Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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

The Government’s attack on the household budget of Australians.

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—

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

It is extraordinary that twice in question time today the Minister for Social Services was given the opportunity to talk about the impact of the government's cuts on families. At no time could even the word 'family' cross his lips. At no time could he actually show any interest or any regard for the impact of this government's very harsh cuts on all sorts of different families in Australia. We will have the opportunity today to give him 10 whole minutes to see if once, just once, he could say something that demonstrates he understands and this government understands just how harsh these cuts are and what they will mean for Australian families.

It is nearly two months since this Prime Minister deposed that other Prime Minister who now sits over there. He has had two months to come up with a new agenda. He has had two months to actually think about the cost of living pressures that Australians are under and to come up with a new agenda that he says would all be about fairness—new ideas about how to introduce fairness for families and a fair go that we know over the last two years has been completely lacking from this Liberal government. Yet, in this two-month period, all we have heard from this Prime Minister is that they intend to deliver more cuts to Australian families, more pressure on Australian family budgets and more unfairness.

What we know from this government is that this will leave millions of Australian families thousands of dollars worse off. We also know—because they want to have this debate or conversation—that they want to increase the GST to 15 per cent. One thing we know from these Liberals is that they never give up—they never, ever give up—when it is about hurting Australian families. Let us just look at the detail, because the Minister for Social Services refused to answer the question from the member for Parramatta and the member for McEwen about what these cuts would mean. So I will tell the Minister for Social Services and, of course, the Australian parliament: this Prime Minister's cuts to family payments will mean that 130,000 single-parent families and 3,900 grandparent carers will be worse off. One and half million families will lose their FTBA supplements—that is, $726 per child. If you have two or three kids, $726 for every single child will be cut from those family budgets. Around 500,000 of these families earn less than $50,000 a year. Do you think this Minister for Social Services has got any idea of what it is like to live on $50,000 a year? And he is going to take thousands of dollars out of the pockets of these families. An average two-parent family, with two children in school, will be more than $2,600 a year worse off. A typical single-parent family will be more than $4,700 a year worse off. The Minister for Social Services does not want us to count the schoolkids bonus.

Opposition members: No!

Who cut that? Which government cut the schoolkids bonus? We gave it to families to help them with the cost of going to school. This government wants to take it off them. This government wants to take it off families. So, of course, we are going to make sure that families know what the total cost of the cuts of this Liberal government is proposing to family budgets.

We have the Prime Minister saying in an interview earlier this month that fairer is what it is all about. That is what the Prime Minister said: fairer is what it is all about. Yet, he is taking $4,700 out of the pockets of a single-parent family. He also says that fairness means 'the burden'—and this is quoting the Prime Minister—should be 'borne by those best able to pay it'. Yet this Prime Minister and this Minister for Social Services want to cut the family payments that help Australian families with the cost of raising children. That is what family payments do. They help families put food on the table. They help families pay the rent. They help make sure that families have got shoes for their children to go to school. That is what family tax benefits are paid for, and families are going to have a lot less of that money to help with the cost of raising their children.

They say fairness is a priority, yet they want to take thousands of dollars out of the pockets of grandparent carers. They say fairness is what it is all about, but of course all they want to do is introduce a regressive tax called the GST. How fair can it be to take $4,700 out of the pockets of a single-parent family? How fair can it then be to add on top of that a higher GST, increasing the cost of groceries, possibly a new tax on health care, on education and on fresh food? How can any of this be fair? You cannot just say that you believe in fairness. You cannot just say that is what it is. You actually have to deliver the policies that are fair. Once you get beyond the spin of this Prime Minister—I don't know if you can say that the Minister for Social Services is into spin—all he can talk about is something that has absolutely nothing to do with families.

What we do know, though, is that all of this is going to lead to a much harder life for families. I want to remind the Minister for Social Services of what the actual dollar amount is for the loss of the schoolkids bonus—$842 for each secondary school child. That is what families will lose. Those children are not in child care; they are in secondary school! Those families will lose $842 as a result of cutting the schoolkids bonus. Of course, for each primary school aged child, $422 will be lost. Add to that what the government wants to do to paid parental leave—we have not heard of that for a while. It means that 80,000 new parents each year will be worse off. It was a cut that was described as 'a rort' and 'a fraud' by those opposite.

We have launched a new campaign today: we are calling on this Prime Minister to give families a fair go—to stop increasing the cost of living for families; stop the unfair cuts; stop the plans to increase the GST. With all of these cuts—whether it is the schoolkids bonus, whether it is the GP tax by stealth—all Australians know a very simple truth: as long as there is a Liberal government in power the cost of living for Australian families will go up. All the Minister for Social Services can go on about is the state of the budget and all the concerns about the government's budget, but he completely forgets about the impact on family budgets—one and a half million family budgets are going to be affected by these cuts. It will happen in Gippsland as much it will happen anywhere else. Don't worry: I will be making sure that the people of Gippsland understand—

Mr Chester interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Gippsland!

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

that the member for Gippsland will be voting for a cut of $4700 to every single parent in his electorate. Labor, of course, protected Australian families when this government tried to introduce these harsh cuts in the 2014 budget. The government backed down because it could not get the cuts through the Senate and because Labor ran such a strong campaign right around Australia against the cuts. We will do exactly the same this time. We will campaign up and down the length of Australia to make sure that families are protected from these unfair cuts. (Time expired)

Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member opposite for her contribution. Perhaps the best place to start, for the sake of harmony, is where there is some agreement and, looking over the Labor response today, there does seem to be some agreement at least to some of the savings proposals that the government has placed before the parliament. I refer to the media release that has come out today from members opposite, which notes that:

We will not oppose the Liberal’s changes to family tax benefit B for couple families, a saving of more than $500 million.

That does represent at least a modest acceptance of a portion of what would have been the overall savings from a fiscal measure over four years of $4.7 billion. They are agreeing to a saving of $500 million, and that saving appears to be, if I can infer, agreed to being fair by members opposite.

It is our proposal, and it is one that has been agreed to by members opposite, that for a family, which has been receiving family tax benefit A and family tax benefit B, when the youngest child turns 13 the family tax benefit B would cease. Labor seems to have agreed that that measure is fair in the overall context—we do refer very consistently to the budgetary context that we are in at the moment, and that is something I will return to in a moment—but in effect nothing else in this suite of measures, which is designed to save money, restrain expenditure and pay for child care, is deemed to be fair, but this one thing is.

I want to touch on the issue of the schoolkids bonus. Each and every piece of data or cameo that is produced by the Labor Party cites a reduced figure that acknowledges that the schoolkids bonus has been abolished. That was a payment designed by Labor to go to families; it was explicitly linked to the mining tax. So, when the member for Jagajaga states that Labor is protecting families, the real-world question arises: are you protecting the interests of families by continuing to support the payment of a bonus, which is now being paid for by borrowed money?

When we find ourselves in a situation of inherited deficits and inherited debt—which is precisely where we are—we are borrowing the money to pay for every piece of growth in expenditure in every portfolio that cannot be restrained. The question arises in respect to something like the schoolkids bonus: are you actually protecting the long-term interests of families by paying them money that in effect is borrowed because we are in debt and deficit. When we came to government we inherited the five worst deficits ever in Australian history—worth $191 billion compounded. We inherited $123 billion in projected accumulative deficits. As I noted earlier, Treasury noted that, if remedial action to save some money and restrain expenditure growth was not taken, we faced at least 10 years of ongoing deficits. What that means for every single child in a family that receives family tax benefit A or family tax benefit B—if there is some form of expenditure inside that system that cannot be restrained and that money is being borrowed—those children will end up having to pay that money back when they are fully fledged members of the Australian taxation system. So you are in effect borrowing money for payments that must be repaid by people when they inevitably enter the tax system. So a child at 13, who becomes a 23- or 24-year-old taxpayer, may well find themselves, without appropriate expenditure restraint, in a situation where they are paying taxes to fund not only the welfare system of their own time but also the welfare system from five, eight, 10, 15 years ago. That is not a fair situation. The only way that situation can be avoided is if there is meaningful restraint in expenditure. That, as I noted in question time, is a very, very difficult process to engage in.

What is very notable is that members opposite acknowledge, in principle, that savings have to be made within the budget, that we do have a spending problem. They acknowledge that in principle. The member for McMahon has been intelligently and rationally quite consistent in noting this on a variety of occasions. He even went so far as to say, in a comment he made in respect of the 2014-15 budget at the Press Club on 20 May 2015:

Labor does not necessarily object to the quantum of fiscal consolidation in this budget.

That is simply a statement that the Labor shadow Treasurer agreed that the type of turnaround that was envisaged in the 2014-15 budget is appropriate. Yet, at some point, that must involve rational, considered savings. Some of those savings will be reinvested in other expenditure measures, as is the case here with sweeping reforms to child care. Some of those savings will contribute to fiscal consolidation and closing that gap between what we spend and what we earn as a nation every year.

What appears to happen is that members opposite agree in principle to the notion that you must make savings. They agree with the notion that savings are difficult to make. They agree with the notion that savings proposals will, in the words of the member the McMahon, not be 'universally popular' or 'necessarily win us votes', and yet they do not nominate savings. They oppose a variety of savings. They oppose savings that they themselves suggested should be made whilst they were in government.

We heard some talk today about the budgetary black hole that members opposite face. What they have done since we have come to government is oppose or suggest the reversal of saving measures which would total $48.5 billion. They have also proposed $10.6 billion worth of expenditure. That would not deliver anything that resembles fiscal consolidation. Is that in the best interest of Australian families? It cannot possibly be in the best interest of Australian families to propose an overall budgetary setting that never sees our nation return to surplus and sees the children of each and every family coming into the tax system with the burden of paying taxes not only to provide for welfare services and infrastructure for their own time but ending up with the debt and the requirement to pay the interest on that debt to service our expenditure today. How is that possibly, on any rational analysis, fair?

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Cut other areas.

Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the thing, isn't it? You have proposed to oppose or reverse $48.5 billion worth of savings. You have promised $10.6 billion worth of expenditure. That leaves you with a $59.1 billion problem. You have proposed two revenue measures, which would be $3.8 billion and $1.3 billion at absolute best estimates, which leaves you with a $54 billion problem. That is not a problem that you solve without taking a rational look at different types of expenditure.

Unpacking what we have proposed, you are now suggesting that it is fair, rational and appropriate, in the context of the very difficult budgetary circumstances we face, to have a cessation of family tax benefit part B for coupled families but not for single parent families or any other type of families. We agree that, in context, this has to be done—and we will take whatever savings that you agree to, within reason. But, if you are a coupled family who makes a contribution to child care, which will benefit a whole range of families, and also to return the nation to surplus, which is very important for the children of any single family that exists in Australia, you might ask why it is that you should bear a very special burden over a family that is structured in a slightly different way. The reality is that we will have a range of debates about fairness. But, as I noted in question time, the only way to absolutely guarantee that everyone who may be affected in any way by savings measure that they think are unfair is simply not to have a savings measure or to have one and not tell anyone about it.

What those opposite have perpetually noted is that there must be savings within family tax benefits. When those opposite were in government, they knew about the budgetary situation that we were in because they chose to move 77,000 single mothers, who were previously grandfathered out, off a parenting payment. They lost more than $150 per fortnight and were suddenly, without warning, without any mitigating spending on training or education and without giving them any time to adjust, forced onto Newstart. You obviously thought that, in the circumstances, that was a very difficult decision. But it had to sit within the context that it is not in anyone's interest that the children of today that graduate into the tax system should end up with debt. (Time expired)

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the smoke clears, the dust settles and the bodies of the fallen are stretchered to the government backbench or sent to the embassy in Washington DC, it becomes increasingly clear that our new unelected Prime Minister, the 'Waffler from Wentworth', is all talk and no action. He is running the government the way a matron from Double Bay might run a dinner party. All luxurious options are on the table to be served by the butler to invited guests, including Senator Sinodinos, who is still under investigation by ICAC, and the lamentable member of the Fisher, who arranged for the former Speaker's diary to be stolen and who is currently under investigation by the AFP.

We have gone from the pompous, clueless moralisers of the Abbott era running the show to the slick 'Age of Turnbull'—

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member is reflecting on another member. He is reflecting on half the team, in fact. He should confine himself to the debate.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Melbourne Ports has the call.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much—where the glorious optimism of the Sydney Harbour front triumphs over the reality of the rest of Australia. As the columnist, Rita Panahi, said:

[The Prime Minister] proves the adage that if you're short on substance, then compensate with plenty of style.

Listen to his speech about the desperate need to update Australia's taxation system and you may be impressed by broad motherhood statements about ''fairness" and "incentivisation" but you will be clueless about how he intends to reform the system.

We on this side of the House want some clarity, some certainty, for Australians. As the member for Jagajaga said during question time, the government is desperately shying away from that. That is why we asked the government if it could rule out a 15 per cent GST on things like fresh food and child care, but the government has refused to give that commitment. We asked the government if it could rule out a 15 per cent GST on aged care and services, but the Prime Minister refused. This is at a time when the Prime Minister wants to spend—while the finance minister wants to save money—$158 million on a useless plebiscite on marriage equality which the Prime Minister, the member for Wentworth, himself had previously derided. It is worth considering what else $158 million could buy—$158 million could pay for 10,000 age pensions for an entire year. More than this, the government is looking to punish grandparents who look after their grandkids. These grandparents are facing cuts to family tax benefit B for kids over 13 and losing family tax benefit B entirely for kids over 16.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's outrageous.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Exactly, it is outrageous. These people stand to lose up to $4,700 per year. Grandparents who look after their grandkids and single parents do all they can for the kids in their charge—they usually do not have disposable income. But under this Abbott-Turnbull government they are facing a triple whammy: an increase in the GST, decreasing pensions and an end to their family tax benefit B. NATSEM, the respected social modelling agency, has said that a 15 per cent GST will affect the lowest 20 per cent of income earners, with seven per cent of their income being taken away while the top 20 per cent will only be affected by losing three per cent of their income. I will conclude by quoting the columnist Rita Panahi again in the Melbourne Herald Sun:

It's all well and good for Turnbull—

the Prime Minister, the member for Wentworth—

to wax lyrical about nautical allusions when laying out his blueprint for the taxation system, but the ordinary Australian wants to know whether the GST or Medicare levy will be increased or whether their benefits will be cut in order to balance the Budget.

As the member for Grayndler said, they say they have got a plan but they just do not want to tell anyone about it. That is what we are trying to force them to fess up to with this MPI—cuts to grandparents who are receiving family tax benefit B will hurt ordinary Australian families, and if that is what the Prime Minister, the member for Wentworth, says will happen then it is certainly not fair. If the Minister for Finance wants an area to cut, get rid of the useless plebiscite on marriage equality, costing $158 million. We are elected here to make the difficult decisions, so there is an area where he could save money immediately.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Assistant Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great pleasure to join this matter of importance discussion in this Labor's proclaimed year of big ideas. It is November now and it seems that after 11 months they have had no ideas. We are finally starting to see the full extent of Labor's big ideas. You can imagine the brains trust—I use the term 'brains trust' very loosely—or the parliamentary tactics committee saying, 'We need to release our first big idea, so let's run a scare campaign on household budgets. If that doesn't work, how about we run a scare campaign on the Prime Minister's wealth. If all else fails, let's run a scare campaign on taxes and the GST.'

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

How much was a lamb roast?

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Assistant Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is good to see the member for Jagajaga is with us. I will always welcome the member for Jagajaga in my electorate. In fact, I am happy to arrange a visit. We can go down to Gippsland together, we can meet the workers and you can tell them why you wanted to sack them. You can say why you wanted to sack all those power station workers. You can tell them. I look forward to you explaining why Labor had a policy of contracts for closure to sack blue-collar workers in my electorate. I look forward to that. You can explain how that helps the household budget. How does it help the household budget to sack the workers, member for Jagajaga?

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I thought we were in some new paradigm where we did not have scare campaigns.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Assistant Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It might be a scare campaign but I am quoting your policy—this is your policy, member for Jagajaga. You will remember it well. How does it help the family budget to sack blue-collar workers in Gippsland? That was your policy—you took it to the Australian people and they rejected it. They rejected your policy.

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

What is your policy?

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Assistant Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Our policy is to get rid of the carbon tax, and we have. What is the next scare campaign? Malcolm Turnbull is going to cancel Christmas? Barnaby Joyce is going to shoot the Easter Bunny? What is the next scare campaign? The Australian people have moved on. The Australian people are better than the Australian Labor Party. The Australian people simply do not want Labor back. I know it may come as a rude newsflash, but they do not want you back. The Australian people are saying to Labor, 'You had your chance, you failed and we do not want you back.' I know it is painful. I know opposition is no fun; it is no fun at all—I had six or so years there. But the not so scary scare campaign is not working with the Australian people. The Australian people honoured us with their vote. They honoured us with the opportunity to govern the greatest nation in the world, and they instinctively understood that we had a big job to do. They knew we had a big job to do; they instinctively understood that we had to clean up Labor's mess. I get out a lot in Gippsland, I get out a lot in regional Australia, and a lot of people from all walks of life talk to me about very important issues. They talk about roads, they talk about health, they talk about education, they talk about jobs, and do you know what? In the past two years not one person has ever said to me in Gippsland, 'Oh gee, I wish Labor was back.' They do not want you back. I wish I could tell you it is not personal but it I am sorry it is personal, member for Jagajaga. They simply do not trust you. The Australian people do not trust you. They do not trust you to make the big decisions. The Australian people do not trust you with their money and they simply will not trust you with their vote. We are getting on with the job of delivering for regional Australians and governing for all Australians. While Labor is stuck in the past, with more and more not so scary scare campaigns—

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

What about the family budget?

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Assistant Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know those opposite do not want to hear the good news, but there is good news. Roy Morgan Research says business confidence increased by 6.5 points in October.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How much?

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Assistant Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

By 6.5 points. That is good news—good news for the economy, very positive, giving business confidence to create new jobs; 200,000 jobs created by business in the past 12 months.

Mr Conroy interjecting—

Don't you want to hear the good news? They do not want to hear about confidence; they do not want to hear about new jobs—it is much better to run a scare campaign! We are getting out there and building new infrastructure, particularly in regional areas—there is a $50 billion infrastructure plan being delivered right now throughout Australia, creating new jobs and improving productivity. Those opposite simply do not want to hear the good news. They simply do not want to hear how this government is getting on with the job of delivering for all Australians. I look forward to the member for Jagajaga joining me in Gippsland and talking to Gippslanders about how their family budget will be affected when the Labor Party's policy results in blue-collar workers being sacked. The member for Jagajaga is most welcome to come to Gippsland at any time. I am happy to arrange a visit for her. (Time expired)

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a more serious note, I am very pleased to have been given the opportunity to speak on this MPI today because the last two federal budgets have been very difficult for the majority of the people living in my electorate. These budgets have been very harsh and very unfair, and the cuts that have been associated with them have affected a very large number of the people that live in Calwell. The news for them, unfortunately, has not been good news, and it continues to be very bad news.

The cuts to carers' payments and the loss of the schoolkids bonus—to mention just a couple—have taken their toll on already stretched and stressed household budgets. Now, of course, there is the additional prospect of further cuts to the family tax benefits. Cuts to services such as child care, health and welfare payments and benefits are tough enough, but when you add these to the huge problems of job losses, industry closures and underemployment that have disproportionately affected people in the north-west of Melbourne, the claim by this government that they want the burden of economic reform to be shared fairly becomes absurd and unbelievable.

Calwell has a large number of single parent families.    It has a large number of pensioners and people dependent on welfare payments for their survival. We have a large number of families living on the lowest 20 per cent income bracket. And it is not just those dependant on Centrelink payments who are struggling, but also those who slip off the radar when we talk about the disadvantaged. For those who have jobs, there is still the struggle of low pay in an increasingly unregulated labour market, where the pressure is on to cut penalty rates and conditions and where job security is for many now a long-forgotten dream. Many of my constituents are dealing with chronic underemployment whilst still trying to cope with large mortgages and other household bills. There is the huge problem of job losses in my electorate, particularly with the decimation of the local car industry, the general lack of support for the manufacturing industry, and downsizing, downscaling and relocation, which leaves so much devastation for workers, their families and our community.

We all know that those in higher income brackets not only have a greater ability to bear increases in the cost of living than those on much lower incomes, but they also have so many more options to minimise their tax. The Leader of the Opposition has said:

Labor has demonstrated that we are not opposed to fair and reasonable changes to family payments—but it should not be at the expense of families who can least afford it.

The cuts to family tax benefits, first announced in this government's disastrous 2014 budget, might have been modified around the edges, but the fact remains that the burden on those least able to bear them remains heavier—a situation that is clearly unfair and unreasonable.

And to add to the stresses of trying to make ends meet, we now have the government trying to talk up and justify the need for a hike in the GST. This would place an unbearable burden on my constituents. It is no good talking about compensation, which will do nothing to assist the invisible poor—those I mentioned earlier, who may have jobs but not enough working hours, very low pay rates and limited job security. In these exciting, agile days of discussion and listening, we have heard proposals to even extend the GST to fresh food—another disaster which would unfairly and disproportionately affect low-income communities. For years, many valuable service and support organisations in my electorate have been striving to encourage people to eat well, to replace cheap and nourishment-poor fast foods with fresh and nutritious food to help improve health outcomes. I have often referred to the rising incidence of diabetes in my electorate amongst a number of other health problems that impact lower-socioeconomic communities throughout Australia. There is surely no need to again point out the link between a lack of financial resources, poor diet and poor health.

NATSEM modelling has shown that an increase in the rate of the GST to 15 per cent would mean that people in the lowest 20 percent of income brackets would have to pay seven per cent more. People in the highest 20 per cent income bracket would pay just three per cent more of their income. I want to remind the Prime Minister of his claim that 'fairness has got to be the key priority.' My electorate does not see the attack by this government on the household budgets of those on the lowest incomes as anywhere near fair. The Prime Minister has invited us to have a discussion about tax reform. People in my electorate are happy to contribute to this debate and to send the message loud and clear that they just cannot cop any more of the burden that is being imposed on them by this government and its disastrous budget proposals. (Time expired)

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today, we have a bizarre matter of political distraction from the same people who spent up big when they were in charge of the public purse and left a massive, gaping hole in the public credit card. Their level of fiscal incompetence was unparalleled. There was cash for clunkers, pink batts, $900 cheques to people who had died, set top boxes and millions of dollars of payments from taxes that never eventuated—just to name a few.

Who are they to talk about household budgets? The Labor Party approaches public accounts in the same reckless way a few of their faceless bosses use a union credit card. Where was the current Labor leader's concern for the health and wellbeing of the families of four women who worked as mushroom pickers a few years back when he was leader of the union negotiating wages and conditions on their behalf? Where was the former union leader's concern when the women were made redundant and then asked to reapply for their jobs through a labour hire company? Where did the $4,000-a-month payments go, which the union received over six months in return for what the union claimed was for health and safety training? Where was the Labor leader's concern for the household budgets of struggling Australian families when Cleanevent signed off on a secret sweetheart deal with the union that cut cleaners' penalty rates and saved the company $1.5 million? Most people who know what has been going on in the labour market now know that in return for extending the 2006 enterprise bargaining agreement, the company agreed to pay the union $25,000 a year for three years in membership fees. Just last month, The Advertiser reported that under Bill Shorten's EBA, Cleanevent's level 1 casual cleaners were paid $18.14 an hour, rather than the $50.17 an hour they were entitled to under the 2010 award—a 176 per cent pay cut. A leopard does not change its spots and the Labor leader is wasting his time looking sheepishly naïve about the 'put it on the credit card practice' of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd Labor governments that created such a mess of the Howard government's great legacy of leaving money in the bank and year-on-year surpluses.

However, it is worth noting, the recent Intergenerational report shows how the decisions already enacted by the coalition government are making real progress in fixing Labor's mess. Continuing Labor's unsustainable spending would have given Australia a massively higher debt of $5.6 trillion! And, guess what happens when Labor acts like a dodgy union leader and goes on a reckless spending spree? Someone has to pay for it. In this case it is not only the poorly served union members who are paying Labor politicians to sit on that side of the House. Sadly, every single Australian man, woman and child are still paying a lot more than they should because a few years ago Labor MPs and a group of former union leaders sat on this side of the House.

History demonstrates that every Australian has to pay for the reckless and irresponsible spending decisions of Labor governments. Difficult decisions have to be made. A growing economy is the best and only real way to guarantee jobs for the future and to support a strong welfare safety net that ensures people and families do not get left behind.

Our plan is to build a strong national platform for economic growth and jobs that backs Australians who are out there every day making their way in the world, working hard, saving for their future, and investing in their capabilities and opportunities. Our plan is designed to back Australia and Australians to earn more. The government will reform and restructure family tax benefit to give families money each fortnight, to encourage workforce participation and to fund the new child-care system. Around 1.2 million families or 2.2 million children will benefit from an increase in their FTB A fortnightly rates. We are also increasing the fortnightly rates of youth allowance and disability support pension, so that they are aligned with the new FTB A rate.

The coalition government wants to help families find affordable child care. This is an important productivity measure that will also boost female workforce participation. From 1 July 2017, our new child-care subsidies will support parents who choose to work. It will mean working families with incomes between $65,000 and $170,000 will be around $30 a week better off. The coalition is backing children's education with more funding than ever before. I am    fairly sure there are a few struggling Australian households that have a national— (Time expired)

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

I am very pleased today to represent the people of Lalor in this very important matter of public importance because it is of critical importance for 21,000 families in my electorate. What we are talking about today is what this government is bringing home to roost for 21,000 families in my electorate. Lalor is home to 60,000 families. People come to live in our area of the world because it is affordable and because it is welcoming. Lots of families—clearly 21,000 of them—earn less than $51,000 a year. This government has said in this chamber today that they are going to rip out support from those families. On top of taking away the schoolkids bonus, from which of course families are still hurting, when getting ready for school next year they are finding that in the year after they are going to lose the supplements. They are finding out that when a child is 16, at the most expensive time to send a child to school, with a book list potentially costing $800, depending on which subjects will they are doing and depending on whether they are doing a VCE where it is just books or whether they are doing a VET or a VCAL when you have costs of the course on top, at that critical point we are going to be saying to these low-income families, 'You can't afford to send our kids to school for years 11 and 12. They should leave school.' That is what this government is saying to families in Lalor. That is what this translates to.

I have a message for the flourishing Prime Minister who, with every flourish of the glasses, carries a cut to families. This government talks a new game but is playing a very old game—the old game of punish the underprivileged, the old game of take from those who can least afford it. The flourishing Prime Minister is hiding this behind the new rhetoric of fairness. Fair to whom? Prime Minister, who are you fair to? Fair to the families who you are going to rip $2,600 a year from their income? Fair to the 1.3 million families across the country who are going to lose the FTB supplement? Fair to the 500,000 families on less than $50,000 a year who stand to lose $726 per child from the supplements?

I am sure these seem like small numbers to multinationals. They seem like small numbers to millionaires. They are not small numbers in Lalor. These are the numbers that make or break a family. These are the numbers that mean a child can continue at school or cannot. We heard from the new Minister for Social Services, a minister who is trying to demonstrate to the rest of the frontbench that he is a good toe cutter, who is going to use Social Services as an audition for Treasury, to prove to those over there but he can cut toes better than anyone else.

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

It's snakes and ladders.

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

That is right. Families in Lalor are going down those snakes and there are no ladders being offered by this government—none at all.

I listened carefully to the member for Wentworth today, because I wanted to see if any of those complex phrases actually led to complex outcomes for families in Lalor. But, no, what I got were very complex sentences. I am still trying to find the subject in those complex sentences. But he did do a bit of listing. So now I have some lists.

This is what I heard from the Minister for Social Services at the dispatch box this afternoon. I heard him being heartless. I heard arrogance. I saw a good rendition of Scrooge. I heard bullying. I saw a rigid person with a rigid attitude to fiscal responsibility, with no heart when it comes to families. I heard a man who does not understand that you take that money out of the pockets of families in my electorate and you impact on our local economy. That is what I heard. I heard someone who does not understand economics at all. If these changes go through, if they get passed— (Time expired)

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

I was an interested observer of the media conference that the opposition leader, the shadow Treasurer and the member for Jagajaga conducted just before question time on the issue of the childcare package. There were lots of words spoken, and there was the usual feigned indignation, but when you strip away all the frippery here is the bottom line. Of $3.2 billion needed to fund the childcare package, Labor have only supported $500 million of spending. So, on the one hand, in that media conference I heard the shadow Treasurer talk about fiscal responsibility; and then they oppose over 80 per cent of the cost of delivering the childcare program.

So I ask the member for Jagajaga, the shadow minister for families, to reconcile that position with her conversation with David Speers on Sky on 25 May this year. It is an instructive transcript.

MACKLIN: … We certainly can understand that for many families child care is very expensive, and we want to improve that -

SPEERS: That has to be paid for somehow?

MACKLIN: It does have to be paid for somehow …

I say 'Hear, hear' to the member for Jagajaga—absolutely.

I ask her: how will the childcare package be paid for? What about the clear challenges to Australian families in other areas of the childcare package that you are not going to fund? Do you understand those challenges? Do you even care about those challenges? How is it fiscally responsible to want to have all of the spends when it comes to governing but none of the saves? Because that is the path we followed from 2008 to 2013 that put us on a trajectory to $667 billion of debt. You cannot have all of the spends and none of the saves, particularly when you are dealing with the sort of economic circumstances that we inherited after 2013.

The Australian people will not be fooled. They know that Labor's uncontrolled spending is at the heart of our budget problems today. On almost every significant policy measure Labor has demonstrated the same sort of behaviour that the people explicitly repudiated. The reason the Labor Party got its lowest vote in 100 years is that Australians can see the inconsistency between what Labor promises and what they actually deliver.

You might recall that this was meant to be the 'year of ideas'. It is just over a month before the end of the year of ideas and it seems the latest idea is not to fund 80 per cent of the childcare package—voting against billions of dollars of budget savings, including Labor's own budget savings, ratcheting up spending in some of the biggest portfolio areas of social services, education and health. Even the public broadcasters have been promised more money under Labor's constant spend-and-borrow strategy. That is over $60 billion in new spending since the 2013 election—a growing black hole to the black hole that we inherited after 2013.

You might have heard at that media conference before question time, and from previous speakers on the other side, the words 'harshness' and 'fairness' and every multisyllabic permutation of the word 'cuts!' that you would ever want to hear. Let's discuss fairness for a moment. What is unfair and harsh is Labor's planned changes to people's superannuation. Recall that on 22 April this year the Leader of the Opposition and shadow Treasurer said in a media release that Labor 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'. They said they would lower the threshold for the 15 per cent high-income superannuation charge by $50,000. How is it fair to unexpectedly and retrospectively tax people's retirement savings that they have been putting away for 20, 30, 40, 50 years? That is what people in Tasmania are telling me is unfair—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

I would like member's opposite interjecting to explain how it is fair to introduce retrospective laws on super to trouser the hard-earned superannuation of people after a life time of saving. How is it fair to bring back a carbon tax by way of an emissions trading scheme—

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order. The member for Griffith on a point of order?

Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Relevance. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, the coalition introduced cuts to defined benefits scheme pension tests.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. I call the honourable member for Bass.

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

The subject today was people being able to survive and live on measures that the government introduces, and I am hoisting them on their own petard. So, when Labor talks about attacks on Australian household budgets, I encourage them to reflect on their record—record burdens, record debt, record spending and a record we will not repeat. (Time expired)

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I call the honourable Chief Government Whip—sorry, Chief Opposition Whip.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He should be.

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

I will be after the next election.

We should not be very surprised about today's debate. Some things we should be able to take in our stride. What we are talking about today are those opposite returning to type. We saw in 2013 how they put paid to electoral promises. They said they would not cut health, they would not cut education and they would not cut pensions. They actually gave a new dimension to pork-barrelling. They dispelled the notion of their trustworthiness.

In 2014 they brought down their first budget. They could not help themselves. What did they do? They attacked families. They attacked low- to middle-income families. By the way, they have had their opportunity; they just elected a new leader not all that long ago. He had the chance to reposition that government. He had a chance to give some substance to those words he preached about fairness and decency and how we would deliver that. But they have not done that at all. They have continued down this path of attacking low- to middle-income families. Now we see that they are trying to cover the traces of looking at hiking the GST. They know it is going to disproportionately impact on low-paid families. Those opposite know this because they are being attacked in their own electorates at the moment. They had a chance to do something about that but failed to do it.

In terms of the cut to family payments: nationally, 1.5 million people are going to be affected, but that is nationally. Like most MPs here, I am going to focus on my electorate. That is 17,000 families that are going to be impacted by this. They are going to lose payments of $726 per child per year. They are going to be worse off.

I see those smarting on the other side, but I will tell you a little bit about my electorate. Most people know my electorate is the most multicultural in the whole of the country. We are great, diverse, very colourful and very vibrant, but my electorate is not a rich electorate. My electorate has much disadvantage. It has significant challenges. The average family household income in my electorate is just a tad over $50,000, so this is going to have a high impact on low-income families. If the government gets their way in where they want to go with the GST and have 15 per cent on everything—on fresh food, on education, on health—that is going to have such a huge impact. It will be a double-whammy. For families that are living on $50,000 a year, that is going to be something very hard to absorb.

As I said, my community is not rich, but they do work hard. Mums and dads do a lot to support their kids. They want a bit of assistance. They do not want a handout; they do want a hand up. There are a little over 15½ thousand families in my electorate receiving tax benefit B at the moment. They are going to be $354 worse off. Single-income parents—and we have many in my community—are going to be anything up to $4,700 a year worse off, and we are expecting them to suck it up?

This government had the opportunity to take a real positive look at those in need, and they have done the reverse. They are going to propose tax measures that will be less of a burden for high-income earners than it will be for those struggling to make ends meet at the moment. It is consistent. Look what they did. The first thing they did when they formed government was attack the schoolkids bonus. I know about most people on this side of politics, but I think most of them felt the impact of this as well. When you take off parents $842 per child attending high school or $422 for a primary school kids, that significantly cuts into the budget of those who need it.

Maybe they represent electorates that do not need it—I do not know—but in areas like mine, of which I am sure there are many on the other side too, people are in need and struggling to make ends meet, and we owe it to them as a parliament to work for their benefit, no to line the pockets of those who are rich. I know much has been said about superannuation, but our first and foremost duty in this place is to look after people in need.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Another day, another MPI, another scare campaign. Specifically, I rise to refute today's not-especially-scary scare campaign that this government has attacked the household budgets of Australians. It seems to me that the theme of the week is the not-especially-scary scare campaign.

The truth is that this so-called attack on the household budgets of Australians could not be further from the truth. This government has taken every opportunity to alleviate the suffocating tax burden imposed on family budgets by those opposite when they were in government. Not only did we repeal the carbon tax, which left family budgets some $550 better off; we have also consistently lessened the tax burden on families and provided them with more opportunity through a range of significant measures.

The coalition government delivered the Jobs for Families childcare package, giving greater choice to some 1.2 million families through more affordable access to child care. Because of the actions this government has taken to reduce unnecessary spending, we have been able to provide $40 billion—$40 thousand million—over the next four years to help the budgets of Australian households with the costs of child care and early learning. Contrary to the misleading suggestions of those opposite that this government is attacking the household budgets, we are in fact bolstering them. The coalition remains committed to supporting families.

Whilst those opposite were in government, they wrote out blank cheques and spent our hard-won financial stockpiles. It was irresponsible then and, obviously, we are paying for it now, yet even in the face of such fiscal recklessness this government remains committed to helping the household budget. Our childcare package will deliver hardworking Australian men and women the opportunity to re-enter the workforce. This government is unlocking the potential of each and every Australian family and doing so through supporting their budget, not attacking it. We know that, through delivering lower, simpler and fairer taxes, the Australian family budgets will continue to go from strength to strength. The coalition has reformed and restructured the family tax benefit to give families more money each fortnight. Whilst those opposite continue to spray misinformation and empty rhetoric about government's supposed assault on the family budget, here is the reality: 1.2 million families, or a whopping 2.2 million children, will benefit from an increase in their FTB fortnightly rates.

Those opposite are trying to whip up fear in the community. This government is in the business of addressing fears, not exploiting them. Shame on those opposite for such base political tactics. Let's get this absolutely straight. This government has decreased the tax burden on the family budget, increased support to young families through an increase in childcare assistance and delivered reforms to the family tax benefits to deliver more money to families. If those opposite think this constitutes and attack on the family budget, I would hate to see what their idea of support is. Unlike those opposite, this government acknowledge that there is not an infinite stockpile of cash. We understand there is a limit on the nation's credit card—a reality, as I said, that those opposite have difficulty grasping. There is some irony in this MPI because the member for Jagajaga, who brought it into the House, did not seem to bat an eye whilst those opposite raided the national coffers on their spending spree while they stumbled their way through government. Those opposite stole from the family budgets of our children and our grandchildren.

The coalition understands that our social compact is not only to those alive today but also to those who are yet to come. The actions we take today will echo into the lives of our children and that is why this government is maintaining its resolve to act prudently and responsibly when it comes to the fiscal management of our nation's finances. This government is supporting our families and their budgets. We are securing opportunities today through opening markets and securing free-trade agreements. This government is ensuring the prosperity of our nation is assured well into the 21st century and we acknowledge that a strong family is part of that equation. We have taken measures to strengthen our families and their budgets and it is a record that I am proud of. It is a record that has seen the creation of some 300,000 jobs since we came to government—a rate of job creation three times that of those opposite the last time they were on this side of the House. The strongest way we can support families is to ensure that there are strong, secure sustainable jobs for people to take up in the community.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The discussion has concluded.