Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. New analysis from NATSEM reveals that a typical family will be more than $6,000 a year worse off because of the Prime Minister's budget. In light of this independent evidence, how can the Prime Minister possibly believe that his budget is good for families?

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the Prime Minister is—if the Leader of the Opposition is as committed—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Shock, horror! Touche, touche! If the Leader of the Opposition is as committed to the NATSEM modelling as his question suggests, he might just release it, okay? Just release the modelling. If the modelling is that good, if the modelling is that credible, release the modelling and we can analyse it, we can look at it and we can respond to it.

Opposition members interjecting—

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

There will be silence on my left! The Prime Minister has the call.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It does seem, from what we can make of the NATSEM modelling so far, that the NATSEM modelling does not take into account the impact of people moving from welfare into work—and that is exactly what we want to encourage.

Opposition members interjecting—

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

There will be silence on my left!

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unlike members opposite, who want to trap people in welfare, we want to encourage people to move into work, because we understand what decent Labor leaders understood—what decent Labor leaders like Bob Hawke and Paul Keating and what intelligent Labour prime ministers around the world like Tony Blair understood: that the best form of welfare is work. That is the difference. We want to encourage people into work. Members opposite want to trap people in welfare because members opposite just hate aspiration. They just cannot handle the decent people of our country who want to have a go and want to get ahead. We understand that the best way to give the people of this country a fair go is to enable more of them to have a go, and that is exactly what our budget does.

Matt Williams (Hindmarsh, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the House how the budget is boosting confidence and encouraging small businesses in Australia to have a go?

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do thank the member for Hindmarsh for his question, I thank him for his support for small businesses in his electorate as well as around our country and I thank him for organising the visit that I made to CIBO Espresso in Glenelg in Adelaide just the other day—and I have got to say: they make the best coffee in Adelaide and I loved sampling it in the company—

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, controversy—have I said the wrong thing! Well, it was the best cup of coffee that I had in Adelaide that day and I really want to thank the member for Hindmarsh for organising that. What is wrong with skinny mocha—come on!

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Enough hilarity! The Prime Minister has the call.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And there is a time for a shandy of light too, just as there is a time to scull a full-strength beer at the Double Bay Oak.

In the past week, I have been in Melbourne; I have been in Perth; I have been in Townsville, Mackay, Gladstone, Sydney, Adelaide, Launceston and Brisbane to encourage the small businesses of our country to have a go. Yes, at CIBO Espresso in Glenelg, they are going to upgrade their fit-out under our instant asset write-off. At Dolci Sapori in Clayfield in Brisbane, they are going to get a refrigerated van thanks to our instant asset write-off. At Steve Geiger Cabinets in Mackay, they are going to upgrade their workshop thanks to our instant asset write-off.

This is the best budget ever for small business. It is the first time in history that any government has backed pro-small-business rhetoric with actual policies specifically designed to give small business a fair go. That is clearly reflected in the surge of confidence right around our country. The ANZ consumer confidence index is up 3.6 per cent. The Westpac index of consumer sentiment is up 6.4 per cent. And why wouldn't they be up?—because small business is 96 per cent of all businesses. Small business employs 4½ million Australians. Small business is the engine room of our economy. Small business people are the people who mortgage their homes to invest, to employ and to serve their communities. When small business does well, everyone does well. This government understands that, and the test for members opposite will be: how much do they understand that? I suggest that they could help understand it by passing our legislation through the parliament this week.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. NATSEM modelling reveals that a typical family will be more than $6,000 a year worse off because of the Prime Minister's budget, and that number includes the Prime Minister's changes to child care. In light of this independent evidence, how can the Prime Minister possibly believe that his budget is good for families?

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

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

I call the honourable the Prime Minister, and we will have some silence from both sides so we can hear the answer.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, I say to the Leader of the Opposition: if this modelling is to be taken seriously, it must be released. It absolutely must be released. And every moment that the modelling is kept hidden by members opposite demonstrates that even they fear that it cannot be taken seriously. Even they fear that this particular modelling cannot withstand serious scrutiny. Again, I say to members opposite: from what we can see of this modelling so far—and it is very hard, when they will not actually release it, but from what we can see of this modelling so far—it seems that it does not take into account the impact of people moving from welfare to work—

Ms Butler interjecting—

Ms Chesters interjecting—

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

The member for Griffith and the member for Bendigo will desist.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and that is precisely what we want to bring about in this budget. This is exactly what we want to bring about in our budget. We want people to move from welfare to work. That is why we are investing in small business, to create more jobs. That is why we are investing in child care, so that the families of Australia have more incentive to work or to increase their hours of work.

I know members opposite are completely at sixes and sevens about what to do in response to our childcare package. They know it makes child care more accessible, more affordable—

Mr Dreyfus interjecting—

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

The member for Isaacs will desist.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

more flexible and simpler. They know it does all of those things. But the fundamental thing about our childcare changes is that low- and middle-income families using the childcare system will be, on average, $1,500 a year better off. So that is $1,500 a year better off if you work, or work more, and that is exactly what sensible political parties should be trying to do—they should be trying to ensure that the people of Australia make the most of their opportunities and the people of Australia are encouraged to have a go. That is what we want to do. We want the people of Australia to have a go, because we understand that, in the end, that is the best way to ensure that everyone has the fair go that we all yearn for for them. Members opposite just do not learn, and we know they cannot change. Unfortunately, members opposite rejoice when people are trapped in welfare. They do.

Mr Dreyfus interjecting—

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

The member for Isaacs is warned.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Prove me wrong by passing these budget changes that will get people into work.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are not fit to be Prime Minister.

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

The member for Isaacs will leave under 94(a).

The member for Isaacs then left the chamber.

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. The Treasurer well knows my abiding interest in agriculture and South Australia's reliance on that part of the economy for our existence. Will the Treasurer outline how the budget is helping regional Australia and, in particular, farmers and small businesses in my electorate of Grey?

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for Grey for his question and note that a number of his constituents actually came to Adelaide, where we had quite a few hundred people turn out to discuss the budget. And the budget has got a good reception—there is no doubt about that—right around the country. I have spoken to over 5,000 people in the last couple of weeks, in seven or eight different cities, and, quite clearly, the reception to the budget has been overwhelmingly positive. And why? Because it is a budget that is focused on helping to create jobs, it is a budget that is focused on opportunity, and it is a budget that does not leave anyone behind—in particular, the farmers of Australia.

As the honourable member was telling me, he spoke to a Mr Butterfield, Bill Butterfield, who is a farmer from Darke Peak in the Eyre Peninsula. Bill owns and operates Cummins mill, one of the oldest flour mills in Australia. He said: 'The budget measures are fantastic news. On the farm we will purchase water, fencing and a small vehicle, and at the mill we will be looking at a couple of small forklifts. We have had a good rain, and this budget will give us a real lift.' So there it is: Bill Butterfield endorses it, and 11,718 small businesses in the honourable member's electorate would also be endorsing it, because in this budget we are giving small business in Australia the chance to have a go, to invest in their future, whether it be through our tax cuts—a 1½ per cent cut in the company tax rate—or up to a five per cent tax discount for businesses that are unincorporated.

The Leader of the Opposition does not understand small business. They had five small business ministers in six years. So when the Leader of the Opposition said the other night that he was going to go for a five per cent company tax discount, he was leaving behind two-thirds of the small businesses in Australia, and even then his own finance spokesman did not back it up 24 hours later.

So, when we talk about tax cuts for small business, when we talk about accelerated depreciation and when we talk about a fair go for farmers, we actually back it up with real action, not just words. In our situation, what we are focused on is lifting the tide so that all boats rise, and, in particular, any small business—whether it be unincorporated, a sole trader or a partnership, or be it a company—with a turnover of less than $2 million has the opportunity to go out there and buy the plant and equipment that is going to expand the business, improve cash flow and, at the end of the day, contribute to more jobs in the economy, because ultimately that is what we are about: more jobs for everyday Australians.

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

My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister recall describing NATSEM as 'the most reputable modelling organisation in Australia'? NATSEM modelling shows that nine out of 10 of the lowest income families lose under the Prime Minister's budget. So why did the Prime Minister say that this budget would be 'good for families'?

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do recall saying what I said. If members opposite want to vindicate the work of NATSEM, release it. Just release it. Why is it that this work of NATSEM needs to be hidden? Why do they want to hide the NATSEM analysis upon which they rely?

Again, I say to the member who asked the question that this is a government which understands that the best form of welfare is work. This is a government that understands that the best and most generous thing you can do for the people of Australia who are currently doing it tough is to maximise their chances to have a go—to go out and get a job, to go out and get a better job, to work more and to do the right thing by themselves and their family. I cannot understand why members opposite do not get it. Why is it that they seem to prefer people who are trapped in welfare than people who are liberated by work, to do the right thing by themselves, their families and their communities? But when I ponder this question I think the answer does become clearer. Members opposite quite like it when people are trapped in welfare because, if they are trapped in welfare, they are dependent on government. We certainly want government to be there to help. But governments should be there to help; governments should never be the master of the people.

Ms King interjecting—

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

The member for Parramatta is warned!

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They should never, ever be the master of the people. The trouble with members opposite is that they are no longer a working-class party; they are a welfare-class party. That is the problem. That is the measure of the decline of the once great Labor Party. They would rather see people stuck in the welfare system than helped by government to get the jobs that will liberate them for the rest of their life.