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 come up with a fair and sustainable plan for Australia's future.

I call upon those honourable 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

The next election should be and will be a battle of plans about the Australian budget, about the Australian economy. The Labor Party does have a plan to tackle the most unsustainable parts of the budget in a fair way, to get more fairness into the budget and to make it more sustainable. The Abbott government also has a plan, but it is the opposite plan. The Abbott government's plan is to leave the most unsustainable parts, the fastest-growing parts of the federal budget untouched but to come up with more ways of making our tax and transfer system less fair. It wants to come up with unfair ways of tackling other parts of the budget, the sustainable parts of the budget. The Abbott government has gone out of its way to find ways of doing the opposite of what should be done when it comes to improving the budget bottom line.

Labor has a plan, for example, to make our tax system in superannuation fairer and more sustainable. The government, which lectured us and the Australian people that the budget was unsustainable, that we were heading towards Greek levels of debt, that tough decisions were necessary, does not have the courage to admit and acknowledge that which every serious commentator and analyst has pointed out—that the taxation treatment of high-income super in Australia is not sustainable, it cannot be afforded and it is not fair. We on this side of the chamber have the courage to say it and the Prime Minister and Treasurer lack the courage to say it.

The Treasurer did indicate a few weeks ago that he was interested in a national conversation about this, that he wanted to have bipartisanship.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It did not last long.

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

It did not last long. The Prime Minister came out the next day said no. We are used to these backflips. They are getting faster, in fact. It took a few years to have the backflip on paid parental leave; it took about a week to have the backflip on the iron ore inquiry; and it took a day yesterday to have the backflip about the GST on sanitary products. On coding, it took a question, because putting coding in the national curriculum for primary schools was a terrible idea in answer to one question and a great idea in answer to the very next question, according to the Prime Minister.

Dr Leigh interjecting—

As the shadow Assistant Treasurer points out, the cycle is speeding up. When it comes to backflips, the backflips happen more quickly every time. The Treasurer did call for bipartisanship, so we took him at his word. We put up a plan, a costed and detailed plan, a plan we had consulted on. This Prime Minister, so lacking in vision and courage, shot down the debate to engage in a good old-fashioned scare campaign. I acknowledge the Prime Minister has political skills, and that is what he does best—a good old-fashioned scare campaign. It is not one befitting the Prime Minister of Australia, not one befitting our nation, which is crying out for vision, for honesty about the challenges and opportunities of the future. No, this Prime Minister just engages in a scare campaign.

Let's have some facts on the table about Labor's plan for superannuation. Firstly, 94 per cent of Australian people in their retirement phase are completely unaffected by Labor's plan. Ninety per cent of the revenue raised by Labor's plan comes from people with balances of more than $2 million in their superannuation account; 97 per cent comes from people with more than $1½ million in their superannuation account. He does not like these facts. Of course, the Prime Minister takes a completely misleading approach when it comes to his scare campaigns. He says he does not like increasing tax on superannuation. 'I don't like increasing tax on superannuation.' Well, we know he actually does like it, because he has done it. He has increased the tax on low-income earners when it comes to their superannuation savings. He abolished the low-income superannuation contribution, which is a tax increase on the superannuation of people on low incomes.

There are about 180,000 people across the nation affected by Labor's plan. Do you know how many people are affected by the Prime Minister's tax increase on superannuation?—3.6 million Australians, the majority of whom are women and all of whom are low-income earners. The Prime Minister is more than prepared to be tough on them. He is more than prepared to take away their tax breaks on superannuation. He is more than prepared to abolish the superannuation tax concession for low-income earners. But when it comes to high-income earners—'Oh, no, we're not going to touch that,' says the Prime Minister. 'That's off limits; that is out of bounds.' The fact is this Prime Minister does increase taxes; this Prime Minister is seeing tax increases as a percentage of the economy every year on his watch. This Prime Minister wants to increase the petrol tax, which will raise $19 billion over the next decade. He called a $14 billion plan from Labor 'a tax grab'; he pretends his $19 billion plan does not exist.

We remember the litany of mistakes, errors and insults we have been subjected to by the Treasurer of Australia, but perhaps the low point came when he told us that 'poor people don't drive cars in Australia'. That came as a surprise to those poor people—those people around Australia who are on low incomes and who are using their cars to get their kids to school and to themselves to work. That insult from the Treasurer was particularly hurtful.

The Prime Minister and the Treasurer are quick to tell Australia's pensioners that their payments are unsustainable, that their modest pension cannot be afforded. That is what the Prime Minister and the Treasurer would have us believe. They do not point out the fact, which is in their own intergenerational report, that the age pension costs will increase to $3.6 per cent of GDP by 2054-55. We on this side say that Australia's pensioners deserve to have at least four per cent of our economy spent on them. This government says, '3.6 per cent of GDP is unsustainable and we can't afford it,' but they leave untouched the tax concessions on superannuation, which are the fastest growing tax concessions in the entire federal budget. In four years the cost of superannuation tax concessions will outstrip the cost of the age pension. That is what unsustainability looks like; that is what unfairness looks like. This government says, 'Well, the age pension, which is growing more slowly than the tax concessions on superannuation and will be smaller than the tax concessions in four years, is unsustainable, but the tax concessions are perfectly sustainable.' That is the argument put by the government; it lacks any logical consistency.

The government is planning to make the most sustainable part of the retirement income system, the age pension to just 16 per cent of average weekly earnings. We have looked into their eyes and that is what they want to do—it is their preferred model. There are plenty of people who have pointed out that the superannuation tax concessions need to be addressed. The government's own Murray inquiry into financial systems said that:

… the majority of tax concessions accrue to the top 20 per cent of income earners. These tax concessions are unlikely to reduce future Age Pension expenditure significantly. … Giving high-income individuals larger concessions than are required to achieve the objectives of the system also increases the inefficiencies that arise from higher taxation elsewhere in the economy, including differences in the tax treatment of savings.

What the Murray inquiry is really saying there is that a tax concession for somebody is paid for by higher taxes on somebody else—on the mums and dads of Australia, on the lower-middle-income earners of Australia.

Even the National Commission of Audit, which the government used to tell about a lot, but which we do not hear much about these days and which gave us the GP tax and $100,000 university degrees, thought that the tax concessions for high income earners needed to be dealt with. The commission of audit said:

… many superannuation tax concessions disproportionately benefit higher income earners, when compared to taxation at marginal tax rates under the progressive income tax system.

Then we had the government's own hand-picked new Secretary of the Treasury say:

…substantial tax assistance is provided to superannuation savings. We need to consider whether the level and distribution of these tax concessions remains appropriate.

It does not remain appropriate and it needs to be fixed.

This side of the House is prepared to show the courage to fix it. That side of the House does not have the courage and is sticking to their business model of misleading the Australian people before an election and then doing something completely opposite in delivering their budget after the election. This tells us about the government's values. They are prepared to be tough on Australian pensioners, but they are not prepared to show the courage to tell Australia's high-income earners, 'It's time to pay you fair share.'

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, what a gob-smacking performance from the member for McMahon! This topic was supposed to be about a fair and sustainable plan for Australia's future, but all we heard about was Labor's plan for a new tax. That is all we get from Labor. What are they doing in opposition? Are they congratulating each other that they are the shadow ministers for something or other? They are not coming up with any ideas in this year of the big ideas. We just heard the shadow Treasurer—the person who aspires to be managing the levers of our economy and our capacity to fund essential works and services for our nation—tease us that he may have come up with something that looked like a fair and sustainable plan for Australia's future. Yet all we heard was Labor's big idea—a new tax. They want to reach into the superannuation savings—if in case of fiscal danger, break glass and pinch people's superannuation retirement funds to prop up their inability to manage the budget and articulate any kind of plan for the future of our country.

What a vivid contrast! There is no preparedness whatsoever from Labor to recognise the debt and deficit trajectory they had hard-wired our nation into. They have no shame in ignoring the circumstances they have left this government to repair and renew opportunity and hope for the future. There is no acknowledgement whatsoever that it is this government that has a plan. It has a plan for economic recovery—to boost jobs and participation and to energise enterprise in small business. Did you hear one positive or constructive idea? No, all you got was the member for McMahon—who is now known as 'Bowen of Blah Blah'—go on with this torrent of words to torment the ears of everybody in the chamber. Could you get one single, coherent idea or even something that masqueraded as a plan? No, it was just a 'cunning plan', to use Baldrick's term, to reach into the pockets of superannuants to prop up Labor's inability to manage the budget.

So what have we been doing? Well, our plan is about repairing our economic circumstances. It is about, as a nation, fronting up to our responsibility to those in the future. We should pay our way; there is nothing fair about gifting debt, deficit and the burden to fund today's works and services to future generations. That is not fair; that is intergenerational theft. Labor cannot even confront the idea that it has caused this financial challenge, which it has now left to the Abbott coalition government to deal with. It is left to us to get the economy and the budget of the nation back on track. That is at the heart of our plan: paying our way, providing scope for improved opportunities for the future, and promising that we will do what is needed to deliver the great promise of our country that the next generation will have it better than we had it. If we left things on Labor's setting, we would be the first generation to deny the next generation that great promise. What is fair about that?

You see these Labor people opposite; where are their ideas, other than one plan? It is a plan that they have to rollout and bump the numbers up over a decade just so it gets the 'whoa' reaction from the journalists. They cannot even manage to work within the financial estimates. They need the whistle factor, and the only way that they can do that is roll it out 10 years ahead. What is it? It is a plan that Labor talked about when they were in government, but they did not have the wit to actually implement it, because the consequences go well beyond what they are saying would be the impact on those self-funded retirees in our economy.

Let us think about those self-funded retirees. We saw from the Intergenerational report that right now only one in six retirees are fully self-funded—that is, are genuinely independent. Labor thought 'Well, that's okay'. On the policy settings that they left behind, by 2050, after three generations of compulsory superannuation, do you know what the numbers look like? One in six; it does not change at all. The policy settings, which Labor have put in place to relieve some of the financial burden on future generations, were making no contribution whatsoever. What we have said is that, if people put aside and provide for their own retirement, put their own resources into their retirement nest egg, and take responsibility for their own retirement, it is a bit rich to see those resources as a raid opportunity to pickpocket to prop up the budget. That is what Labor want to do.

Our view, in order to ensure sustainability, is to make sure that income support is targeted to people who genuinely need their income supported. That is a difficult decision. That is being responsible. That is recognising the role of the taxpayer in funding income support, by making sure that income support goes to people who genuinely need it. We have a range of other measures in the budget—not to see expenditures drop like a lead balloon—but to tackle the fact that, under Labor, expenditures were taking off like a jet fighter and the revenue could not keep up. We are saying 'dial that back'. We see growth in key areas of our role and responsibilities of government: more funding for health, more funding for education, an adequate and responsive safety net for those who need our help, and a reprioritisation of scarce taxpayer resources to where they are needed so that we can actually get the economy going and create the jobs and opportunities for the future. That is a sustainable plan. This is that plan.

This is a plan that does not have as its ambition handcuffing people to welfare. That is not the ambition that Australians have. They want the dignity of work—the opportunity to improve their circumstances, to provide for their own needs and, through that, build the momentum for a good, dignified quality of life in this great country that we are blessed to the citizens in. This is a plan that says fix the budget; $58.6 billion is where Labor are currently behind the budget task. They cannot fix it; they are adding to the problem. In those thought bubbles masquerading as the Leader of the Opposition's budget reply speech, he added another $6.6 billion to the already $52 billion of budget black hole that Labor have created by denying savings that they even campaigned on in government, yet now will not support. Where we are making adjustments to live affordably within our means, Labor are saying 'No, no, we can't do that; that's not right' in order to play to their various interest groups and to not really tackle the challenges that we face. Labor are $58.6 billion behind and they have the hide to come in here and talk about budget repair.

The member for McMahon was shadow Treasurer for about five minutes and he did not manage to mention that in his bio, but he has fixed that now. The member for McMahon failed to talk about getting the right environment in place to support enterprise job creation, to energise enterprise in small business and to put in place the right incentives so that those looking for work have that opportunity to work. You know where work is most likely to be found for those looking to get their first job or those who have been out of work for some time and are looking to return to the economy? It is not in the big corporates—the big Labor, big union, big government, big business chat fest that they love. No, it is not in that space. It is in the small businesses. It is small businesses, it is family or farming enterprises, and it is those entrepreneurial people right across our continent that are creating economic life and vitality in their community. That is where the opportunities come from. That is why that is our plan: target, support, encourage and incentivise enterprising men and women to do what they do best, and that is have a go and turn an idea and ambition into economic opportunity and action. Our plan, through our incentives, is to reward entrepreneurship with a company tax cut for small businesses, taking it to where it has not been for half a century. The tax rate has not been lower for 49 years. That is a good measure.

Labor forgets that two-thirds of small businesses are not incorporated. Labor had a thought bubble on budget night. Do you know why it is a thought bubble? Labor briefed the Leader of the Opposition's speech around. By early afternoon there was no mention of small business in his speech—none. Then somebody thought: 'Gee, you can't do that; you've already got a reputation when it comes to pies and small business, and the only small business you've ever got up close to is the one that you've picketed.' So there was a little add in. The little add in was: 'Let's try and trump what the government's doing. Not one 1½ per cent, let's go five!' It had a familiar ring to it because that is what they promised in 2010. What happened? Absolutely nothing—that is probably not true: they printed a whole lot of newsletters praising themselves for what they had done and then did not do it. They stooged small business again; they came up with an idea that ignored two-thirds of them.

What they needed to do was simply turn their mind to the government's jobs and small business package: a $5.5 billion investment in a fair, sustainable, robust economy that delivers the chance for people to secure work and for enterprising people to get ahead. It is a package to support and energise a thriving economy that can make the best of the opportunities which are in abundance for our country and our people. That is a plan. This is the plan. The best thing that Labor can do is stop kidding themselves and the Australian public that they care about jobs other their own. They should stop kidding the Australian public that there is some other interest group—other than the unions—that they come in here and spruik for. This is about the future. This is a plan. Labor did not have a plan other than a 'cunning plan' for a new tax, and that is their idea of the future.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a real pleasure to speak on this very important subject of sustainability for our economy. Sustainability is a concept that is often at the heart of most policies that we derive in this place—policies on the environment, economy, health, industry, energy, superannuation and, very importantly, on budgetary settings as well. It is timely that we raise this issue of sustainability and the need to have a plan for the country, because the government does not have one.

That becomes clear when you look at the big numbers, let alone the little numbers, that are contained in the budget. On the really big numbers, what has this government actually done in this budget compared to its budget 12 months ago? In 12 months, Joe Hockey and the Liberal government have added $35 billion worth of deficit. We have gone from a $17 billion deficit—that is $17 billion with a big minus in front of it—with those opposite saying it was the worst thing that this country could ever possibly have in terms of supporting small business and the economy, and driving the economy. What does the government do to make it better? It does not make it better. It makes it worse. It increases the budget deficit to $35.1 billion, and that is not since they won office but since their last budget—since Joe Hockey's last budget. There is more debt. Debt was a key feature; I think everyone can remember 'debt and deficit'. There were only three-word slogans and cliches and fluffy statements. That one rings in my head pretty loudly.

What has the government done in this budget compared to the last budget? According to the budget papers, last year's budget debt was $246 billion, but this year's budget debt is $285 billion. Just 'do the math': it is more. In fact, it is a lot more. The government, in 12 months, has added to the bad position of its own last budget. Top job! They have added more debt. They have made a bigger deficit and added more debt—not since they came to government but since the last budget. You would think that in two budgets, surely, they could at least start to redress it, halt it and maybe start to make it look a little bit better. That was certainly the promise, but it certainly has not happened.

On the deficit side, the budget shows they have doubled the deficit. On the debt side, they have added $39 billion more worth of debt. Where is all this money coming from? Who is paying for this? If it is debt and deficit, the government must have borrowed more money. Where else could they have got the money? It is certainly not coming from revenues. It is certainly not coming from economic growth. It is not coming from small business, confidence or anywhere else in the economy. Where is it coming from? In fact, under this government, at the last budget, real GDP growth was three per cent. It is reasonable; it is not great. You would want it to be more. What is it this year? Joe Hockey and the Liberal government have done such a great job that it has fallen even lower! It is almost at depression levels of 2.75 per cent.

What really interests me about the mantra of government ministers, as we heard from the Minister for Small Business earlier, is that, from listening to them, they are actually spending more on everything. Every single minister that stands up here says that they are spending more in their budget areas. They are quite proud of it, as you would be if you were the minister for widgets and you could say, 'We are spending more on widgets.' But they cannot all be spending more, because it does not add up. If every single Liberal minister says, 'We're spending more, more, more,' where are the savings coming from? Because there do not seem to be any savings. Hang on—I just found some! If you were a Liberal government, where would you look for savings? 'Let's look at low-income Australians first.' Where else are you going to find savings!

When the government decided that they were going to take money off people to help them spend, spend, spend as a big-taxing, big-spending government, who do they attack first? They attack low-income Australians, over two million working women who earn less than $37,000 a year. They take a 'measly' $500 off each one of those. Five hundred dollars is a lot of money to a low-income earner—not so much money to the government. Why would you just attack low-income Australians?

Why would you go even further and say, 'Absolutely never, ever—no adverse changes to superannuation'? We are now in this ridiculous territory where the government say they are never going to make any changes at all to anything to do with super, but they are quite happy to delay by many, many years the superannuation guarantee, which helps ordinary working Australians, going from 9.5 per cent today—which the government did not support—to 12 per cent in the future. We all know that this is part of having a sustainable economy, a sustainable pension system and a sustainable way of making sure that our economy continues to grow. As for whether this government is sustainable, it is not. It is spend, spend, spend, and it attacks low-income earners at the same time.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Listening to the member for Oxley, it is like a script for a new movie called Weekday at Bernie's. 'There's a whole lot of money embezzled; we'll just say debt and deficit racked up,' not embezzled but racked up. Then somebody passes away and everybody tries to make out as though it has not happened and they just keep going as per normal. It is a new movie, Weekday at Bernie'sbecause, if the member for Oxley has not been sitting there asleep since September 2013, he would know that we do have a crisis of confidence in this country, left by Labor. However, we are getting on with the job of fixing that crisis of confidence, and the budget released at the start of May has done just that. It has calmed the waters. It has given people back the absolute confidence that they need to invest in small business and jobs, and to get on with the job of paying back the debt and deficit legacy of Labor.

We will not be lectured by Labor on fairness or sustainability—just like we would not take political advice from Kyle Sandilands! We have just heard from Labor members sounding a little bit like that shock jock. We will not succumb to the lefties on Twitter who tell us how to run this country, because we know from going into small businesses, talking to family groups, pushing our shopping trolleys around the supermarkets—in those IGA supermarkets, which are great little businesses—that the people who have trusted us with government have confidence that we are doing the right thing by this nation, paying back the debt and deficit left by Labor.

That is how good government operates. We do not operate on knee-jerk reactions like Labor did on 7 June 2011 when they shut down the live cattle trade. Labor talks ad hoc and at length about NATSEM modelling. It did not even include the 2015 budget. He who pays the piper calls the tune, and it is rubbish in rubbish out. If you want material out of particular modelling, pay for it, commission it, get it like Labor did. Then you will get the answers that you want. Push briefing, push modelling.

Labor needs to get on with the job of helping us to pass our budget because if they do that they will be doing the right thing by this nation, putting in place the sorts of things that our country needs—small business needs. We heard the health minister today making medicines more affordable with a package of measures transforming the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. That is a good thing. Just signed, or in the process of being signed, is the 6th Community Pharmacy Agreement. The 47 chemists around the Riverina are very happy with that, let me tell you.

What do we get from the other side? Labor wants to reintroduce the carbon tax. Labor wants to introduce a mining tax that hits some mining companies but not others. Labor wants to tax superannuation. Labor will reopen our borders. We are there. We are supporting welfare to work. We are giving people the dignity of a job. That is what good governments do. Our $5½ billion small business package includes a suite of measures that will inject confidence and boost momentum right throughout the country.

Today we have heard that we are getting on with the job, with the tax depreciation measures for farmers announced in the 2015 budget being brought forward to 1 July this year. That is great. On 12 May, the federal Treasurer announced that $70 million would be allocated for accelerated depreciation claims for fencing and water infrastructure and fodder storage, but the move was scheduled for July 2016. So the good Nationals, of which you are one, Deputy Speaker, lobbied to have that brought forward because we know that regional Australia is one of the driving forces—

Dr Leigh interjecting—

The member for Fraser would not understand that, because he would not know a farmer if he fell over one. But we know that the confidence is out there in regional Australia. They grow the food and fibre to feed our nation and many others besides. We just heard from the small business minister. He is getting on with the job of getting through those measures that small business needs, such as the tax write-offs and the incentive to employ people. Labor had six small business ministers in six years. They did not understand the engine room of the economy. We do. That is because we have been in small business. All Labor cares about is debt, deficit and unions.

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

I rise to speak on the incomprehensible stubbornness and ignorance of this government when it comes to superannuation. Everyone in this House and around Australia can see the ideology of this government is essentially to protect the rich and damn the poor. There can be no stronger evidence of this than the Abbott government's persistent pursuit of tax concessions for the wealthy and their vicious cuts to pensions for battlers.

As the system currently stands, we are seeing an increasing disparity, and that is unsustainable. The lucky few with potentially millions in their superannuation accounts pay nothing on their earnings once they have hit 60 years of age. The government has collected no net revenue from superannuation in recent years, yet it feels cutting the pension to struggling seniors is the best way to achieve a surplus. Even audits and reports commissioned by this government highlight the acute inequality in our superannuation system due to the disproportionate tax concessions offered to the wealthy. The Financial System Inquiry says:

… the majority of tax concessions accrue to the top 20 per cent of income earners … These tax concessions are unlikely to reduce future Age Pension expenditure significantly.

This will give high-income individuals larger concession than required to achieve the objectives of the system. The government's own Murray inquiry states that badly targeted superannuation concessions mean higher taxes on ordinary mums and dads. Even the Commission of Audit, that woeful report that wants to punish Australia with $100,000 degrees and GP taxes says that super concessions are unfair.

Is it because the members opposite want to protect their own hefty nest eggs? It is okay for them to reap the benefits of Labor, and let us not forget that superannuation is a proud Labor program. Let us not let the hardworking families of Australia be punished by it, because the inequity is astounding. Remember, the member for Warringah, the now Prime Minister, standing in this place saying that compulsory superannuation is a con. To give you an insight into the wonderful thinking of the Prime Minister, I quote from Hansard on 25 September 1995 when he said:

Any money you put in is your money and you are certain to get back less than you put in.

That is just astounding, and I think it shows how badly the government are going. I want to keep calling you the opposition because that is where you are going to go back to very shortly. I shows how bad they are that they get a guy who says that superannuation is going to cost you money to have and make him their leader. Meanwhile, I am sure the would-be leader sitting over there just shakes his head quite often, thinking, 'Where did it all go wrong?' It sounds like one of those songs from The Muppet Movie.

Our plans for the superannuation system make it more sustainable by targeting the superannuation tax concessions to those who need them most. We will lower the threshold of the 15 per cent high-income superannuation charge from $300,000 to $250,000 to better align the tax concession. We will ensure that earnings of more than $75,000 during the retirement phase are taxed at a concessional rate of 15 per cent instead of being tax free. Labor plans to make the superannuation system better for those who need the support the most, and we have seen that today.

We have seen the small business minister stand up here like the little Energizer bunny, jumping around saying, 'The government are putting income support to people who genuinely need it.' So what did they do? They took away tax for those who have multimillions of dollars in their superannuation and put a tax back on people who are earning less than $37,500 a year. That is their way and that is their plan. It is the ideological way they do things. They want to tax the poor and help the rich. It is appalling. What it means is that people who can least afford it are the ones who are being hit the hardest. We see members opposite smiling over there. They think it is going great guns. Auntie Jean is happy, but do not worry about the parliamentary cleaners. Do not worry about the Defence Force personnel. They promised to increase their wages and still have not done it.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What did you do for Defence people?

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

What do we do for Defence people? We give Defence people what they want. What have you done? I would ask you across the opposite side, but I will give you time to be able to decipher things and maybe one day you will learn. The measures that this government have put into the budget have shown that the only thing they believe in consistently is taxing those who can least afford it. Former Prime Minister Keating said:

You don't expect conservative governments to believe in much but, at least, you expect them to believe in thrift.

Well, this government does not even go that far. What they have done through their cuts to the pension is to make sure that 3.7 million pensioners are $80 a week worse off by the end of the decade. It is an absolute disgrace that this government has no plan for a fair and sustainable future for our country. (Time expired)

Wyatt Roy (Longman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I picked up this proposal from the shadow Treasurer, in which he talks about the plan for a fair and sustainable future for our country, and I thought, 'We are just going to go back and forward with one of these ridiculous political arguments where the Labor Party in all of their speeches say that it does not matter really about what we hand over to next generation.' In this place we could keep going back and forward like this—Labor members could yell and interject and we could beat our chests on this side—or we could actually just talk about the future of Australia and what we are facing. It is a big decision for us in this place: are we actually going to talk about what we are facing for the next generation of Australians, or are we going to stand in here and chest-beat and laugh and point and go through this ridiculous political cycle, all for our own political survival today, and hand over to the next generation of Australians a country that ultimately will have less opportunity? If we cannot meet the challenges that we face as a country collectively, Labor or Liberal, that is what we are going to hand over to the next generation of Australians.

Let me try to remove the partisan politics from this matter, Mr Deputy Speaker. Let me tell you how I see it. The next generation of Australians will inherit a country that has a significantly greater debt burden—that is just a reality. Sure, when we left government last time the books were very much in the black and when we came to government they were very much in the red, but if we hand over a nation with that much debt to the next generation of Australians that will mean less money to invest in schools, in roads and in hospitals and less money to invest in education and training opportunities for the next generation of Australians. We have to be able to deal with that debt burden. It also means that, if we cannot deal with that, the next generation of Australians will pay more tax than this generation does.

There is also a demographic reality that we have to face at some point as a nation. Sure we can jump up and down and the Labor members can make political points and the coalition members can make political points, but at some point we have to realise as a country that our demography will change our society and we have to be able to deal with that.

This is the Productivity Commission report talking—not me as a coalition member, not those interjecting Labor members but the Productivity Commission: today, there are 7½ Australians working for every Australian that is not. By 2050, that will be only 2½ Australians working for every Australian that is not. So when my generation gets close to the retirement stage—and we have talked a bit about the retirement stage—there will be only 2½ people working for every person that is not. Today, the system has 7½. We need to be able to do something to ensure that the next generation inherits a country which has the same opportunity or, preferably, more opportunity than our country has today.

Just from the demographic reality, if we do nothing, which is what the Labor Party is currently proposing, the next generation of Australians will pay 21 per cent more tax than the current generation of Australians—just to fund the demographic change. What is fair, what is sustainable, about saying, for our own political survival as members of parliament: 'We will take cheap political decisions today so that the next generation can pick up the bill and the next generation of Australians will inherit that debt. The next generation of Australians will pay at least 21 per cent more tax than we currently do'? There is nothing fair and sustainable about that as a country.

We have to grow the productive capacity of the economy. We have to have the next generation of Australians in better jobs, earning higher real wages so that ultimately they can pay more tax. That is why we on this side of the parliament believe that ultimately the wealth and prosperity of our nation comes from the Australian people, not the government. If we keep putting the government back at the centre of our society and we keep restricting the ability of our citizens to go out there to find and to grow those new jobs of the future then we are going to lose. There is a demographic reality. We are going to lose. That is why we on this side of the chamber will do everything in our power to free our citizens, lower taxes and give them those equal opportunities to go out there and find their jobs, and actually have a country that is productive, that is outward looking and understands that, as a billion people come into the middle class in Asia, we have enormous opportunity to sell them the products that will create the future jobs our country needs.

Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I actually hate following the member for Longman; I always do. I much prefer following you, Deputy Speaker, for a range of reasons but particularly on the basis that when I follow him I feel old and when I follow you I do not feel quite so old. But what I have to say—

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the honourable member should withdraw that distinctly ungallant remark.

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

I appreciate the comments from the minister. I think we will take it in good humour without reflecting on the member for Bruce.

Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Rather than withdraw, I will expand: I will say that one speaks of wisdom and one has wisdom, and that is something also to remember. The member for Longman raised some interesting issues but I think that, at the end of the day, it is a political chamber and it is a chamber where we try and debate issues and we try and do it sometimes with good humour. He raises some very important points but, once again, at the end of the day, there was no plan.

What is a plan? A plan is a detailed proposal for doing or achieving something, and I think that needs to be understood as a starting point.

When we look at this government, what we have seen over the years is many plans. Remember, before the last election there was a plan. That plan involved the fact that there would be no cuts to education, no cuts to health, no cuts to the ABC, no cuts to SBS and no changes to the pension. There were a whole bunch of things that were ruled out, because that was their plan. There were leaflets that were glossy; there were a number of pages that talked about a plan for jobs. That just has not happened.

Then we had the election, and after the election we had a budget. People remember that budget from last year. Those opposite might hope that people have forgotten but, no, they still remember. That was another plan to say that we will all be ruined, that it is hell on wheels. To deal with that, they said: 'We're going to have to cut, cut, cut and go in hard.' That would be only on some people, only on some sectors of society, only on those who are down at the bottom end. We saw a whole range of claims and commitments in that earlier plan, but they all went west.

So we had another plan. That plan went so well with the Australian community—and, frankly, with the government's backbench—that earlier this year there was a need to find another plan. That was a plan to save a leadership. That plan, as we saw come to fruition with respect to the most recent budget, was based on a whole series of premises and commitments that were almost completely at odds with the rhetoric of last year. We have a Treasurer who thought he was—in the first part of this term—Winston Churchill. He would stand there with cigar in one hand and brandy in the other and talk about the need to 'fight them on the beaches' and the fact that we were facing an international existential threat. And off we go. Never have so many owed so much to so few.

Now what do we have? We have Winnie the Pooh. We have a situation of 'off looking for the honey pot': he is a bit slow. It is all okay, life is fine but, at the end of the day, not much else is going to happen.

An opposition member: Who is Tigger?

You could look across there and say 'Who is Tigger?' Tigger jumps around. Tigger is frenetic. He is energetic. I think he has some interest in communications, actually! I think he does.

An honourable member: Eeyore!

Eeyore? There is a selection. The owl, I think, was probably the good member for Berowra—but the owl is not so much in vogue these days.

An opposition member: Who is Piglet?

As to Piglet, I will leave that to others—I have lost a fair bit of weight, so I hope they are not thinking it is me. The point is this: there are so many plans. The plans change. They cannot hold a tune. If this Treasurer and this Prime Minister were actually about holding a tune, having a consistent message, a consistent speech—they think a jingle is an opera. They have no capacity to hold a line for any longer than a 30-second ad. That is their problem.

A plan requires a commitment. It requires commitments on what you will do, and then you have to stick to it and work through it over time. This government seems to find a new plan every other day. And because they find a new plan every other day we all know, on this side of the House, there will have to be another plan for the leadership in a matter of weeks, because they cannot hold the plan together. (Time expired)

Lucy Wicks (Robertson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am so pleased to follow the member for Bruce, because he is the only member on that side of the House to talk about the fact that this side of the House is the only side that has a plan for Australia's future. Unfortunately, the member for Bruce does not seem to know the plans that Labor has—because Labor has no plans.

The people of Australia voted for our plans. The people of the Central Coast voted for our plan, a sensible plan to take Australia forward, a sensible plan to fix Labor's debt and deficit, a sensible plan to stop the boats, and a sensible plan to deliver hope and more opportunities for people not only on the Central Coast but also right around Australia. They voted for that plan. The interesting thing is that we do not just have a plan—we have been in government for just nearly two years and we are already delivering on that plan.

We are not only delivering on the plan to make sure that we do have jobs for the future and more opportunities for Australians but also we are getting on with the job of fixing the debt, the deficit and the legacy left to us by members opposite. We have been reminded of their legacy—and the mess that we inherited from them—many times in this House. I want to talk about my electorate, because the Central Coast is probably the best region of the best country in the world and I would love to spend some time talking about our plan for the Central Coast. But before I do that, I want to put on record the coalition government's plan.

In just two years we have created a quarter of a million new jobs. Jobs are now growing at three times the pace than under Labor and now we have, as part of this year's budget, another plan to help small businesses get ahead and have a go. This $5.5 billion growing jobs and small-business package is part of making sure that we have a strong plan for Australia's future, benefiting more than 95 per cent of Australian businesses, bringing a small-business company tax cut to the lowest it has been in almost 50 years and, for two years, giving all small businesses an immediate tax reduction on any asset they buy costing up to $20,000.

I was so pleased to hear the Minister for Small Business in the House yesterday talking up the benefits this will have for small businesses in my community of the Central Coast, and he raised examples in the House of how our small-business package will benefit those people. This is a small-business minister who really has his finger on the pulse. Why are we so is focused on small business? Why are we so focused on supporting business? It is because it is not government that creates jobs, it is business that creates jobs. We want to make sure that small businesses can grow to become much larger businesses. If they grow, they thrive, they prosper and they succeed—and they provide even more jobs and opportunities for people, in my electorate, on the Central Coast.

Jobs is one of the biggest issues that we have on the Central Coast. In my electorate nearly one in three people—30,000 people—on the Central Coast leave early in the morning and return home late at night to their families. I talk about this all the time in this chamber, because it is so important and the people of my electorate talk to me about it every day. We went to the election with a growth plan not only for Australia but also for the Central Coast.

I am pleased to say that so many of the commitments we outlined in our growth plan have been confirmed in this year's budget. This includes the 600 new jobs for Gosford with the relocation of the ATO to a purpose-built building—on time and on budget. There is $7 million to help revitalise Gosford and to stimulate the local economy through investing in a building called Kibbleplex to help bring more people and more opportunity into the heart of Gosford. And, of course, committing to NorthConnex. For 50 years this was talked about; only our government is delivering it, and this is going to be done by the end of 2019, creating 8,700 jobs and cutting off half an hour each day in round-trip commute for people on the Central Coast going down the freeway to Sydney every day.

But something we have not talked about so much in this House just yet but I intend to talk a lot about is the impact of our $10 million commitment to the Somersby Industrial Park. When we see the upgrade of that very important industrial park, we will actually see the creation of around 3,000 jobs, according to economic modelling. Those are 3,000 new jobs created as a result of a very important investment in the Central Coast because this is a government that believes that we not only have a plan for Australia's future but are delivering for the Central Coast.

Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to echo the sentiments of the member for Bruce in terms of the planning that we have seen from this government since it came to government. As the member for Bruce said, they have had lots of plans but have not stuck to any of those plans. We will probably see a new plan. But I have sensed that there is one consistent line that is coming through from this government, and it is a line that distresses me.

Last year we had the Treasurer out there with his lifters and his leaners, showing his ignorance, showing his ability to divide this country, and today we had the member for Cook up there doing the same with rhetoric around the notion—the clear implication—that families in receipt of the family tax benefit part B are somehow not working, that to a family they are leaners. That was the implication I heard today and yesterday in question time.

That is the problem, because that plan is not going to work either. In my electorate, where 18,000 families are in receipt of the FTB, most of them are working. In fact, many of them are two-income families who are still in receipt of the FTB because they have modest incomes. I know it is not something that the Sydney North Shore frontbench over there understand, but many people work for a minimum wage—although those over there do know where they are when they want to hit them and take away their superannuation contribution. They know where to find them then.

But I do have another message, and I bring this message from home in Lalor today. This government's plans are not coming to fruition, because they are finding it difficult to stick to a plan, but that message, that attempt to divide this nation is mean, sneaky, tricky and will backfire. In my electorate many of those small business people—the small business people that the other side talk about and talk about saving this country—in my electorate are actually family tax benefit recipients. I want to drive that point home. It will not divide this nation. It will backfire as we unravel the detail of this budget and we find the people who are going to be impacted most. In my electorate you are going to find that those people are the same people—the people that the member for Cook, the minister, tried to demonise in this chamber today in question time. He tried to sell a line to the press gallery upstairs. He tried to sell a line that people who are getting support through the FTB are somehow leaners, not worthy, not contributors. In my community they contribute plenty.

Where we live—where I live—we do not have a lot of spare cash and we do not have many families who can afford to make huge personal contributions to their superannuation. That is why Labor's low-income superannuation input was so important and why it was so unfair that this government cut it out. It was incredibly unfair. Now, when Labor comes up with a plan on superannuation—a plan on superannuation that certainly meets the fairness test in my electorate, a plan that would mean that we will not lose $45 billion over the next seven years by freezing the superannuation guarantee or delay the increase in the superannuation guarantee and would help families in my electorate build superannuation so that they may not be reliant on the pension as they get older.

There seems to be an incredible unfairness at the core of this government. Families in my electorate on $65,000 stand to lose up to $6,000 on this government's changes, and yet high-income retirees with $2 million in their superannuation—don't touch them! They cannot be asked to make a contribution. It is unfair at the core.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is nice to be able to speak on this motion—incredible motion as it is with the suggestion of 'the failure of the government to come up with a fair and sustainable plan'. We should go back to the end of 2007, back in the days when there was black ink on the budget papers of this country. Then we move forward six years—the six years that have evaporated in the memory of the Labor Party, with those wonderful projects like the pink batts, the cash for clunkers and the fabulous expenses that they installed in this country, taking net assets and driving them into the red. And yet, when we are here now, it is as if all that never happened.Labortalk about fairness. What about fairness with respect to giving a better future to the children of this country? As a parent I want—indeed, as do, I am sure, all members in this chamber who are parents—my kids to have a better life than I have. I have a better life than my parents had. They had a better life than their parents had and, so far, this country just keeps on moving forward. That is why everyone wants to come here and it is why people really see it as a country in the world that they would like to come to.

But as the member for Longman put so well, far better than I ever could, what we are now facing is handing on to future generations, whether they are up there in the galleries or anywhere around this country, debt levels that they have never seen before. That debt gets paid for by either higher taxes or a reduction in services. There is only one side trying to do something about that, trying to build the productive capacity.

The other side of politics, the Labor Party, have taken the easy road. They can just go back and say to every group around the country: 'You don't have to do anything; you don't have to bear the burden.' They do not mention who imposed the burden, which was them. They do not mention who imposed the debt, who drove it down with bad policies and big expectations. No, they do not mention that part. They basically are leaving all this debt for future generations to cop. I do not call that fair at all.

However, here on this side we are talking about a productive capacity increase. We are talking about benefits for small business—the multipliers, the job creators of this country—to move beyond the mining boom and those sorts of things, so we can actually create something bigger. What people need most in their life is a job, a support mechanism for their families. The future that the other side want seems to be nothing but welfare and self-interest and we are moving beyond that. We are saying to people: 'It's about jobs, it's about the opportunity to improve your country and things for your family. Through our small business package and our support for child care around this country, to enable people to move into work, these are the benefits that will actually happen and are the things that will build productive capacity all around the country.'