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

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

The Government's unfair Budget inflicting the greatest hurt on the most disadvantaged.

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—

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Seven weeks after it was handed down, the public has delivered a resounding verdict on this budget. It has been the most unpopular budget in four decades—the most unpopular budget in 40 years. Why is that? Because it is the worst budget in 40 years. This is a budget that inflicts the greatest hurt on the poorest and most disadvantaged people, not just in Australia but around the world. What is more, the hurt is built on a phoney case that cuts are necessary because of a made-up crisis. It is a cruel budget, but it is not cruel for any reason. It is a budget that asks the greatest sacrifice of the poorest—a sacrifice that Australians would be prepared to make if they actually saw budget benefit from it, if they actually saw that we are all in this together. Instead, what they see are the greatest disadvantages going to the people who have the least.

Let's turn to foreign aid for a moment. There has been $7.6 billion cut from the aid budget. Labor are proud of the fact that we doubled the aid budget when we were in government. We are proud of the fact that we helped the poorest people in the world; that we did our share as a wealthy nation. Australia is the fifth richest country in the world. We can afford to do our share. How did we determine what our share is? How did we determine what our goal should be? It was not the Labor Party who determined that, it was John Howard.

When the nations of the world came together to ask what they could do to end extreme poverty and they set the Millennium Development Goals, who was it who said that, as Australians, we should do our share too; that as the world's fifth richest nation per capita we should do our share? It was John Howard who said that. And it was not just Australia that was pulling its weight. In the United Kingdom, what have the political twins of those opposite done with their aid budget? They have not just kept it at 0.5 per cent of gross national income, they have gone to 0.7 per cent of gross national income, with British Prime Minister Cameron saying this made him 'proud to be British'. He said:

We accept the moral case for keeping our promises to the world's poorest even when we face challenges at home.

The case for cutting aid that those across the chamber here have tried to invent is built on the idea that aid does not work, that there is nothing we can do—that old saying: 'Like the poor, they'll always be with us.' In fact, our $7.6 billion that is being cut could teach 25 million people to read and write, it could provide 1½ billion malaria treatments, it could deliver antiretroviral treatments for 10 million people living with HIV-AIDs, it could train three million midwives so that women giving birth in developing countries could have a skilled birth attendant by their side when they deliver those tiny babies.

Our aid was successful. An OECD development assistance committee peer review of Australian aid rated it extremely highly. They said we have a dynamic approach to being a good international citizen, punching at or above our weight, that we are in a strong position to deliver a growing aid budget effectively and efficiently. Our independent review of aid effectiveness also made the same point, but you only need to look at the results on the ground. Australia helped six million Afghan children go to school, including two million girls. The minister was talking before about the breeding of terrorists in Afghanistan. What could be a surer antidote to that than a decent education system for all its children, for boys and for girls?

We cut malaria in Vanuatu by 80 per cent and by more than 50 per cent in the Solomon Islands. You talk about the economic development of the country. We know that these illnesses keep people out of the workforce. They do not just affect the individuals. They do not mean individual sickness; they mean and economy is struck again and again by working age people who cannot be in the workforce because they have malaria. We helped build 2,000 schools across Indonesia. That is what our aid program did.

It is not just the poorest around the world who have suffered because of these budget cuts; it is Australians. Low-income Australians have been the hardest hit by this budget. The greatest unfairness has been reserved for those who already have the least, who are already struggling to make ends meet. Despite every promise that the Prime Minister made during the election about tackling cost of living, what we see with this budget are pensioners who are $4,000 worse off, self-funded retirees who are $1,600 worse off and families who are $6,000 worse off.

Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Cut the carbon tax if you are worried about the cost of living!

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is carbon pricing going to make up $4,000 a year? What a joke you are. You are voting for pension cuts in your electorate. What do your pensioners think of that? You are voting for family benefit cuts in your electorate. What do your families think of that? You are voting to end the senior supplement. What do your families think about that?

Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm voting for a sustainable budget.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Bass! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has the call.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Your families will be worse off because of the legislation you have been pushing through the parliament in these last few days. Today in question time we heard confirmation of the cut to dementia care in nursing homes, money specifically set aside for people who have extremely difficult to manage behavioural problems, people who are acting up, people who are very difficult to place. He voted for that too. There are cuts to concessions, concessions pensioners will no longer get because the member for Bass voted against them getting concessions.

Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The front page of the Examiner on 20 June said there were no concession cuts in Tasmania.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not a point of order and it is grossly disorderly. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has the call.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

More than 280,000 war veterans will be hurt by a change to pension indexation—$65 million out of their pockets; 310,000 pensioners will lose $4,000; and this is the last ever supplement that seniors will get. More than $800 will be ripped out of the pockets of seniors because of the way the member for Bass voted. University students will be paying more than $100,000 a year. A science student will pay $123,000 and university fees for nurses and teachers will go up but their wages will not go up. How will they afford university fees? The big lie of all of this is that there is a terrible crisis.

This lot came into government and what did they do? Their very first action was to double the deficit. They added $68 billion to the deficit. And this is the other great thing: they have to cut pensions, they have to cut family benefits, and they have to cut unemployment benefits. Young people will be without unemployment benefits for six months every year. They have to cut all these benefits because there is a big blow-out in benefits.

The Household Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia survey is called the HILDA survey. Those opposite may have missed this very important piece of work. It comes out very regularly. It shows that working age Australians have become far less dependent on welfare in recent years. In fact, Australia has the lowest level of welfare reliance in decades. So why have these cuts been made? If there is no deficit emergency, because they doubled the deficit, if there is no welfare emergency, because welfare rates are the lowest they have been in decades, why is it? It is to fund their crazy pet projects. It is to fund direct action. It is to fund paid parental leave—the least fair payment where you give the biggest benefit to the richest people. For that, they are going to cut pensions, they are going to cut the senior supplement, they are going to cut payments to veterans, they are going to cut payments to students, they are going to make it more expensive to get a university education, they are going to cut $80 billion from hospitals and schools. (Time expired)

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on the MPI today and to respond to the sarcastic and nasty member for Sydney and to the things she said, many of which were simply untrue. I sat on the opposition benches for six years and I listened to and watched a Labor government present the nation, the economy and the Liberal and National parties with the situation we are dealing with today. There is an inherent dishonesty in every single thing the member for Sydney says about the situation we are facing, not to mention the absolute untruths contained in—

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should not have to table Budget Paper No. 2, which shows the authentication of all the figures I used. The member opposite should know her—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not a point of order. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You just simply cannot call something a cut when it is not. You can characterise it as that. You can spin it as that.

Ms Plibersek interjecting—

You just mentioned the childcare cuts, member for Sydney. If you are a family and your income stays the same, your childcare benefit from 1 July this year will increase. Under our measures, it will increase. If your income changes, the threshold at which you might qualify might also change. If your family income remains the same, your childcare benefit will not change and, in fact, will go up with indexation. So you cannot possibly call that a cut. I am getting sick and tired of the Labor Party calling these things a cut when they simply are not.

We have to get back to the context in which we are all operating. We understand that you have to live within your means. If you keep on adding expenses to the credit card, eventually it becomes unsustainable. This MPI is framed in terms of the most vulnerable. We will not walk away from our commitment to the most vulnerable. You, the Labor Party, cannot occupy the high moral ground on this subject—not now, not ever. When a government racks up a massive debt, who pays? The most vulnerable pay, because the debt is owned by the government and the welfare payments are paid by the government.

Vulnerable people rely on the government for support; wealthy people do not. When the Greek debt crisis struck, did you see rich people marching in the street? No; you saw poor people, because a government under pressure with that size of debt and deficit is unable to maintain its responsibilities. We are not there. Thank goodness, we are not there. We are putting measures in place to make sure that we do not get there. What we are doing is bringing the budget back under control, and we are doing it in a responsible fashion.

In 10 years time under Labor, you would have had gross debt of $667 billion. In 10 years time under our projected scenario, you will still have debt of around $300 billion. We were actually criticised by many for not hitting the brakes harder, for not reigning in the spending more. We believed in doing this responsibly. We are charting a path back to a surplus, but it is still going to take us a long time to get there—a long time—because of the sheer size of the debt left to us by Labor. That is an important consideration for members and those listening today to understand. This is not about cutting spending; this is about managing those next few years in a responsible way. The dishonesty that Labor brings to this debate every single day is to absolutely be condemned. It is always the most vulnerable who pay.

But I also want to talk about pensions. The member for Sydney talks about the budget papers. So she should know that there are no cuts or changes to pensions during this term of government—nothing at all. There are some changes that come in in the 2017 year, and there is an election before then. There are changes to the pension age that come in 2035, when the age pension age will be increased. But there are no cuts or changes to pensions during this term of government. But if you listen to the debate, if you listen to the Labor Party, you would assume as a pensioner that your pension payments are going to go down or that they are going to change. In this term of government, they are not. It is simply not true.

It is true that there have been changes to thresholds at which you qualify for certain payments, for family income supplements and child care. It is not a decision we would have preferred to make. It is not something that we would have planned. But, when we inherited debt and deficit from Labor, we simply had no choice. The most important thing a government can do is maintain a strong budget position.

The member opposite talked about overseas aid. That is her portfolio; so she spent some time talking about that. I just want to point her to the remarks of Minister Julie Bishop's predecessor, Bob Carr, when he said that you cannot fund aid on borrowings. We were in the bizarre situation where the previous government was borrowing money from overseas to fund an aid program to send money back overseas. How ridiculous was that! Given the whole premise that the member for Sydney builds her policy on, she should take good note of that advice from Bob Carr.

When it comes to the most vulnerable, one of the things that we are focused on in our budget is young people and the commitment that we have to put them on a sustainable path for the future. We are attacked for the measures that we are taking around earning or learning or working for the dole for young people. That is a key commitment of ours. All around this country you see young people who have disconnected from work, from school and from family, and they are lost in the system.

The Labor Party get a bit obsessed about university. They talk, as they just did, about the numbers attending university as if that is the only higher education pathway that ever matters—and we know it is not. Forty per cent of students leave school and go to university; 60 per cent do something else. Many of those 60 per cent do not have a valid and valuable pathway. Our earning, learning or working for the dole strategy is about making sure that each and every one of them does have exactly that. Instead of talking about that policy as walking away from young people and the vulnerable, it would be more correct to actually demonstrate that it is looking after the most vulnerable.

Work for the Dole is an intensive program that supports and looks after those young people, finds a place for them and teaches them life skills. It does not just send them out to break rocks in the hot sun and pay them the dole; it actually gives them real skills to find a real pathway in the real economy. We will start that in a graduated fashion on 1 July this year and it will pick up more so on 1 July 2015. That really does make a difference. I meet young people who, unfortunately, come from families where they might be the fourth generation unemployed. The sad thing about those families is that no-one actually wants to work, because they do not know what work is. They talk about going down to Centrelink to pick up their pay. I feel for those young people because they do not know what they do not know. And, yes, there has got to be some tough love, and we are the party to bring that tough love to the table, because we will not walk away from the responsibilities that we know we have to young people.

In the context of this matter of public importance today the member for Sydney talked about the sacrifice of the poorest, failing to understand the most important economic reality, which is that unaffordable consumption today means a lack of productive investment in the future. Unless we address the productive investment for the future and understand that you have got to save for that and that you cannot continue to consume in the current environment you will have an economy that just does not look after its people. That message and that understanding is simply absent from the Labor Party. You always get this high moral ground about who loses and how they lose. We should understand that the very valuable payments that are made in the welfare sector as benefits to people at the lower end of the income scale do not come from a government pot of money that just sits there. The government doesn't have any money; the money comes from the productive investment of those who are earning in small business or salaries often at the other end of the income scale. You simply cannot equate the two. Throughout this whole budget debate that is exactly what the Labor Party has done. They have said, 'These people lose this and these people at this end of the scale lose that amount,' and because those amounts are not equivalent somehow the whole budget is unfair. But what we are saying is that, unless we invest in the production of jobs, whether it be manufacturing or services or mining, into the future, we cannot possibly afford the welfare payments that are made today. We have a commitment to maintaining the level of those payments and we have a commitment to the most vulnerable. But, importantly, we recognise that because the government does not automatically find this money there and give this money to those who might require it, more work has to be done. (Time expired)

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for External Territories) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So there you have it: we need tough love. We need tough love, the minister has just told us. The Prime Minister said in question time, 'It's the tough medicine we just have to have.' No, that is not right, Prime Minister; it is not the tough medicine we just have to have; it is what you are proposing to do to the Australian population. It is not tough medicine, it is hurtful. What you are doing to the Australian population is dangerous.

I first got elected to this place 27 years ago and I cannot recall a budget which has been condemned across the board in the way in which this budget has, because not only is it dangerous, it is pernicious. What it does is undermine many of the values that I hold dear, like supporting those who are most in need, like supporting the most disadvantaged, like giving people a real opportunity in life. What this budget does is undermine all of those precepts.

We have seen what is happening already. Today we have heard about the cuts in support for dementia care. We have seen and we know about the changes to pension indexation—the Prime Minister, getting up at the dispatch box day after day, telling us that it will still be indexed twice a year. We all know that, Prime Minister—we are not fools. But what we also know is that you changed the indexation rate and that has a material impact upon the amount of money people receive in their pockets. They know. Service pensioners around this country now know that this government has betrayed them. Age pensioners around the country now know that this government has betrayed them. We know that a single income family now as a result of these budget changes with a combined income of $95,000 and two kids aged five and 12 will be more than $4,900 worse off a year as a result of the budget—nearly five grand. A single parent on $55,000 with two children will be around $6,000 a year worse off. That is an over 10 per cent reduction in their income. These are not rich people; these are people who live by modest means at best.

And then, of course, we have the changes which have taken place in health care. I see the parliamentary secretary opposite here who is responsible for the Indigenous affairs portfolio in Prime Minister and Cabinet. Let me ask him, because I asked him the other day and he couldn't answer: what is the impact of the co-payment on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians? What impact will it have on those people who cannot afford to go and see a doctor? Today I read the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report, Australia's health 2014. In it it says:

Indigenous Australians have lower life expectancy is, high rates of chronic and preventable illness, poor self-reported health, and a high likelihood of being hospitalised than non-Indigenous Australians.

It is very clear—they are sicker and they are more likely to be hospitalised. Then, at page 332, they talk about the social determinants that can restrict an individual's ability to access health services. I quote:

Cost is a commonly reported barrier to accessing health services for Indigenous Australians and low levels of income can discourage people from seeking medical care and paying ongoing medical costs.

What does that tell you? A very simple thing: the people who most require access to medicines will not get it because they will not go to it. They will not be able to afford the co-payment so they will not go and see the doctor. These are Aboriginal families in my electorate, large families and a very young population. What is going to happen to those families if they cannot access a doctor because they cannot afford it, because they are required to pay a co-payment? I asked the parliamentary secretary this just recently. Who will afford to pay that co-payment? What will the impact be on Aboriginal health and health of the whole community as a result of this co-payment? What modelling have you done? Now we know: the Prime Minister says it is a demand reduction measure. It is a demand reduction measure that will have a material negative impact upon the health and welfare of Australians and most particularly the most disadvantaged and most impoverished of Australians. It is very, very clear that this government's unfair budget has inflicted the greatest hurt on the most disadvantaged in our community and, frankly, they just don't care, because, as the Prime Minister said today, it is 'the tough medicine we just have to have'. How stupid! (Time expired)

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The first point that I make is in relation to the co-payment which the member for Lingiari was so passionately talking about. The member for Lingiari actually voted for a co-payment when he was a member of parliament and the Hawke government first introduced it.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He voted for it.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He voted for it then. The Hawke government was the first government to introduce the co-payments. We know that the shadow Assistant Treasurer is in support of co-payments. We know that the Labor governments introduced a co-payment for the PBS. So let us end the hyperbole and focus on what the real matter is here, and that is getting on top of the budget.

The former government was an incompetent one. We know that it was probably the most incompetent government in history. But at least they acknowledged one thing. They did not implement this but they acknowledged it: that a surplus was important. I am not saying they did it but they at least acknowledged that a surplus was is important. The former government said that a surplus was important not just to underpin the strength of the economy but to bring cost of living pressures down. But now that the Labor Party is in opposition, it is as if they no longer care at all whether or not the budget is in deficit or surplus and they are in complete deficit and debt denial.

We look at the figures and we see six budget deficits in a row, the six biggest in Australian political history. We are paying $1 billion per month just on the interest on our debt and for as far as the eye can see there is deficit after deficit after deficit. So we are taking the responsible action of getting control of the budget again. We were elected to do so and we are taking the responsibility to implement that.

In the process, though, there are going to be some tough measures and we accept that. There are some tough measures, but they are necessary measures, because if we do not take the measures now then they will be so much harder in the future. If we do not get on top of the budget deficit now then the interest payments alone on the debt will go from $1 billion per month today to $3 billion per month in 10 years time, an extraordinary figure. So that is why we are taking these tough measures in the budget, to get control of the budget, to ensure that we have public finances in order, which ultimately underpins a strong economy.

In the last couple of minutes I have remaining I point out a couple of issues that members opposite have raised. The member for Sydney was talking about the foreign aid budget. In relation to foreign aid, we maintain the current foreign aid commitments. It will continue this year and the same amount will continue next year. No individual program is being diminished. But what we are not doing is going to be borrowing further money from overseas in order to then bring it back to Australia and send it back overseas again. We have to be responsible in relation to getting our finances in order so that in the future we can again increase the foreign aid budget.

I refer to two other things which members opposite have pointed out. They talked about pensions. Let me be very clear: there are no cuts to pensions. The Prime Minister has mentioned that day in, day out in this parliament. The pension increased in March, it will increase again in September, it will increase the following March and the following September. Further, there are no cuts in health care. Health care will increase by nine per cent this year, nine per cent next year, nine per cent the year after and six per cent the year after that. The rate of increase slows down from year four onwards but there is no cut to health care. It is the same in relation to schooling: there are no cuts in that area. Yes, there are savings across the budget; there are many savings in many areas some of which are tough decisions. But if we do not make the tough decisions now it will be so much harder to make the tough decisions in the future. We did not create the mess which Labor created but we take responsibility for fixing up the mess and we doing so in a methodical, structured, sensible manner but still protecting those who need it most.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government's unfair budget is inflicting the greatest hurt on those most disadvantaged. We have had people stand up and rant about debt and deficit, but what they fail to realise is that their budget is actually twisted priorities. How can someone stand up and say that we have to make these harsh cuts and we have to deliver tough medicine when in the same budget they are introducing measures to give the wealthiest women paid parental leave of up to $50,000 to have a baby? That is not a government in a budget emergency, that is twisted priority. How is the government funding this paid parental leave: by cutting support to the most disadvantaged in our country. That is the twisted priority of this government.

Who are the most disadvantaged in this country? When I think of that word I think of the people in a town called Eaglehawk in my electorate. It is part of the city of Greater Bendigo and it is one of the areas that is most disadvantaged and pops up at the bottom of all the statistics. They have a community dinner and they have several community lunches. At one of those dinners and lunches I met a young girl called Paige. I was talking with her mother and I was talking with Paige and they were excited because the mother is about to have a second baby. But they still homeless; they have been on the emergency waiting list for three months and they were couch surfing. Paige's mother was not only worried about having a new baby and about getting Paige off to school but worried about where they live. What these budget changes mean to Paige and her mother she explains: If only I was wealthy enough, if only I had a stable home, if only I had a job that paid $150,000 so I had access to the government's $50,000 Paid Parental Leave scheme—but I don't. I am struggling to survive. I have been in the situation of domestic violence. I am coming here to this free community dinner. I will eat my humble pie and pick up my parcel of food, my hamper, and go home. And next week I will again get in the queue to talk about where Paige and I can live and trying to find a home before my second child is born. That is just one of the many thousands of examples of people in our community who are the most disadvantaged and at risk because of this government's budget.

As a result of this budget, a single parent who earns $55,000 a year will be $6,000 a year worse off by 2016. That is 10 per cent of their budget. If you take money off single parents you are punishing the children, because every single dollar of that $6,000 that this government will take off the single parent is spent on the child. It is spent on them—on their schooling, on their extracurricular activities, on going to birthday parties, and on making sure that their children get the same opportunities as others.

This budget's changes to the pension are another example of the twisted priorities of this government. Let's be real about the pension—it is not big bucks. We are talking about somebody on the single pension getting just over $22,000 a year. There are about 30,000 pensioners in my electorate. All of them will be disadvantaged by and hit hard by this government's cruel budget.

Turning to the changes for young people under the age of 30 who are seeking work, how on earth are you expected to live on nothing? How on earth does the government expect this young job seeker to be able to get to their job interviews, or pay their rent, or be able to live, if they pay them no support for six months. The government must just assume that everybody under the age of 30 still lives with their parents or has a trust fund. It is simply not true.

This budget is an example of twisted priorities. This budget is unfair and attacks those who are most disadvantaged. At the same time it rewards those at the top end of the scale. Every dollar you take from a low-income earner, every dollar you take from the disadvantaged, forces them further and further into poverty. (Time expired)

John Cobb (Calare, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have known the member for Sydney for some time. I have been on committees with her and have gone on trips with her in that capacity. She is somebody I have learnt to respect for her commitment to people who may be in need, be they Indigenous or otherwise, and I think we have a shared respect there. But I am totally puzzled as to why she would put this MPI forward, when her own government created the situation. I heard her talk about the need for pensions and school funding, and she was upset about foreign aid being cut, about low-income families, about people with disabilities, and about child care, which others have spoken about. These are all good things and, yes, they all need funding. So why did her government leave us in a position where we had to have the guts, the forethought and the determination to ensure that we will be able to fund those things in the future, because that is the issue here. I am staggered that the member for Sydney would not realise that if we do not take these firm measures there will be no ability—we will have to cut funding, and we may have to cut schools, let alone pay the teachers who work in them.

I cannot understand it. Day after day we hear from the Leader of the Opposition, but he has never apologised for leaving Australia in that position, and nor has he explained why it happened. The position of Leader of the Opposition is a high position. He has dragged us down to the lowest level I have ever seen here. He drags us down to a union shop floor free-for-all every time he gets on his feet. It is a disgrace. What is his answer? He does not have one, no matter whether it is him or is deputy leader, the member for Sydney.

The people in the cities are not the most at risk here. The most at risk are those out in regional Australia who are on pensions or who have needs, because in regional Australia there will be less to fall back on in terms of resources, when the time comes. If we had not taken the steps we have in this budget to get Australia back on the right foot, the first people who would fall out would be the people in regional Australia.

This is about communities and it is about money, which is why I cannot for the life of me understand why the opposition does not applaud us for fixing up what they messed up. Really, we need a 'sorry day'. Not one about what may have happened 200 years ago. We need a sorry day about what happened over the last six years.

A very good friend of mine said to me in 2008-09, when the government was handing it all out, that she received a cheque from the government for $850. I said, 'You didn't,' because I knew she was earning $85,000 to $90,000 a year. She has no dependents at all. She showed me the cheque and I could not believe it. If there were a federal ICAC, that is something that should go to it—straight out bribery, wastefulness or incompetence. Call it what you like, it is an ICAC thing when you give people earning as much as her that sort of money as a gift, simply because you want to curry favour with the general population. I find it unbelievable stuff.

Why are we doing a tough budget? Tell me how many businesses and families in a matter of six years could take over the sort of business you were handed and turn it into absolute chaos—and, yes, it is chaos when you take over something that is $60-odd billion in the black and turn it into a business with $660-odd billion of debt, based on your own Treasury figures. Not many could do it. It is not easy to get rid of that much money in that much time.

We are doing what you do if you have the guts to do it politically. I am not a populist, although a lot are on both sides. We have to do what is necessary. This is necessary.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Calare stands condemned for trivialising Sorry Day, the apology to the stolen generation—one of the greatest moments in this parliament. I condemn him for the statement that he just made. This budget is not about the apology to the stolen generation; this is a cruel budget that affects all Australians. He really stands condemned for that comment, and I am sure that Indigenous Australians throughout this country will take note of that. It goes to the heart of the fact that this government really does not care.

This budget is cruel, this budget is mean-spirited, this budget is harsh and this budget attacks the most disadvantaged people in our society—as the member for Calare just did. This budget stands condemned, as does this heartless government—one of the most heartless governments, if not the most heartless government, in the history of this country. Each day I see members opposite on the backbench hanging their heads, because they know how harsh this budget is. They know how it is attacking people in every area of our society.

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hear some members opposite up the back supporting it. It attacks the most vulnerable, whether they live in Australia or outside Australia. It slashes the money that goes to disadvantaged people in disadvantaged countries—money to fight malaria and address child and maternal health and mortality.

This budget is a budget of betrayal. No-one is spared, be they old or young. There are cuts to health and education. Actually, the one thing about this budget is that nobody misses out—unless you earn over $100,000 a year; If you are a high-income earner and you are going to have a baby, this government will give you $50,000.

There are cuts to the seniors supplement—seniors are just about to receive their last seniors supplement—and changes to pension indexation. Members on the other side say that there is no change to the pension. Well, legislation went through this parliament this week that changes the indexation method for the pension. That will mean that, within a 10-year period, pensioners will get on average $80 less a week.

The decision to increase the eligibility age to 70 for pensioners was made without any consultation whatsoever. Good policy is developed by consultation and by doing research before you introduce it. Today we hear about the cut to the dementia supplement. Dementia is a growing epidemic within this country, and this government seeks to ignore it.

Family tax benefit—it does not miss out on Australian families; it is slashing the family tax benefit. If you have two children and you are a stay-at-home mum, $60,000 is gone. Or like the family that came to see me the other week who—

Government members: $60,000?

$6,000—they stand condemned. Like the family that came to see me last week where the wife was a carer for the husband and they have a disabled child—$3,000 going, and they are struggling to survive at the moment.

No schoolkids bonus—those on the other side of this House want to see the schoolkids bonus go. They want to make it harder for families. Young people—Youth Allowance, eligibility for Newstart raised from 22 to 24 years of age; and then the harsh six-month period where people will receive absolutely no income at all and, at the same time, being subject to the work test. They can be in further breach and that six-month period can be extended—all because of a manufactured economic crisis.

Australia has a triple-A rating. It spends less on welfare than any other OECD country except Iceland. In 2001, we spent 23 per cent of our GDP on welfare and that has gone down to 18.5 per cent. This government stands condemned and it does nothing— (Time expired)

Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not quite know where to start after hearing from the member for Shortland—let's start from the beginning. I worked as a journalist for many years, and we always had a strong ethical inclination to tell the truth and report the facts. After hearing what I have heard from members opposite, if they were journalists, they would all get the sack. Because I have never heard more untruths in one debate in the entire time since I have been elected.

It starts with the member for Sydney. I have to say the member for Sydney's speech in this debate is an absolute disgrace. She made a number of statements that are demonstrably, factually untrue. She said families will be $6,000 worse off; pensioners will have their pensions cut; and uni students will be paying more than $100,000 for a degree. It is absolutely ridiculous and it is embarrassing that the member for Sydney could get it so wrong, and of course this was followed up by the sterling effort from the member for Shortland, who talked about a $60,000 cut—I am sure she didn't quite mean to say that, but nevertheless it shows how tardy those opposite are when it comes to numbers.

Our economy is in a mess, because of Labor. Let's have a look at the deficits that we have inherited: $191 billion total deficits over six years. They recognise that a surplus is important for this nation and yet $27 billion, $54 billion, $47 billion, $43 billion, $19 billion and $50 billion in deficits—we are heading towards $667 billion in debt, because of the utter mess created by the former government. What we are doing is cleaning up Labor's mess.

They are talking about the budget inflicting the greatest hurt on the most disadvantaged. Let's have a look at what Labor has done and what our budget is doing to help the most disadvantaged. I reflect on the damage that Labor did to sole parents by moving them from the sole parent pension to Newstart. That caused an absolute storm of protest. Let us never forget what Labor did to sole parents. If you have a look at our NDIS—the NDIS that we are delivering very proudly, caring for those with a disability—Labor ran the most disgraceful scare campaign, claiming that we would not fund the NDIS. We are proudly rolling out the NDIS. This is something that has not been reported, disappointingly, but I remind those opposite that they imposed an efficiency dividend on NDIS support packages of $44.9 million—a $44.9 million cut to the NDIS. We have reversed that in our budget. We are proudly rolling it out, and we are looking after some of the most vulnerable people in our society: people with a disability, their families and their carers.

Look what we are doing for young people, particularly those who have been unemployed for a long time. We are reversing the terrible record that Labor has on unemployment, particularly youth unemployment. The teenage full-time unemployment rate, for persons aged 15 to 19, went up from 19.6 per cent in 2007 to an astonishing 27.3 per cent. What did Labor do? Labor did nothing. We are reversing that trend by taking a strong focus on earning or learning. We are working hard, through our Work for the Dole program, to get young people off the dole, to give them confidence, to build their skills, through a whole range of different ways: our job commitment bonus; our relocation assistance of up to $6,000 for those who move to regional areas; the Restart program, $10,000 for people to hire someone aged over 50; and the trade support loans, proper $20,000 loans to get young people through their apprenticeships. Look what happened under Labor: one in two young men and women who started an apprenticeship did not finish it. And what did Labor do? Labor did nothing.

Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, we have had to make some necessary and difficult decisions in this budget, but health spending is going up, education spending is going up and the pension will go up twice a year. We are not going to allow you to scare pensioners, university students, families and everyone else—

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Vocational Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know what it is about.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Vocational Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am sure you were doing no such thing!

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are absolutely right. The member for Corangamite has the call, but she should make her comments not at me but through me.

Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will not allow members opposite to scare the most vulnerable in our society. We are proud of what we are doing— (Time expired)

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

Like, I would hope, every member here, I take great pride in the fact that I represent a local community. In doing that, I have got to know my electorate very, very well, because that is where I live. I know my electorate may not be the same as everybody else's. I know my electorate is the most multicultural in the country. It is something I take great pride in. The colour, the vibrancy and the diversity of my community are of great significance. But my electorate is one of the most disadvantaged—in fact, the second-most disadvantaged when it comes to socioeconomic rankings. I know where the disadvantage is. I know the pensioners. I know the families that are on a form of welfare support. When I go out of here, I do not put out a press release and simply reiterate my leader's lines, as perhaps those opposite are contemplating when they go back to their electorates. I go and visit the various aged-care facilities in my electorate. I go and visit those people in need. As a matter of fact, I actually close the office once a month for a couple of hours and we do the soup kitchens in my electorate. So do not tell me about disadvantage.

The budget that has been brought down directly targets those least able to afford the pain. All members here accept the need to put an impost on those earning over $180,000. That is fine. That impost only goes for two years and then it returns to what it was. But what the government is doing in this budget to families on tax benefit B, age pensioners, people on carers allowances and young people is permanent. You are talking about making permanent structural changes in our society. You should think about this when you go back to your electorates. While I have disadvantage in my electorate, I am sure you are going to find people in your electorates who also have disadvantage—for instance, the pensioners out there. We are talking about people who survive on $20,000 a year. On the issue of co-payments, I cannot give you an accurate figure that reflects everybody, but my mum lives with me and I know how often I have got to get her to see a GP; I know how often I have got to fill her scripts. This is not something that should be just used for political debate and thrown around like confetti. They are real people out there. People on an age pension cannot suddenly decide to work another shift or work some overtime and make up the difference that way. These are people who do not have a discretionary income, and we are saying to them, 'You are going to disproportionately bear the pain of this budget.'

While all this is happening, despite the undertones and the undercurrents around this, the Prime Minister's Paid Parental Leave scheme is going to go through. We are talking about making sure that the Prime Minister's commitment to the wealthy is maintained.

Ann Sudmalis (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No; it's a commitment to women!

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

No; it is a commitment to the wealthy. I do not know how many people in your electorate down the South Coast—I cannot remember its name—earn over $100,000 a year, but I can tell you the average income in my electorate is $35,000. I invite you to tell me what it is in your electorate. Why should a woman who has a baby in my electorate get only, say, $15,000 a year, when someone over in the Treasurer's electorate can come away with a cool $50,000? Kids born in my electorate should not be valued any less than children born anywhere else. These kids have the potential to go and become anything, including members of this place, as all Australians have. So do not start throwing the value of a child around and say, 'If you're born in a wealthy Liberal electorate, we're going to pay you more, but, if you come from a working-class area'—such as mine—'we will reserve our right to pay you less.' This is just ridiculous.

I want to talk about something that came out in the Senate today. As I said earlier, one of the things I do regularly is visit aged-care workers in my electorate. I appreciate what they do. They work long and hard hours, and to think that we are now making cuts to people in the dementia wards, that we are going to cut the allowances for people working in dementia and special needs—

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Disgrace!

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

What a disgrace! I am facing that with my own mother, who lives with me, and making decisions about that. On the other side, in the Senate, they can put out a press release saying, 'Just because it blew out so long ago, we will— (Time expired)

Craig Laundy (Reid, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

. I rise obviously to talk against the MPI. I am a new member of parliament and this is all a bit foreign to me. There has been a lot of behaviour in this chamber over the last nine months that has reminded me at times of kindergarten behaviour. Taking that theme and running with it for a little bit, I remember back to my early days kindergarten and I think that the MPI portion of the day is like we used to have after lunch in kindergarten: time for a fairytale. What we have today from those opposite is just another fairytale.

I specifically want to address the member for Sydney saying that we do not have a problem. I am so sick of the commentary around this. Why? Because I am following the group of people and you could write their commercial experience on the back of a postage stamp. We are in strife. Under their watch, health has gone from $40 billion in 2007-08 to $65 billion last year. That is a 45 per cent increase and it is unsustainable. Welfare has gone from $97 billion in 2007-08—actual numbers which businesses operate on—to $140 billion. That is a 43 per cent increase and it is unsustainable. Inside that welfare, the age pension has gone from $34 billion a year to $58 billion a year. That is a 71 per cent increase in six years. Those are actual figures. Those opposite own them. We have inherited them and we must do something about them.

I want to delve down. This week in question time—and I do not have five minutes unfortunately—we heard about a double-income family on $60,000 and we heard about a single-income family on $60,000. Both have two kids aged zero to six in the first instance. I want to run through their numbers. Two wages of $30,000 make up the $60,000. They get $10,067 in support out of this budget. They pay $5,200 in tax. That is $5,000 less, and that is without health, public education and childcare rebates. The single-income family that the opposition referred to on $60,000 with kids, aged eight to 13, pay $8,635 in tax and they receive $8,350 in benefits without health care or public education. It is just not sustainable. That is the problem. Those opposite had six years to do something about the problem, but it proved too hard.

Whilst they spoke time and time again about surpluses, they were all talk and no action. Where is their representation for the MPI if they are so outraged? We have two of them left. They have come into this chamber and questioned our integrity. We need to do something for the schoolkids who run through this building and for everyone's kids, because we are passing the buck to them. We have $330 billion worth of gross debt now and in this budget there are $200 billion of unfunded liabilities that do not even add up to that number. There is also $65 billion still to go on the construction of the NBN. When you add that to the $67 billion—and here is the kicker—we are up near $1 trillion of debt. This is my story and life: it is always easier to tell people what they want to hear; it takes courage to tell people what they need to hear. Those on this side of the chamber have the courage to do that. The Prime Minister has the courage to do that. I do as the member for Reid. I applaud the government for the steps they are taking. Yes, they are tough but they are necessary. We will not talk about a surplus. We will deliver a surplus, and so we must.