paid parental leave scheme. So, again, they say small business has to be strong, they say they back small business, they say it is necessary for growth to meet this aspirational target, but what they do is completely opposite.

Even worse than that, the area in which they have ripped away those tax cuts was one that was designed to stimulate growth. It came from recommendations from the Henry tax review and the Business Tax Working Group following a review back in 2012. I am talking here about the loss carry-back provisions in particular. Business had long been supportive of introducing this ability to carry a loss back, because it smooths out the investment cycle for small business and it smooths out lumps in growth in the economy—incredibly important for businesses that are innovative and are developing new products and particularly important for small start-ups in IT, or film and intellectual property where the lead time for developing a new product can be quite substantial and much longer than the calendar year.

I tell the story quite often that the tax system was developed by a monk in the agrarian age, when the annual calendar year was quite an appropriate tax year, because crops grew and were harvested within the year. Now, of course, that is no longer the case. The loss carry-back provisions in conjunction with the instant tax write-off were a very significant step forward in the government of the day recognising that the patterns for small business differ and that if you want to stimulate investment in the small business sector you need a tax system which reflects their actualities.

We already had loss carry-forward, which allows you to carry a loss forward to next year's tax year. This one actually allows you to get a rebate at the time that you invest from last year's tax return. It is an incredibly important change, and the government have ripped it away. They have not actually told business yet. Unless you read the Liberal Party press releases—this party of small business—you would not even know it. As at 31 December, the tax office was still telling business that the loss carry-back provisions would apply even though they intend to retrospectively remove them as at 1 July last year as soon as that bill is passed.

It is the same with the instant tax write-off. The government have not told business yet that they are operating on a current tax law which will not apply by the time they put in their return. For small business and for growth? I do not think so.

Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to be able to speak in this MPI debate, because I want to speak about my electorate of Hinkler and the things that we are doing that will help people in my electorate. As promised, we have suspended Labor's flawed marine management plans and we will create a new plan in consultation with stakeholders—one that is based on science. This is something that was very concerning for the people who work in the seafood industry in my electorate. We are providing $6.5 million for 25 research projects to ensure the continued sustainability of Australian fisheries, including expanding the Status of key Australian fish stocks report to include more species.

Just last month we confirmed our announcement for $4.75 million for work on Hervey Bay roads. We have also announced funding to finish the flood repairs at the port of Bundaberg, which is absolutely critical for the local sugar industry—an industry that employs thousands of Australians in my electorate, which was at risk from damage to the port. It is money that had to be committed. We have done that and the work will be done. The coalition understand that well-planned infrastructure delivered in a timely manner is vital to helping all of us get products to market. It also facilitates service delivery to regional Australia and provides long-term employment and opportunities for training and development. So together over the next 10 years, the Abbott and Newman governments will spend $8.5 billion upgrading the ailing Bruce Highway.

This is incredibly important for the people in my electorate. If you are an exporter, if you are in agriculture, if you are a manufacturer, or if you simply want to go to the shop to buy your groceries at the weekend, you must have access to the Bruce Highway. When it is closed due to floods, our food and our export products simply cannot make it into our region, and that is very, very important to families in my electorate.

The issues that we have for business are that in Australia regulation is high, input costs are high, labour costs are high, the Australian dollar is high, and currently profits are low. As a government that is something that we are working to change. Repealing the carbon tax will be a great first step in helping businesses to flourish. Electricity costs are skyrocketing. The cost of refrigerant gas is skyrocketing and, right now in my electorate, people are turning off their pumps because (a) they are out of water, and (b) they have already expended any possible profit they might have gained from their crops for this year.

It is absolutely incredible to me that we can go from a one-in-200-year flood at the start of last year to now having had no rainfall for almost 12 months. We have cane farmers who are ploughing out their crops, which will mean a replant for next year at the cost of thousands of dollars an acre. It is absolutely incredible. Currently, the estimate in the local region is for a potential loss of 800,000 tonnes of cane on the former estimate had it rained. To give you some idea of what that is, that is a $35 million turnover to the local economy. Our situation is desperate and I would like to congratulate our agriculture minister and the cabinet and all the senior members of the team for getting the drought package over the line and distributed as soon as possible.

The other thing that we need to do is cut red and green tape. A great example came when Assistant Minister for Employment Luke Hartsuyker visited the Hinkler electorate. We visited a training provider called Impact at Jobs Services Australia. The single biggest issue for that organisation was red tape. They are tired of expending all of their money ticking the boxes. They want to spend that money to find jobs and to train people for real positions. It is something that is exceptionally important to them.

A root-and-branch review of competition laws will ensure large and small businesses have an even playing field. The free trade agreement negotiated with South Korea is excellent news for the people in my electorate because the removal of tariffs will provide a benefit for a range of Hinkler exporters including those in sugar, horticulture and seafood. We are also working to conclude agreements with other trading partners. That is great news for the local electorate.

But the important part for small business is around unemployment. I do not need to tell the people in this House that jobs are sorely needed in Hinkler. Unemployment is our single biggest issue. Unemployment and financial hardship are often contributing factors in cases of marital breakdown, domestic violence, criminal activity, poor nutrition, health problems and declining school attendance. Under the Rudd and Gillard governments, unemployment in the Hinkler electorate increased from six per cent in September 2007 to 9.3 per cent in June 2013. That is compared to an unemployment rate of 5.4 per cent for the nation or six per cent in Queensland.

As promised, we are revitalising the Work for the Dole program. We will get people back to work. We will give them routine. We will give people structure, presentation skills and access to potential employers, and it is incredibly important that we provide the conditions for business to thrive so that they employ. So I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell, for the opportunity to speak. It is great to be part of the team. Thanks for making me welcome.

Pat Conroy (Charlton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am glad I could follow the member for Hinkler, who ended on the importance of jobs and employment, because I am incredibly proud of the last Labor government's employment record. In the six years of the Labor government nearly one million jobs were created and, more importantly, we saved 200,000 jobs during the global financial crisis. In a period when almost every other developed nation went into recession, not only did Australia survive the recession but we saved 200,000 jobs and had a very good stimulus package, something the current Prime Minister slept through during the parliamentary proceedings. Labor did not sleep through it. Labor responded strongly and saved the Australian economy and throughout that six years nearly one million jobs were created.

I was interested in the member for Dobell's contribution, which ranged across a lot of areas including small business and the declining share of small business employment in the economy. The most important thing is that jobs grew under Labor and nearly a million jobs were created. Whether they were small business jobs, jobs in medium-sized enterprises or large enterprises, the most important thing is that jobs were created. Sadly, we cannot say the same thing under the current government when 63,000 full-time jobs have been lost and we have seen the heart ripped out of manufacturing.

We have got the economic geniuses over the other side such as the Prime Minister, a man Mr Costello said could not be trusted on economics, a man of great, great economic learning—he learned at the feet of BA Santamaria, no less!—a man who, when confronted with Holden saying before the election, 'If you cut funding to the automotive industry, we will leave,' let it happen. That is a very sophisticated message; it is really hard to interpret that message. So what was their policy: to cut $500 million from automotive industry assistance. And what happened? Holden announced that they are leaving—they are going to go—decimating the North Adelaide economy. Without Holden there providing critical mass for the supply chain, Toyota had no choice but to leave as well. So in six short months, under the economic genius of the Prime Minister, the entire automotive industry is going—50,000 direct jobs and another 200,000 indirect jobs—destroying a key part of our manufacturing sector in only six months! Quite an achievement! If it was intended, it was a great achievement, because they went at it with great purpose. We have also seen job losses at Caterpillar and Electrolux, jobs that could have been saved if we had an activist government instead of a do-nothing government.

Another part of this MPI concerns the importance of infrastructure and providing investment certainty in infrastructure and appropriate market incentives to encourage investment in infrastructure. This government believes in neither the market nor predictable policy. Its gutting of Infrastructure Australia proves that point. By giving the minister the power to redirect funds away from vital infrastructure projects towards projects that he chooses on a political basis, we are seeing the end of evidence based infrastructure funding and more pork-barrelling.

It is not a surprise, as it has come from the government that brought us the regional rorts affair. I am sure that everyone on this side will be very familiar with some of those great efforts. For example, there was the $433,000 going to Coonawarra Gold for a project that was never built, run by a state Liberal candidate in South Australia. Grants went to a cheese factory that closed down, to build a rail line that burnt down, and to a pet food factory that never opened. This litany of regional rorts was great and you cannot expect anything else under the National Party, who glory in regional rorts.

The other part of the gutting of Infrastructure Australia is to remove the evidence based assigning of incentives for private sector investment in infrastructure. Instead, the minister has the power to confer tax loss concessions on project proponents without reference to Infrastructure Australia. So instead of having an expert independent body deciding what projects are nationally important and are deserving of tax incentives, we have the Minister for Infrastructure—the Deputy Prime Minister; a National at the root of his heart and soul and from the party of Joh Bjelke-Petersen. This is in direct contradiction to the G20's communique and just shows how hypocritical those opposite are. They say one thing in international forums and they do another when they are really put to the test domestically.

I am proud that I am the member of a party that created a million jobs when in government. Those on the other side stand condemned for the loss of 63,000 jobs in six short months.

Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What an interesting day! I am a new member here, from Tasmania, and looking to learn much. And what do I get? I get an MPI that talks about the failure of this government to develop a domestic economic agenda. That would be like getting a lecture on care and compassion from Hannibal Lecter! Seriously! What an unbelievable MPI we see.

A government member: They're all leaving!

Off they go! Off they trot—they do not want to face the truth. They are all leaving—they are not actually interested in being here to be accountable for what they have just said.

Let us just take up one of the last little matters we talked about: Holden. Yesterday, the old Nick Champion over there, the federal member for Wakefield, fell for the trap. He pulled out the old A4 sheet and could not hold himself down, and he got kicked out. What did it say? Back in 2012:

I—

the member for Wakefield—

have secured guaranteed support for GM Holden Elizabeth, ensuring production until—

Until when?

2022.

How dare they come in here on any day—let alone today—and talk about the fact that this government is the reason that the automotive industry is under pressure? We have lived for six years in this country under the absolute wastefulness of the former government, the Labor Party of Australia. They worshipped for six years at the altar of waste: pink batts—billions of dollars to implement and fix. Whether it was Fuel Watch or Grocery Watch, whether it was school halls or whether it was just anything that they put their hand to, it was a disaster. NBN—you would not even want to talk about it, because it would make you have nightmares at night.

The reality here is that this government is all about growth. That is what we are about, and what I want this government to be about—and can I just say that I have spent the last four years in the state parliament, sitting back and watching this country deteriorate. That is what fired me up to make a shift from state politics to federal politics because this country has that much to go—

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this discussion has now expired.