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

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

The Government hitting the household budgets of middle Australia

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—

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

The Abbott government will never do the right thing by Australian families. They simply do not get it. Barely a month ago we saw the second Hockey-Abbott budget, containing all the old unfairness of the first budget—rebranded, rebadged, repackaged. It had a new paint job and a new slogan, but it could not hide the harm that this budget will do to millions of Australian families. This is one of those budgets which is best described as: the further away you are from it, the better it looks, and the closer you get to it, the uglier it looks.

John Howard had core promises and non-core promises, if we remember. The non-core promises were the ones, obviously, that he never wanted to keep. But Tony Abbott has now updated the core/non-core promise falsity with pre-election/post-election promises. Pre-election, it is all things to all people; post-election, it is, 'Will you leave me alone? I'm just too busy putting the boot into you.' Of course he has broken pre-election promises, but now he has started to break his post-election promises. It is a lazy second budget because it passes the heavy lifting of reforming the Australian economy onto the states. We see $50 billion in cuts to hospitals. Families get sick, families need hospitals. They are taking the money away from the states and they are basically discharging their own responsibility to stand up for Australian families.

This $50 billion cut from hospitals, which Labor will articulate to every hospital in the coming weeks and months, is matched by a $30 billion cut to schools. What happens with the school cuts is that they cut opportunities for families as well. But their broken promises that are hurting families are not just $50 billion from hospitals and $30 billion from schools. There are 8.4 million Australians who are having their superannuation increases frozen—not once, not twice but three times by this government. It is stomach-churning to listen to this government say they will never do anything adverse to superannuation. It is the epitome of the big lie to get a lecture from people who have never fought to increase superannuation, never tried to improve people's conditions. They have simply frozen superannuation at 9½ per cent. Every year this government is in power, every year they freeze superannuation, they are damaging the retirement incomes of millions of Australians.

Not only have they broken their promises with their lazy budget and passed all the pain onto the states, in hospitals and in schools, and not only have they frozen the superannuation of 8.4 million Australians, but what is the mechanism that these unscrupulous operators in the government have adopted? They are using the Greens political party to implement their wishes. They are working with the Greens political party. I do not necessarily give all the blame to the government. The Greens political party obviously were so pleased that they could have a meeting with Tony Abbott—or maybe they did not even get to meet with him; maybe they had Eric Abetz and George Brandis inflicted on them, although it does defy logic that they could convince anyone—they were rewarded by having the time in which people can write submissions to the taxation review extended by six weeks. They could not believe their luck. Someone was talking to the Greens and they were so grateful, they said, 'Where do we sign?'

We have seen their attack on family payments and the chaos of the hour before question time. That is an hour in the life of the nation we will never get back. Again this government steals time from Australians with their own inadequate plans. We have offered to work with the government on some of the savings propositions, but this government said 'no' to our shadow minister, because the Pavlovian response of the Minister for Social Services—who is so busy polishing his credentials for leadership—he cannot even see someone smarter than him, or deal with it—

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

Look behind you, Bill!

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

Talking about 'smart', I would not say anything, Member for Bass! I am sorry; please come back! They are precious over there, aren't they? So what happens today is that ScoMo comes back with a plan which our person suggested to him the other day. But the real problem is not their chaos; it is their broken promises. It is what the Prime Minister still says. There is one thing I admire about this Prime Minister: he sticks to his line no matter what is happening. Actually, he doesn't, does he; I take that back. I was just thinking about paid parental leave then. He says, 'We the coalition government are not going to repair our budget this year at the expense of your family budget.' None other than T. Abbott, member for Warringah, leader of Her Majesty's government in Australia, said, 'We the coalition government are not going to repair our budget this year at the expense of your family budget. That is a lie and it is still a lie, and it remains a grievous lie.

This coalition government are out there claiming the budget is good news for families. If they think this is good news, I would hate to see what they think bad news is. NATSEM analysis shows that nearly one in two Australian families will be worse off. That is 1.4 million working families. We put it on the record and we challenge the government to contradict it with their own evidence—although, this is a party who does not like windmills, so I do not know what evidence they will ever rely upon!

Mr Nikolic interjecting—

I'll tell you what NATSEM says, Sunshine: eight out 10 families with children, earning below $75,000 will lose out overall. Understand the verb I used there was 'earning'. This is a government who likes to blame everyone on a pension as some sort of welfare cheat.

An honourable member interjecting—

I would say they are the friends of the people who are earning. How can this be the case if eight out of 10 families earning less than $75,000 lose out overall? Before some of the people in the government start protesting about these facts, let me tell you the people that we are describing: carers, teachers, police, firefighters, paramedics, social workers. So Labor's message to Australian families is clear: Joe Hockey might think that you don't have good jobs—a good job being enough to buy a house in Sydney. Scott Morrison might choose to denigrate you. But what we can promise you is that Labor will not denigrate the people who are working hard. We value what you do and we think you deserve support for the extra costs of raising a child. Slashing family budgets for Australians already in work is not an incentive. It is not a plan for the future. It is punishment. It is a betrayal of people doing their best to raise children, build community, pay taxes and make ends meet.

I turn to some of the families who are so affected and the detailed matters. Families with newborns: what is happening is that 90,000 women are having reduced support through parental leave changes that this government is now advocating. This means 90,000 Australian women will lose up to $11½ thousand that they would otherwise get, because of this government's changes; 45,000 women will lose part of their paid parental leave; and 34,000 women will lose the entire $11½ thousand. But it does not stop with families and newborns. There are families with toddlers. The government's childcare changes will push some families out of the childcare system altogether. Analysis by Goodstart Early Learning shows that as many as 100,000 children will be worse off. These are the numbers which Labor are concerned about. Families will be up to $4,600 a year worse off. Yet the government is willing to spend the equivalent of $22,000 a day on advertising before parents see any change in their childcare subsidy from this government. Then, of course, there are families with children at school. A family on a single income of $65,000 will be $6,000 a year worse off by 2018-19. A single mum with an income of $55,000 and two children will be $6,000 a year worse off by 2018-19. The family with two children and on a dual income of $60,000 will be nearly $4,000 a year worse off. What I promise the families of Australia is that you will not be the forgotten families of Australia under a Labor government. We will make families an issue. We will demonstrate to this government and we will carry the message every day between now and the election that the Australian people know an out-of-touch government when they see it. They don't like to be patronised. They don't like to be lied to. And they certainly don't like the attacks on families by this government.

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It has been a very bad week for this unpopular marginalised, fractured Labor Party—the party who, when they were in government, ripped $15 billion out of family tax benefits. The Leader of the Opposition was then the minister for employment when he took 60,000 single parents off the parenting payment. That is the record of the Labor Party when it comes to families. Our record in government is one of delivering more jobs, a higher standard of living, more infrastructure and getting the budget back under control.

We are very, very proud of this budget because this budget has delivered for families, it has delivered for small businesses and it has delivered for all Australians. Let us take the first key theme in this budget, which is around small business and jobs. What we have done by giving a tax cut to some two million small businesses, some 96 per cent of all businesses in Australia, is that we have set them off on a pathway to further growth and job creation. When we add that together with the tax cuts and also with what we have done with the instant asset write-off, we have seen business and consumer confidence substantially lift since the announcement of the budget.

The other point about our small business and jobs package, which was some $5.5 billion, is that we have focused on those young people who are neither in employment nor in education. We have partnered with important groups like the Brotherhood of St Laurence. We have put a $200 million package in play which will allow young people to work with an organisation such as the Brotherhood of St Laurence and help develop their skills so that they can get in front of an employer. If you look at youth unemployment it is over double what it is for unemployment in the rest of the nation. If you go to parts of Tasmania, you can have youth unemployment above 20 per cent. In parts of Queensland it is just below that. In parts of South Australia it can be above that. We want to target those younger people who are neither in education nor in employment and help them get a job.

We have come up with a work experience program where people on income support can get up to 25 hours a week for four weeks of work experience where the employer will be incentivised by the government. We have not forgotten those mature workers, those over the age of 50 who may be out of work and on income support. The Restart program will provide a $1,000 bonus—and we have accelerated the payment of that amount—to an employer where the employer will get an incentive to employ someone who has been out of work and is over the age of 50. This Restart program is all designed to stimulate job creation. When you look at our record on jobs and small businesses and compare that to the record of those opposite, when more than 500,000 jobs were lost in small business under the Labor Party's term in office, and they had a rotating ministerial line of small business ministers, some six ministers, and five in just 18 months.

Then you have also got our second key theme in this budget, which is about child care and families. What we have done is focus on the Productivity Commission's report into child care, which said that the focus should be on middle and lower income earners—because they are the ones who are going to be most sensitive to the level of support that they get from the government for child care—in order to help them get back into the workforce If we as a country can lift the number of women in the workforce to where Canada is at, which is some six points up from where we are today, we will see a $25 billion productivity dividend to the Australian economy. Some low- and middle-income families can get up to 85 per cent of their childcare costs met in terms of support from the government, and it is a sliding scale depending on their income. We believe some 240,000 Australian families will either enter the workforce for the first time or spend more time in the workforce due to the greater access they will get to childcare payments.

Then there is our nannies program, which is designed to help people who may not have traditional hours of work—nurses, police officers, people who work in emergency services and people who work in our fire brigades. They can access the nannies support program during the trial period and some 10,000 children will get ahead. We were able to finance universal access for four-year-olds in kindergarten. Labor never funded that project going forward. It is we who are helping Australian families through job creation in small business and our other employment schemes and through our big $3.5 billion childcare package.

Then there is the critical piece in this budget—getting the budget back into the black. If you can get the budget back into the black, you can spend less money on the interest payments on your debt and spend more money where it counts—on infrastructure, hospitals, schools and roads. Through the measures in this budget we have reduced government spending from some 3.5 per cent per annum, which we inherited—real spending growth—to some 1.5 per cent per annum going forward. We have been able to reduce the $48 billion budget deficit we inherited to some $35 billion this year, some $7 billion in three years time and hopefully a budget surplus over that. We believe we have got our budget forecasts in exactly the right position where they are consistent with where the Reserve Bank of Australia is also at. By virtue of those measures designed to get the budget back into the black we can start paying back Labor's debt. Debt under us will be some $110 billion less over the next decade than it would otherwise have been under Labor. That is very significant.

We were also able to find money in this budget for the PBS. There is more than $1.2 billion extra for new drugs, including cancer drugs, on the PBS. We were able to find more than $1 billion of new money for our national security agencies and for our defence forces as we try to fight the scourge of terrorism. We have put great emphasis on developing northern Australia. We saw an announcement this week but in the budget there were some $5 billion worth of concessional loans designed to build the infrastructure in our north so it can become the food bowl of Asia, create jobs and capitalise on the wonderful three free trade agreements that this government has been able to conclude, when the previous government was unsuccessful.

Let us look at the record in this budget of small business and job creation, of helping families through child care and of supporting the budget repair job. You can also add the important measure that we have concluded an agreement with the Greens on—to get the pension on a more sustainable footing. Some $2.4 billion worth of savings have been achieved. The Labor Party have become irrelevant to the negotiations because they did not want to touch the pension even though some 170,000 pensioners will be $30 a fortnight better off. I wonder if the member for Sydney and the member for Jagajaga will tell the pensioners in their electorates how they have said no to a $30 a fortnight increase in the pension. I wonder if the member for Sydney, the member for Jagajaga and the member for Bendigo, who is sitting quietly behind, will tell the people in their electorates of their shameful record in government of job losses, of higher debt and the fact that Australia fell behind the rest of the world. Will they tell the Australian people and the people in their electorates about their plan to raid their hard-earned superannuation savings? I doubt it. They have on the books to increase taxes on superannuation contributions and earnings. The member for McMahon put out a press release in 2013 saying that there would be no changes to super for five years and you have your own policy, which the Leader of the Opposition does not even know, to whack 400,000-plus people with extra taxes on super.

This government is extremely proud of what it has been able to achieve in its time in office. We have got the budget back on track and we have improved the livelihoods of Australian families, but there is still so much more to do.

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

That was actually one of the most delusional speeches I have heard in this place. This MPI debate is a great opportunity to talk about how this government has undermined conditions for families. At every stage of their lifecycle Australians have missed out. Literally from cradle to grave Australians are missing out because of the two budgets this government has brought down.

Think about paid parental leave. First the Prime Minister said, 'Over my dead body,' and then he came up with the most generous scheme that gives the highest amounts to people on the highest incomes. Now he has gone back to a scheme that has a maximum, a cap, of $18,000, rather than a minimum, as it was under Labor.

Let us look at the cuts to preschools and child care. Families are pitted against one another. One family is told that for them to benefit the family next door has to miss out. Kids will miss out because the most vulnerable kids will have their hours cut when it comes to child care. Schools: a $30 billion cut from schools. Our plan for fairer funding for schools that lifted the standard of all schools making every school in Australia a great school is gone. Thirty billion dollars has been taken out of schools across Australia; millions taken out of every school across Australia. The previous speaker spoke about jobs for young people. We have youth unemployment at a 16-year high, and successful programs like Youth Connections, which used to operate in all of the electorates of the members sitting opposite, keeping people in employment or education, are gone. Gone! The previous speaker was boasting about these terrific new programs—they are not new programs, and it is not new money. Jobs for young people are a real problem.

If you are lucky enough to be clever, work hard and go to university, what then? You will have a $100,000 university degree. One hundred thousand dollar university degrees are hitting at the same time as housing prices, which the Treasurer of Australia ignores warnings about and says are perfectly affordable—you just need a good job and a good income. Well, tough if you are a nurse, teacher, firefighter or have any of those 'good jobs' that do not pay the sort of money that you are required to have if you want to buy a house in the Sydney housing market. At the same time that all of these cuts are being made to families we actually have flat wages. So costs are going up, family tax benefit is being ripped away from families, the cost of visiting a doctor is going up, the cost of medicines are going up, wages are flat and there is higher unemployment. How does this government imagine that families can balance their family budgets in the face of cuts to support, higher costs, flat wages and with the threat of increasing unemployment floating above their heads?

All of this is happening at a time when the Assistant Treasurer is boasting about what a great job they are doing managing the budget. We have the highest rate of tax since the Howard government and a higher deficit—double the deficit in one year from $17.1 billion to $35.1 billion on their own figures and their time in government. They have nobody to blame but themselves for doubling the deficit. Debt has increased. They did a dirty deal with the Greens to do debt unlimited and they are using that to its full extent. At the same time as this poor economic management with higher tax, higher unemployment, higher debt and higher deficit we now have the final insult of telling hardworking part pensioners that they are welfare bludgers, that all of the years they have worked contributing to the tax system when they have done exactly what successive governments have asked them to do—that is, save hard, put some money into super and put a little bit of cash away for a rainy day, and now they are being attacked by this government. We saved full-rate pensioners from the cuts this government proposed, and now the government is going after part pensioners who are on as little as whole assets of $289,500. It means all of your super, it means your car, it means your caravan if you have one, it means your jewellery, it means all of your household effects, it means the paid-out value of life insurance policies— (Time expired)

Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There was a very interesting moment in the recent UK general election that occurred on 30 April 2015. It was on a television program called Question Time, which I understand has a large viewership over there. Ed Miliband, the then leader of the Labor Party and seeking at that point to become Prime Minister, was asked a question by an audience member. The question was a very simple and straight forward question: do you accept that when Labor was in government it overspent? It was a very good, simple, crisp and straightforward question and it was a question that, to Mr Miliband's credit, he answered in equally crisp, simple and clear terms. He simply said, 'No'. Many of the commentators during the UK election saw this as a completely pivotal moment in the election because what Mr Miliband was in effect doing was defending the completely indefensible. There was not a rational person who did not consider that when Labor was previously in government the UK had spent too much money. So he was either acting irrationally, which does not bode well for a potential prime minister, or he actually believed that Labor was somehow blameless in the debt and deficit situation that was inherited in the UK. He dodged the question when it was re-asked a couple of times. At the end, the same fellow who put the question simply said to him, 'If I get to the end of the week and I cannot afford to buy a pint then I have overspent.' This was a completely pivotal moment. What I find absolutely fascinating about members opposite is that their rhetoric is around two major complaints: they simultaneously complain against almost every item of expenditure restraint that this government engages in—

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

That is not true.

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not true.

Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, well, let me then put this to the floor—

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Even in the bill you gagged today.

Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The most significant piece of expenditure restraint in the last couple of days which has passed through the Senate is that in respect of pensions. Now I fully understand that you have no support whatsoever for that piece of expenditure restraint.

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

That is simply not true. What you are saying is—

Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is very interesting. Well you simply did not support it in the Senate.

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

The member for Jagajaga!

Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Miraculously, it is one of those pieces of legislation that you support—

Ms Macklin interjecting—

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

The member for Jagajaga!

Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

in theory but not when it comes to the vote in parliament. It is that sort of support.

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

You don't even listen.

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You actually do not know what happened.

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

The member for Franklin and the member for Jagajaga, if you want to remain in this place, you will remain quiet.

Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In fact, member for Jagajaga, in failing to support that piece of legislation what you are supporting is a situation where a home-owning couple who are at pension accessibility age can have a home of unlimited value and have liquid assets of $1.15 million and still collect a part pension. What you say by your votes in the other place is that somehow that is a fair outcome. So what you complained about is reasonable, fair expenditure restraint such as that which also allows for 170,000 pensioners to receive more money each fortnight. They are not the pensioners with large, valuable family homes or massive amounts of liquid assets. These are the things that you oppose

You oppose rational expenditure restraint and simultaneously complain that the return to surplus is not swift enough. That just does not make any sense. You are living in the 'somewhere' world, where the money will come from 'somewhere' completely unknown to you, in your grand wisdom, and certainly unknown to the public of Australia, because you have never told them. But, somehow or other, on that side of the House there is a miracle pot of money that will return the nation swiftly to surplus, without any difficult decisions around expenditure restraint. That is the pivot position that you have exhibited in the media, in the House, in matters of public importance discussions like this. With matters of public importance like this, you are putting yourself in a position which is absolutely irrational.

We can go back to that central question that was asked of Mr Miliband: did you spend too much money when you were last in government?

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did we avoid a recession?

Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Maybe we could just ask the first question and answer the first question.

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

The member for Wakefield has just returned from a detention!

Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In asking a second question, you are just dodging the question again. What I find completely fascinating is this notion that comes out publicly that you set yourself a target that expenditure growth would not exceed two per cent a year, when in fact it was 3.6. And it was only ever under 3.6 when you took out all the massive expenditure. So Labor meet their expenditure targets when they do not count their massive expenditure. (Time expired)

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

It is extraordinary, isn't it? We know the Liberals want to hit families and pensioners with very severe cuts to their cost of living. We also know that they will let off millionaires. They might have up to $10 million in their superannuation balances, but, no, they are not going to have their tax concessions cut, not under a Liberal government. We understand how important it is to be fiscally responsible, but we also know that you have to be socially just, that you have to make sure that those who are paying their contributions into the budget are those who can afford to do so: those who have these huge superannuation balances, who, under Labor will see those tax concessions reduced.

We know how important it is to make sure that multinational corporations pay their fair share, but we are not going to take that money out of the pockets of families. That is what this Liberal-National Party want to do. Remember before the last election the Prime Minister said, 'No change to pensions,' and 'Families will be better off'—both complete and utter fabrications. We know the truth of what is going to happen if your legislation gets through the parliament. A family on $65,000, a single-income family with two children at school—lots of them in Bass, lots of them in Hindmarsh—is going to be $6,000 a year worse off. The government are going to protect those at the top—those with $10 million in superannuation balances—but, for a family on $65,000 with two children at school, the member for Hindmarsh and the member for Bass have already voted to cut that family's income by $6,000 a year, each and every year. That is exactly what those opposite will do.

Just so we have got an idea about how many families are affected: the Prime Minister and each and every member of the Liberal and National parties want to kick around 570,000 families off family tax benefit B when their youngest child turns six. Which family thinks that children cost less once they turn six? How out of touch can the government possibly be? All those 570,000 families will be worse off.

Mr Nikolic interjecting—

The analysis that the Leader of the Opposition was talking about today shows that 1.4 million families in total will be worse off because of the government's cuts to family tax benefits and to child care. We hear the member for Bass over there making a lot of noise. We know there are a lot of struggling families in Bass, and he is going to have to face the wrath of all the families in Bass because he is going to take $6,000 out of the pockets of single-income families where they are doing it hard already. I suppose you could not be surprised by this, from a Treasurer who says that poor people do not drive cars and, if housing were unaffordable, nobody would be buying it. That is the sort of Treasurer that this country has.

We have seen today that the government want to gag the debate on pensions. They do not want to face the wrath of pensioners. They want to get this debate out of the parliament as quickly as possible—gag everyone, make sure nobody is actually facing up to the anger that pensioners have. Three hundred and thirty thousand pensioners are going to have their pensions cut. Pensioners who are single are going to lose up to $8,000 each year. For pensioners who are in couples, it is $14,000 each year. That is what all of you are doing. (Time expired)

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

What we see in this cynical matter of public importance from the Leader of the Opposition is a weird juxtaposition of what Labor says and what Labor does. It is about household budgets, he says, but how do you help Australian families by raiding their superannuation and by treating it as a piggy bank? You heard the sheer hypocrisy of the member for Sydney talking about putting a few dollars aside for your superannuation. How do you help people by using their superannuation as a piggy bank? How do you help them by bringing back the carbon tax? I just wonder where the logic of the Labor Party's position on that is.

The member for Jagajaga takes a mask and gun approach to public policy. She talks about helping Australian families; how did Labor do that by cutting $15 billion from family tax benefit when the Leader of the Opposition was the minister for employment? How did they do that by booting 60,000 single parents off parenting payment? The Leader of the Opposition quotes NATSEM modelling. He is very fond of NATSEM modelling, but he omits to say how much value he places on the value of a job, on the dignity of work and on moving people from welfare to work—all important things if you really are serious about addressing the pressures on Australian families.

The matter of public importance submitted by the Leader of the Opposition is cynical because it ignores a fundamental reality when it comes to household budgets for everyday Australians. We often talk about centres of gravity; well, there is an important centre of gravity that ensures that Australian families can address pressures in their household budgets. It is astonishing and disturbing to me to see members opposite engaged in this latest frenzy of complaint without acknowledging that essential centre of gravity. It is very simple: it is a job—it is about getting the unemployment rate down. In my home state of Tasmania, when those opposite left government it had an '8' in front of it. Now, it has a '7' in front of it. It is still too high—there is no doubt about that—but it is moving in the right direction.

Yesterday the Treasurer acknowledged an email from Rod Patterson of Autobarn in Launceston, who said that the policies of this government and the policies of the Hodgman government in Tasmania had collectively incentivised him to put on another employee. It just so happens that this employee is a 52-year-old man who is thrilled to bits to have a job with Autobarn in Launceston. Rod Patterson attributes that to the policies of this government.

I am astonished that the essential truth escapes the opposition leader: to get more local jobs in communities like mine requires a strong economy. It means getting government spending under control, it means eliminating waste, it means getting the best possible return on every taxpayer dollar, it means incentivising innovation and investment—all the things that we did not see during 16 years of Labor and Labor-Greens government in Hobart, and six years of Labor and Labor-Greens government here in Canberra.

With the change of government in both Canberra and Hobart we are seeing some green shoots of recovery. There are strong increases in building approvals. Indeed, in the 12 months to April 2015, which is the latest data available, building approvals in Tasmania are 42.9 per cent higher than in the previous 12 months. Dwelling approvals are flowing into residential construction activity. The number of private dwellings under construction grew by 17.3 per cent since the 2013 election. Residential construction activity is up; the real value of total construction work in Tasmania in the last year is up by 14.5 per cent. Those green shoots of recovery do not come from a tax-and-spend approach and they do not come from the poisonous, dysfunctional culture that we see on the ABC program The Killing Season. Those green shoots of recovery come from the sensible policies of the Abbott and Hodgman governments. They spring from policies that are focused on building a strong and prosperous economy and a safe and secure Australia. They spring from the $203 million for the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme, the $60 million for new irrigation schemes, and the trifecta of free trade agreements that the trade minister has secured for our country allowing Tasmanian companies to grow and prosper—and they will continue to grow and prosper under the Abbott government and the Hodgman government in Tasmania.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This MPI just proves the fact that this government has been dedicated, since coming to office, to smashing into working- and middle-class families, and their communities. We all remember their little booklet—you do not see this much anymore, you do not see it referred to much anymore, Our Plan—Real Solutions for all Australians. I always love The direction, values and policy priorities of the next coalition government. It bears no resemblance to what they have done in the 2014 or 2015 budgets. This flimsy pack of lies was their election platform, this flimsy pack of lies that they took to the people at the last election. The member for Hindmarsh, the member for Bass and other members took that flimsy pack of lies to their electorate and solemnly said, 'This is what we will do if we are elected,' and what did we get when they came to government? We got the 2014 budget, and what did the 2014 budget do?

Mr Frydenberg interjecting—

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

The member for Wakefield will resume his seat.

Mr Frydenberg interjecting—

Order! Parliamentary Secretary, that is not a point of order. That was grossly disorderly. As the Parliamentary Secretary you should know better than to just stand like that without the call. The member for Wakefield has the call.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for your protection and your good judgement in the chair. We can only hope that you get more of a go in the chair in the future. We all know what was in the 2014 budget—a miserable attack on pensions. That is what they would have done—ripped $23 billion out of pensions over the next 10 years. The only reason it has not happened is that the Labor Party stopped the government from implementing their 2014 budget. It is the same with the GP tax; they have now had to resort, as Brian Owler says, to a co-payment by stealth, pushing up the cost of GP trips by hacking into the rebates that doctors get. What will that result in? An $8 per visit GP tax every time you go to a waiting room. What we have got is their 2014 attacks by stealth. What do we find in this budget? A $2.5 billion attack on part pensioners, with 90,000 people losing all of their pension. Never mind what plans they had for the future. Never mind that that is how they structured their finances, given what the government said, given the commitments the government had made in this miserable pack of lies that was their election manifesto. We know that there are pensioners out there who are doing it tough, and we know that none of them believe your spin and lies.

What do we find with families? Six thousand dollars ripped out of some families' budgets—no consideration, no notice; just a brutal attack on families.

What do we find in my electorate? The member for Bass was talking about jobs. I can tell you what is happening to jobs in South Australia. We have one of the worst unemployment rates now of all of Australia. Do you know why? It is because this government turned its back on investment in Holdens. This government turned its back on investment in Holdens and put 10,000 people into unemployment. And the great tragedy of that is that the dollar was US$1.06 at the time. It is now at US77c, when we would have been exporting police cars to the United States. That is the brutal reality.

What have they done on superannuation? You hear them saying, 'Oh, we're going to get stuck into people's superannuation.' What was the first thing they did when they came to government? They got rid of the tax offsets for low-income workers. They put up taxation on superannuation for workers, while they are protecting millionaires'—multimillionaires'—super's tax concession in this budget. And that is really the parallel that they want.

This is a miserable government with a miserable record of spin and lies, twists and turns. But we will not let you get away with it. If you think that you are going to go down there to Hindmarsh with all of those hardworking Greek-Australians who have now retired and are about to lose their part-pensions, if you think you are going to get away with that at the next election, you have another think coming. People will see through your spin and lies.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was about to say—

Mr Champion interjecting—

It sounds like the member opposite has not finished his contribution.

Mr Champion interjecting—

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

Order!

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know the member opposite gets very excited. I was about to say to the member opposite that, in debating terms, it is always good to follow him, but then I realised that it is so rare that he is here after question time on a Thursday. But it is very interesting that the conduct of this debate has once again displayed the hypocrisy of those opposite. It is very interesting who is here and who is not, and I will tell you why. We have obviously seen this week what those opposite really think of each other, courtesy of the ABC.

Mr Champion interjecting—

We have the member opposite with uncontrollable interjections. We cannot understand him over here when he speaks that fast. He needs a translator. Work that out with the member behind you.

It is very interesting who is here and who is not. We had the Assistant Treasurer here, but I just thought, as the Assistant Treasurer was speaking, that there was no-one from Labor's economic team. There was no shadow Treasurer. He might be busy.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We had our leader!

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, just listen and you will learn something. There was no shadow finance minister and no shadow assistant minister. Now, it takes a bit to keep the shadow Assistant Treasurer away; I will say that. It takes a bit, so there must be a reason. I will tell you what the reason is.

The reason was revealed by David Crowe earlier this week in a very prescient article under the headline 'Labor doubts grow over Shorten's strategy'. It addressed the very subject of this MPI. It addressed the very substance of the MPI. The first paragraph and a few other selected quotes are worth reading to the House.

Mr Perrett interjecting—

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

Order! Settle down. Settle down.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I quote:

Bill Shorten has sparked doubts within the Labor caucus over his decision to vote against a $2.4 billion pension reform as Tony Abbott accuses him of looking after the wealthy rather than ordinary workers.

If you go further down the article, it is very interesting:

Labor caucus members said—

Ms Chesters interjecting—

You will get a chance to talk in a second. I will give you an opportunity because I am a fair guy. I am well known for that in this place. It said:

Labor caucus members said the issue could easily turn against Mr Shorten …

Back earlier in the article it was quite interesting about the shadow finance minister, who is not here:

With the legislation now sure of Senate approval, opposition finance spokesman Tony Burke would not say whether a Labor government would restore the rules — the key test of Labor's objections to the changes.

Labor appears set to accept the changes at the next election rather than pledge to overturn them …

That is something that a very experienced journalist says.

They have gone quiet now. Can you answer the question? It is very interesting, on their matter of public interest. Can you answer the question: at the next election, will you pledge to overturn this legislation?

A government member: Simple!

Sh! Sh! I will address it—

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The answer is: we're on about 55 per cent in your seat!

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Very interesting—no commitment from those opposite. There is no commitment from those opposite to overturn the changes. In other words, this is confected outrage.

The shadow Treasurer buckled on some tax legislation, just over the weekend. His reason for buckling on that tax legislation was, he said, the necessity to contribute to the fiscal task. We have no doubt that the shadow Treasurer and the shadow finance minister do not support what these members on this MPI are doing. They do not support the Leader of the Opposition's strategy. And the previous speaker—well, no deficit was big enough for him! No deficit was big enough for him.

Mr Champion interjecting—

As he continues his uncontrollable interjections, let me just, in the final 30 seconds, deal with some of the hypocrisy we have heard about their love for working families. Aren't we seeing the love for working families in some of the allegations before the royal commission? Aren't we? Do you endorse those agreements? Do you endorse those agreements?

Mr Champion interjecting—

No, I am not coming to South Australia. Just answer the question: do you endorse—

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

Order!

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Very interesting.

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

I would ask the honourable member to direct his questions through the chair. And, while I am at it, I would also remind the member for Bendigo that she is on a warning. It might be a carryover one, but it is real.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The matter of public importance before the chamber about the government hitting the household budgets of Middle Australia is a great opportunity to explore what is at the heart of the coalition government, because we have seen, with their last two demonstrations of what they think about the Australian people—budget 2014 and budget 2015—that they are hollow at their core If we look at the curve of Australian history, a movement from colonies to Federation to cooperative federalism, we suddenly see that progression of history stop on 8 September 2013, and we move from cooperative federalism to this uncooperative Tonyism, where suddenly we see the middle class attacked, we see the poorest of Australia attacked and we see the tradition of looking after our pensioners attacked. We saw for a year—

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

Rubbish!

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have an interjection of 'Rubbish!' from the member opposite. We remember last year's pension changes, where she voted to decrease the payment to pensioners. For a year she defended that, and then finally, when the political pressure go so much and the pensioners were lining up to tell the member for Bass, 'We're going to kick you to billyo,' and the members in these marginal seats lined up to say, 'You will be gone at the next election,' they suddenly changed. So we had a 2015 budget that was less cruel. That is the best you could say about it: less cruel. That is about the biggest praise I could put on it: '2015, coming at you less cruel than the year before.' But it is still on that bedrock of cruelty, with $50 billion cut from hospitals and $30 billion cut from schools, and freezing the super of 8.4 million workers and then cutting the pension for families.

And who is impacted most when you cut funds for education and schools? Middle-class families and the poor, because education is the opportunity to get a job. That is if you have an industry, and I heard the member for Wakefield's brilliant exposition about the government forgetting the jobs in Adelaide.

Mr Nikolic interjecting—

We had laughter from the member for Bass about 10,000 people losing their work. Go to the streets of Salisbury and tell them about how good it is to lose their job. We saw—

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Order! Is there a point of order, Member for Bass?

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am being appallingly misrepresented. My comment was that the speech from the member for Wakefield was not brilliant.

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

I give the call back to the member for Moreton.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We see where their intentions are with the fair and sustainable pensions bill. Remember, if you are watching politics, whenever you hear a piece of legislation called 'fair and sustainable', you know you are in trouble. George Orwell comes to town. That is the intention of Winston Smith reading 'doubleplusgood' into the atmosphere, because you know that with fair and sustainable pensions it is a problem.

Look at the speaking list on this piece of legislation—the list of coalition government members. They will be going out to Bass and saying, 'Guess what we're doing to you, pensioners!' They will be going out to Hindmarsh and saying, 'Hey, guess what I'm going to do to you, pensioners, part pensioners and 50-year-olds who have started to prepare for your retirement!' They will not be telling them that. I do not see a great list of speakers lining up to tell them that. Do not worry—we will be doing it. We will make sure we tell your constituents.

Mr Nikolic interjecting—

I would not waste your time yelling in here, Member for Bass. You should enjoy the limited time you have left in this chamber. You have a chance to reinvent your character, because at the moment the Australian people see you as a very unsavoury member of the House—very unsavoury.

Mr Nikolic interjecting—

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

Order, both members!

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He stands up at every opportunity to intervene.

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

Order!

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Deputy Speaker. I did not hear you.

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

I would ask all members to take their seats. Those sorts of comments are not acceptable when you are referring to a person's character, and I would ask you to stay on subject. It is your MPI, and I urge you to continue on where you should be.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

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

Order! There is a point of order still from the member for Bass.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, I want that withdrawn.

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

The member for Bass has asked the member for Moreton to withdraw the comments, which were, I think, of a really delicate character.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdrew, Deputy Speaker.

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

Thank you. We will move on with the debate. The member for Moreton can move on with the debate.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did say that he was one to object, and he objected to me withdrawing when I had already withdrawn.

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

I do not think anyone heard you.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All right. So we return to this budget—this 2015 budget based on a platform of unfairness. The people of Australia will condemn them. (Time expired)

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

I speak in this House and take the opportunity to commend on the short vision that was introduced as a matter of public importance today. The last budget brought forward great initiatives to help Australia prosper not just for now but also into the future of our nation. Over recent months I have learned that some members opposite have the same passion for Australians and their welfare as I do. However, to my deep disappointment, they are not in the majority, and political manipulation is the order of the day. As recent events have unfolded in this House, I have been appalled that we are not working as one to protect and support the most vulnerable or to inspire people to get ahead. Instead, we on this side stand alone to work for the benefit of current and future Australians.

Small businesses in Australia represent a pretty hefty sector of middle Australia, the majority owned by families. In the run-up to the 2013 election, I saw the economic damage that the carbon tax, brought in by Labor, did to small businesses and families, pushing electricity bills through the roof, pushing the cost of refrigerant to levels quadruple the original cost before the carbon tax, and adding to running costs and grocery bills. But Labor knew they were going to affect everyday Australians—middle Australians—because they gave them a compensation payment. Yes, I said that: a compensation payment, because that policy was harmful to those very Australians they pretend to be supporting, as suggested by the matter of public importance today. I used to think that Labor identified with social justice issues—at least that is the impression they try to make.

Growing opportunities for business is the best way to benefit middle Australians—in fact, all Australians. Reducing the taxable part of the income of small businesses who are sole traders or family partnerships actually adds money into their consumer pockets. This helps families, entrepreneurs and our future. Straight after the budget, I had the opportunity to visit hundreds of local retailers. Many are planning to spend their $20,000 instant asset write-off in the next financial year, but overwhelmingly the business owners felt that financially the government was taking notice of their needs right now. Some businesses are purchasing from other businesses. It is having a great domino effect. It is putting money into the community and into the pockets of middle Australia. The jobs package into regions like mine in Gilmore has been warmly welcomed. It is already inspiring businesses to employ people. Young people have been given employment following Work for the Dole experiences. These people are from middle Australia. One of the members opposite makes critical remarks about our so-called cuts and then says we have rebadged and re-funded programs like these. You cannot have it both ways. Either we got rid of them or we kept them.

Yesterday in the House, I was disappointed to hear a question relating to the changes in pensions, and they are going on about it today. The changes are a serious attempt to keep pensions viable as an income support and to improve them for those in the most difficult of circumstances. The new structure is based on the recommendations from the ACOSS organisation and other like advocacy bodies after significant consultation. More than 170,000 individuals stand to gain $30 a fortnight. These are the most vulnerable in our society. I am stunned, actually, that those opposite do not see this as being really important and a great way to help them. Frankly, I am appalled by the rhetoric. In fact—dare I say it—it is 'stomach turning', to quote the Leader of the Opposition. Those opposite continually quote cuts to education and health. We are not spending the dollars of la-la land from Labor because they simply do not exist. We are, however, increasing funding to both the portfolio areas, based on real dollars and not imaginary dollars.

I listen right now in horror as the opposition quotes figures from an analysis that assumed no-one gets a job and that employment does not increase. Seriously? Benefits are put in place to assist those who have no access to income at all to support them—as we should, morally—not support those who can support themselves. Somehow, we have forgotten that Australian families are the best in the world. They have resilience and resistance; they actually do not want to be supported by government. They actually want to stand on their own two feet so they can support others who are less well-off than they are.

They do, however, want to know that if their system falls over—if something happens to their family—that the government can actually support them. We have a logical and consistent government and all the members on this side are gaining a strong economy for our future. (Time expired)

Eric Hutchinson (Lyons, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this discussion has now expired. I thank members for their contributions. Mr Rudd—I understand you are seeking the call?

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is 'Rudd-ock', the member for Berowra!

Eric Hutchinson (Lyons, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, yes! It is the afternoon. The member for Berowra! There has been too much television watching—

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know that there have been other programs attracting people's attention—

Eric Hutchinson (Lyons, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I think we will move on from that very quickly!