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

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

The Government’s failure of economic leadership.

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—

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

It is fitting that, at the end of the first sitting week and marking the anniversary the election of this Prime Minister, we have further confirmation, if we needed it, of the shambles at the heart of economic policy making in this government. The Treasurer and the Prime Minister have had two signature policies over their 12 months—two signature policies with which they went to the election: superannuation tax changes and a cut in company tax. That is their big economic agenda. That was the centrepiece of their budget and the centrepiece of their re-election campaign, and today it is 'take out the trash day'. It is garbage day in Canberra, because those policies hit the wall. The Prime Minister was asked just last week: 'What are your greatest achievements in your first year in office?' The Prime Minister had an answer already to go. He said, 'Superannuation tax and business tax.' What achievements they are! And how well has it gone!

Let's deal with superannuation first. Let's talk about economic leadership—the failure of economic leadership provided by that side of the House and the economic leadership that has been provided by the Leader of the Opposition and this side of the House. The opposition released a superannuation taxation policy in April 2015. The Prime Minister was claiming, even at question time, that it did not exist. It was announced in April 2015 and the government has had multiple positions on this. At first they said this is outrageous. 'Nobody should ever touch superannuation taxes,' said the member for Cook and then the Minister for Social Services. He promised they would never increase tax on superannuation. 'That was an outrageous attack on retirement incomes,' said the now Treasurer. Then, of course, he became Treasurer and stood at that dispatch box and announced superannuation tax increases which were ill-thought out and based on no consultation. And now today that has come crashing down, as he has dropped the most egregious measure.

This is interesting. We had a press conference earlier today. I thought: 'This is a serious announcement. Clearly, the Prime Minister will be at this press conference.' He was not to be seen, because he might have been asked why, before the election, when asked 'Are there any circumstances at all after the election that this could change,' he said, 'No, this is absolutely iron clad.' The Prime Minister was in his office, perhaps hiding under the doona while the press conference was on, hoping that it all went okay.

It is not just about from before the election to now that the government has not been able to keep a consistent position. Over the course of a week or two their position has changed. In response to the proposal that the Leader of the Opposition and I released to the government to say, 'We will help you fix your problems; don't do the retrospective measure; and drop the other spending measures, including the mature workers measure, our old friend the minister for revenue was outraged. She said that it was going to disadvantage older Australians. She asked the question: 'Why is Bill Shorten attacking aspirational Australians—people who work hard and want to get ahead and save for their retirement?' Then the Treasurer said: 'This is a 1970s approach. It shows Bill Shorten is discussion in the 1970s.' They announced the policy a few hours ago. It was exactly the same policy as they were condemning! They cannot hold a line over a period of a couple of weeks. They condemn themselves by their own words.

I have a personal favourite, and it happened today. The Treasurer and the minister for revenue were out there announcing that they were dropping the older workers measure as part of their package. The minister for revenue was asked about it, and she said, 'We're very committed to the measure.' She was abolishing it during that press conference. I would hate to see it if they were not committed to the measure. It would not stand a chance. Measures they are very committed to hit the wall. If they are not really committed, I do not what happens to them.

And then we have corporate tax. Remember the $50 billion ram raid on the budget that the Prime Minister was so proud of. It was the centrepiece of his budget. Remember we probed the economic growth impacts, and we were told that it was going to increase the economy by a per cent—a full per cent we were told—in 10 years time. So in 20 years time the corporate tax cut would deliver a one per cent increase to our economy, and that was with the full suite of measures. Now we are told we are going to get the tax cut for businesses with a turnover under $10 million, but after that they will struggle. Well, I wonder what dividend that provides for economic growth in Australia? If the full measure provided one per cent in 20 years time, I wonder what this half-baked measure was?

We are told: 'We would love to do it, but we just cannot get the numbers in the Senate.' We are told: 'It is all too hard. It is very hard in the Senate.' The Labor Party has not had a majority in the Senate for one day since 1949. We managed to do a few things over the years—Medicare, superannuation, the greatest economic reforms of the eighties and nineties—without a majority in the Senate. This Prime Minister says: 'Oh, it is a bit hard. I cannot get the numbers in the Senate.' That is the economic leadership he has provided.

We have had the greatest hits of this government. From the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services we have had the greatest hits over this last year. The Prime Minister said he was going to be a new type of economic leader. He was going to have a mature conversation with the Australian people about such measures as increasing the GST and broadening the base of the GST. We said that we would not be in that because 60 per cent of the revenue raised would need to be used to compensate low-income earners, if you were to be fair, and there would be no economic growth dividend.

The government, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer said we were being backward and we were not being constructive. Then, lo and behold, the Treasurer got up in that famous 47-minute address to the National Press Club and said: 'We decided not to do this because 60 per cent of the revenue would be required to compensate low-income earners and there is no economic growth dividend.' Well, that is economic leadership Morrison-Turnbull style.

Then, of course, you had the Prime Minister thinking that economic reform was about the federation, so he had the Penrith oration—the member for Lindsay, unfortunately, is no longer with us. But it was in the Penrith oration, at a very similar location to where the former Prime Minister promised no cuts to health and education before the 2013 election, that the Prime Minister came out and said that he knew the answer: 'You cannot increase the GST, so we will have double taxation. We will let the states increase tax as well and we will withdraw all investment in public education.' The Penrith oration lasted 48 hours. That is economic leadership.

Then we had the greatest hits of the Treasurer. He stood at the dispatch box yesterday and said that it is outrageous that the Labor Party want to reform negative gearing. They are going to crash housing prices—forgetting that he had said to the cabinet that negative gearing should be reformed. I have to say, though, that it is one thing to be rolled by Peter Dutton; it is another thing completely to be rolled by George Christensen. You have to draw the line somewhere. Can you imagine Paul Keating or Peter Costello saying, 'Oh, well, George would not let me do it. I got rolled by the member for Dawson'? That is what this Treasurer has been reduced to—rolled in the cabinet, rolled in the caucus.

We have a Treasurer who will argue anything. Some honourable members might have been in the debating team at school. Some of our children are in the debating team now. You go home and say, 'What side of the argument were you on in the debate today?' and they say, 'Well, we tossed a coin and we were over in the affirmative.' That is what this Treasurer does: he goes into cabinet and says, 'George, what side of the argument am I on today? Can we have the coin toss', and he will argue anything. He is an advocate for any cause you like, even if it is inconsistent—totally inconsistent—with what has been argued by him before.

So, we do not really know what is going on the other side, but I do have a theory. We know what this government does with failed treasurers. We know where they go. So, I wonder whether there have been any polite inquiries made of the Minister for Foreign Affairs over recent days: 'What diplomatic postings are coming up? Where could I go?' asks the member for Cook. 'Is London available soon, maybe? Alex is coming home. London would be nice. Paris, perhaps.' So, that is what we heard from the Treasurer.

Then we had the sidekick, the minister for revenue, who argued that negative gearing would force housing prices up, when the Prime Minister and Treasurer were arguing they would force them down. That was her great contribution to the economic debate in Australia. She forgot to check: 'What is the scare campaign today?' It is a simple thing for a junior minister to ask. 'What is the scare campaign today? Are we saying they are going to force the prices up or down?'—and she forgot to do that.

There is a better way, and that is to provide economic leadership by seeking a mandate for reform, as the Leader of the Opposition did and the opposition did—seeking a mandate for important changes like negative gearing reform, capital gains tax reform, cracking down on VET FEE-HELP rorts, dealing with private health insurance and actually providing an alternative vision. Well, this side is up for it. The Leader of the Opposition is up for it. The Treasurer, the finance minister and the minister the revenue should make way for a team that is ready to govern—and I have to tell you: that is not the member for Dawson, despite appearances today. It is this side of the House.

It is this side of the House which has an alternative position. It is this side of the House which has done the hard work when it comes to policy development. It is this side of the House which will carry through on its commitments. It is this side of the House which will make sure that what we go to an election with is what we implement—as we did.

We have this Prime Minister who says, 'I give an ironclad commitment that we will not change superannuation', and he did not even have the courage to turn up to the press conference where the humiliating capitulation—the humiliating surrender—to the hard Right of the Liberal Party and the National Party was announced. Well, this is a Prime Minister of whom it has been said quite accurately: he may be in office but he is not in power.

Craig Laundy (Reid, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is clear to us on this side of the House is that the member for McMahon is not only not up for it; he is not up to it. What he so quickly forgets is his own time in charge as Treasurer. He became Treasurer in June 2013, and one of his first acts was to stand by the forecast budget deficit of $18 billion that the member for Lilley had announced in May of that year. Eighty-six days later he presided over a PEFO—the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook—where the deficit moved to $30 billion. In 86 days he lost $12 billion. He was 67 per cent out in 86 days.

Mr Bowen interjecting—

Yes, I do support the Giants, as the shadow Treasurer says. I would not put him in charge of the concession stand at a Giants game. But he was not the worst. His predecessor had it absolutely under control. In 2011-12 he announced a deficit in May of $22.6 billion. It was $43.4 billion the following year—out by 92 per cent. It makes the member for McMahon look good. But my favourite was the 2012-13 budget, where we were going to return for the first time to a surplus—the first of four—of $1.5 billion. It ended up being a deficit of $18.8 billion—out by 1,300 per cent!

This is what they stand for. This is what they stand by. They will have you come to this House and propose a question for an MPI on the government's failure of economic leadership when their credentials are non-existent. What did the member for McMahon propose in opposition? What did he preside over? He gave himself a hell of a rap—$16 billion of increases in the budget deficits over the next four years at a time when our AAA credit rating is under close watch. There is fiscal irresponsibility writ large. He plays politics with budget repair for three years and then backflips during the campaign on the Schoolkids Bonus, foreign aid and the pension asset taper. Why? Because he needed the $47 billion of savings over the forwards that that would provide, which is what we have been arguing for up to three years. But this is where it gets worse. Whilst he stands there and wants to claw back $47 billion moving forward, in those same three years net debt increased by $120 billion. If he had not played politics for three years and if he had been constructive as he has been, to his credit, in the last week, we would have been able to change that debt trajectory a lot sooner. Even the $6 billion this week that he has agreed with us is $6 billion moving forward, but it is also $18 billion that has been borrowed over the last three years. And it has to be paid back by future generations of Australians, by our kids and our grandkids. That is the gravity of the issue that we are saying. We have been saying it for three years and whilst I applaud the move this week to support us in this bill, I cannot help but point out that it comes three years too late. I hope that it is the start of more to come.

Then he presided over my favourite. He gave in his 10-minute speech his vision for negative gearing—the 96-word policy. The second paragraph of that policy is where the devil in the detail lies. You could deduct the net interest payments against any other investment income. Who has other investment income? It is not low and middle-income earners. It is high-net-worth individuals. The shadow Treasurer, by mistake, implemented a policy that favoured high-net-worth individuals. He is that economically illiterate that he could not even negotiate a class war properly.

But what is this government done in terms of economic leadership? GDP growth is at 3.3 per cent, its highest in four years. In both the NAB and ANZ surveys released this week, business confidence is at its highest levels since December 2013. In the last 12 months, 220,000 jobs have been created and 60 per cent of those have gone to women. Unemployment is at its lowest rate in three years. The member for McMahon and the Leader of the Opposition hold press conferences—they jump out in front of policy positions and claim credit, when at the same time they are costing, for three years, day in and day out taxpayers' money.

In the last term of parliament, we heard so much. Senator Dastyari has been mentioned a lot, but one of his favourite topics was multinational tax avoidance. For three years we heard their plan—never costed—about how they were going to raise $1.6 billion over the forward estimates.

Mr Bowen interjecting—

Costed but not released, Member for McMahon. What did we do in those three years instead of going out and banging our gums? At the G20 convened in Brisbane the former Treasurer started laying the foundation for multinational tax avoidance reform. What has come from that? There are agreements with a plethora of countries, where for the first time we have access to their books. We have access to the companies based offshore that are diverting profits either through thin capitalisation or transfer pricing, which is how it happens.

What will the task force put in place by the Treasurer deliver? We heard that we have $1.6 billion on the counter. That was what the Labor policy claimed—costed, but never released—to deliver. On our side of the fence, through the changes we took time to initiate and instigate properly, over the next four years we will raise $3.75 billion, more than twice what Labor proposed through their policies.

Then, of course, we go to the free-trade agreements—Japan, Korea and China. I am proud to be a member of parliament for an electorate with a strong Chinese community. I am seeing it playing out on the ground as we speak—the benefits that will come from this. A young 29-year-old grad student came and said hello last week to thank me for initiating the free-trade agreement. I could not take the credit, because it was former Minister for Trade Andrew Robb. He explained to me that he had stopped at his local butcher. He had a strong family networking connection back in China and he had been working with his local butcher, who also owns a cattle property, about exporting boxed meat to China. They are now at the stage in their business career where they are seeking to build and accredit their own abattoirs. This is what free-trade agreements look like on the ground. They want to build the abattoirs in Wagga Wagga, in regional New South Wales, and with that will come profits, tax receipts, jobs and PAYE tax receipts. That is what economic leadership looks like. Of course, we have the National Innovation and Science Agenda, which Minister Hunt and I are continuing to roll out. We have infrastructure—$50 billion Australia wide. In my electorate, there is WestConnex, where the member for Grayndler, through the election campaign, so wilfully and recklessly flew off the cuff and threatened the future existence of that project, which is vital.

In conclusion, we have real problems. We do. You can either play politics with them or fix them. The member for McMahon comes into this place and in front of cameras every day and plays politics. He is all politics. On that side of the House they are all politics. On this side it is about policy, delivery and economic leadership.

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

It is very difficult to work out whether the member for Reid is arguing our case or theirs. He says they have real problems. Yes, they do; they really do. He says they have a problem with the AAA credit rating. Yes, they do. He says they have a problem with debt and deficit. Yes, they do, because they have added to both. Now he is claiming that on the Prime Minister's self-described greatest achievement, that ironclad commitment to change superannuation, somehow today's changes are not a humiliating backdown.

We all know what is going on. The Prime Minister has been rolled. The Treasurer has been rolled. The Minister for Revenue and Financial Services has been rolled. They have all been rolled by the backbench up here, complaining about the fact that high-income earners might actually have to pay a bit of extra super. The great irony of this one as well is that the minister for revenue's great achievement today was the low-income superannuation contribution. Seriously! What a great idea! I wish I had thought of that! I wish we had introduced that when we were in government! These people tried to get rid of it, and the fact that they could not get rid of it they are now claiming as a great victory: 'We couldn't get rid of it. What a great victory that is!'

Today we have another day, another capitulation, another stuff-up, another surrender—another policy that the Prime Minister said he was absolutely ironclad committed to, trashed by the conservative right wing of his own party. Yesterday the member for Chifley brought the Prime Minister a spine. I hope he kept the receipt. Once again we see this backbench calling the shots and this government like a chessboard, with the pawns up front and the king sitting up the back, unable to move.

Last week we heard a journalist with quite a sense of humour ask the Prime Minister, the member for Wentworth, to nominate his greatest achievement as Prime Minister. Unlike Peta Credlin and Jeff Kennett, the Prime Minister did have an answer. His answer was superannuation and the big business tax cuts, and today he has capitulated on both of them. What a shameful, shocking, embarrassing thing for this Prime Minister: to have a 10-year tax plan that did not last 10 weeks.

We know that the Prime Minister likes to get up. He is very confident in question time. He loves the sound of his own voice. He loves gesticulating with the glasses. He loves pointing at us with the glasses and marching up and down like Hamlet on the castle wall. But there is no substance to what this Prime Minister was saying today. This is a desperate effort to pretend that what has happened today is not that he was rolled by his own backbench.

The Prime Minister is trying to pretend that consultation is a good thing. Actually it is true: consultation is a great thing. When we develop policy on this side, we talk to our backbench. We talk to Labor Party members. We go out and talk to the industry. We talk to the industry groups. We make sure that when we make a budget announcement we can actually back in that budget announcement. I am not talking about 'out there' to people with vested interests or organisations that have a strong say. We can at least get our own budgets through our own backbench. This Prime Minister does not even have the strength to do that.

We think: is this unusual? No, because this Prime Minister has capitulated at every difficult decision. The right-wingers did not want action on climate change, even though we know the Prime Minister knows that climate change is happening and is a threat, so he has capitulated on that. Senator Bernardi wanted a plebiscite, so the Prime Minister has given him that. Senator Abetz and Kevin Andrews wanted public funding for the no campaign, so he wrote them a $7½ million dollar cheque. The member for Dawson wanted funding cut from Safe Schools; he got that. He wanted changes to superannuation; he got that. Every time the extremists ask the Prime Minister for something, he gives it to them, and every time he tells himself this is the last time. But every one of us knows that you do not win a fight with a bully by giving in to them, because they always come back for more.

This Prime Minister has gone from attack dog to lapdog. He sits. He begs. He rolls over: 'Yes, George. Of course, Tony. More funding, Cory.' You cannot run the country if you have to run your lines past your backbench, you cannot have a vision for the future if you spend your whole time looking over your shoulder, and you cannot lead Australia if your party leads you by the nose.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a lot of diatribe! We have just heard two speakers, the members for Sydney and McMahon, who have just let loose with a whole lot of criticism and negativity, and not once did we hear from either of those speakers any positive suggestions or counterargument. It was all just a diatribe of negativity and criticism. Aren't we used to that?

With great joy I say that 4½ minutes will not be enough time for me to go through some of the great economic leadership and some of the great economic things that we are doing as a government and have been doing for a while. I will just talk about a few. I will talk about the infrastructure spend; the free trade agreements that I have mentioned and the great, positive economic impact that they are having; and the importance of the tax cuts that we proposed in the last election. We understand on this side of politics—all being involved in business or having run businesses—the importance of that for growth in our economy and, importantly, job growth in our economy. There is the cutting of the red tape that we have done for the last three years and the importance of that, and there is budget repair, which we take very seriously because of the importance that it has.

Let's begin with infrastructure spend. As was previously mentioned by the member for Reid, we have proposed a $50 billion infrastructure spend. Just in my electorate, there is a very important spend that the federal government is committing close to $5 billion on, and that is the upgrade and duplication of the Pacific Highway. Not only is that creating 2,500 direct jobs but, with indirect jobs added to that, it is 6,000 to 7,000 jobs in my community while that upgrade between Woolgoolga and Ballina happens. That is obviously great in the construction phase with the jobs that it brings. It is great postconstruction with the increased efficiency that is brings with both tourism and moving things around. Most importantly, the reason you spend that money, Mr Deputy Speaker, as you would know, is the decrease in fatalities, which is already happening because of that.

The free trade agreements have been mentioned, and we have done many—obviously, with China, South Korea and Japan. What does that mean? That means in my community that Norco, dairy producers, are now putting fresh milk into China. That offers them a great new market for their product. The meatworks in Casino export 70 per cent of what they produce. Seventy per cent of what they process is exported. These free trade agreements are a bonanza for them. There are other, more niche, markets, like our macadamia industry. Page is the home of the macadamia industry in this country, and the free trade agreements we have done are increasing the farm gate price for our macadamia farmers. I could go on. There are blueberries. The other day I went to the opening of a blueberry packing shed in Tabulam which in its peak season is going to employ close to 800 people. Again, this is all being encouraged by the protocols we are doing, getting access to new markets.

Tax cuts! The other side of politics do not get the importance of tax cuts. Tax cuts are important when you run a business and are employing people. And taxes are competitive. We live in a global economy. If we want to go back to a high-taxing economy, taxing our small businesses and taxing our corporations, we will see them leave the country. They will be able to do that. We will be giving tax cuts to our small businesses because we understand that we live in a competitive world. I would like to tell the opposition about quite a well-known case in Ireland. When they had a company tax rate of 60 per cent, do you know what they did? They lowered it to close to 10 per cent and were collecting more tax after three years at 10 than they were at 60. There was more tax at 10 per cent than there was at 60 per cent because corporations went there, flourished and grew. That is why tax cuts are important. But I do not expect those opposite to ever understand that, because they just do not get it.

Red tape is important. We have taken billions of dollars out of the red tape and regulation that has been done over the last few years.

What has all this meant? It has meant some very good figures that I know the member for Reid mentioned earlier. At the moment our economy is growing at over three per cent. Just last week the Prime Minister was overseas and he was the envy of the leaders of other countries because our economy is growing a lot faster than theirs. Over 180,000 jobs have been created just in the last 12 months, again because of the pro-business and pro-growth policies we have. Consumer confidence is up because the consumer knows that we are about fixing our economy.

Susan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have been struggling to understand what has gone wrong for the Prime Minister in the past year after his promise of new economic leadership. There seemed to be hope, there seemed to be excitement, there seemed to be a sense of change, and then there was nothing. Then I realised that was it—with the Prime Minister it was always perception, not reality.

I do feel for him in this, his birthday week. I was one of those shy young children who did not like birthday parties. I did not like the attention and I did not like the noise. Clearly, I have changed, but back then I usually ended up in tears, and I suspect that is a little bit how those on the other side are feeling. They do not look very happy. They certainly do not look like they are having fun. There is a brave smile here and there. The birthday presents were not quite what they expected. It really has turned more into, 'It's my party and I'll cry if I want to,' than, 'for he's a jolly good fellow'.

What are those disappointments? For the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the other side there are many, like the planned GST increase. The Prime Minister says: 'Here's what I'd really like: an increase in GST. That's all I really want. Just give me that present.' It took less than a couple of days before his friends said, 'Sorry, Prime Minister; we don't want to give you that present.' So he just shrugs his shoulders and says: 'Oh well, so far, so good. Maybe next time. Maybe I'll ask for something else.' Then he and the Treasurer say: 'Please could we have some reform of negative gearing? We both really want it. We really, really want it.' But again their friends say, 'Nope, sorry; that's not what we're going to get you.' Some friends they are on that side! It does not sound like the Prime Minister is the leader of his gang at all. It sounds like he just gets to tag along with them when it suits them. They seem to be bigger and tougher and have more influence than he does.

Now the same thing is happening with the plebiscite on marriage equality. That is the one present he probably does not want, and that is the only one they want to give him.

Mr Hogan interjecting—

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Page is out of his seat!

Susan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He has had to roll over on so many of the things that he argued for in the election campaign, like a $500,000 lifetime cap on super that they could never admit was retrospective. Let's make it easier for next time, shall we? Anything that has the year 2007 in it is retrospective. To think about dropping the big business tax cuts by splitting a policy in two must be a hard one for them to swallow. It was their centrepiece. It was their plan to produce jobs and growth at home, although we knew that 40 per cent of it was going to end up overseas.

What is more, both of these things were cited by the Prime Minister as his greatest achievements since becoming Prime Minister. In my electorate of Macquarie, we have a bit of a thing about greatest achievements. It seems members on the other side have a bit of trouble coming to grips with what a greatest achievement is. For a start, you have to be able to think of something when you are asked what your greatest achievement is. That has proven to be a challenge for some. I have another piece of advice for the Prime Minister. I know it is rather impertinent of me, having only been in this chamber for a nanosecond, but I hope he will see it as coming from a fresh set of eyes. If you do think of something that is your greatest achievement, make sure you have actually done it.

When you talk about economic leadership, you only need to look at our side—and not only at the member for Lilley, who is sitting next to me—on negative gearing. We led a debate on a policy that would change the future for a generation of young people—the ones whose parents cannot afford to buy them a home. It would give them a fairer playing field so that their future would be different and they could afford to have their own home much more easily. Now, that is economic leadership.

There has been a bit of a gap for me in being in this chamber—from being up there in the gallery to down here. But when I was here, about 30 years ago, I watched another real economic leader on our side: Paul Keating. Whether it was the J-curve, tariffs, fringe benefits tax, CPI, parity or current account deficits, he did not talk down to people, like the other side does. He talked with people about these issues. The failure of economic leadership from the government is that a real leader opens people's minds and then leads them. Clearly, this Prime Minister has no ability to do that. (Time expired)

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is great to be able to talk on this MPI today. I had to laugh when listening to the members for McMahon, Sydney and Macquarie—three Labor members and all they could produce today was negative. It was nothing but negativity!

The member for Macquarie, who has been here for five minutes, said, 'Negative gearing—we want it,' and, 'Their policy would see a change for a generation of young people.' Of course it will see a change for a generation of young people. People in parts of my electorate, where they are doing is tough and where they are paying rent—what will happen to them if you get rid of negative gearing? People will gear positively, and when they gear positively rents will go up. What will that mean for people on welfare and for people on pensions in my electorate and for surrounding electorates? So we do not need a lesson or negative gearing.

The member for McMahon and the member for Sydney talked about superannuation and tax cuts. I will come back to that in a minute, but let's just remember that when Labor left office in 2013 they left Australians with a gross debt of $317 billion and $240 billion in accumulated deficits. And when they voted for that—those on the other side who voted for that—there was no thought for the future. There was no thought of, 'Well, how are we going to repay this later on?'

When you look back to 1996, when the Howard government came in with a $96 billion debt they had to sell Telstra to pay it. They had a growing economy with the mining boom and everything else—surpluses every year. And then these guys racked up so much debt so quickly. There is nothing left to sell—how are they going to repay the debt? How are they going to make sure that future generations—my children and other children—are left without that?

We had a clear economic plan—a national economic plan. In fact, we were the only party that went to the election with a clear national economic plan for stability, jobs and growth. In this week alone, we have seen billions of dollars in savings measures created. The member for Page spoke before about the trade agreements—how the trade agreements have been helping farmers in his electorate, and how they have been able to export more produce. In my electorate of Petrie, local companies like Job Fish have been able to export more spanner crabs. It is a flow-on effect. We know that exports are up.

We have also seen as part of our national economic plan our advanced defence manufacturing plan. We have seen a plan for manufacturing around shipbuilding. Now, for the new members opposite—they may not know, but perhaps the people in the gallery know? Do you know how many ships Labor ordered in their six years of government? How many defence ships they ordered? Member for Corangamite—how many did they order?

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

Zero!

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Zero! Zero ships when the member for McMahon was Treasurer, and the member for Lilley. We have ordered—what is it?—42 or 46? I cannot keep track, it keeps going up so fast. What it means is that a generation of people will have jobs in South Australia for years to come and beyond.

Of course, we also have a clear plan in relation to company tax and what the benefit of cutting company tax will do for jobs. We know that small businesses under $2 million have about 10 people employed. When you up it to $25 million you might get 30 people employed, and up to $50 million maybe 140 people are employed. And all we hear from those opposite, from the member for Rankin and others who have been interjecting today, is that offshore investors will benefit from tax cuts and that the banks will benefit from tax cuts.

Well, when does that kick in? A decade from now? Ten years from now? In the next three years the tax cuts will be delivered: for businesses up to $10 million this year, up to $25 million next year and up to $50 million after that. This will help jobs—it will help jobs in those areas in particular.

A real estate business in my electorate—Bowmaker Realty—employs 24 local people. If there is a bit of a benefit there and they can increase their workforce by 10 per cent, then that is 2.4 jobs. If companies like East Coast Bullbars in my electorate, which employs 140 people, can employ 10 per cent extra then there are 14 jobs.

Maybe the member for McMahon should talk to people on his own back bench who have run businesses before. I understand the member for Longman has run her own small business before. Maybe the member for McMahon should go talk to her before he ridicules company tax cuts and only talks about large businesses, because small businesses will benefit.

In relation to multinational tax avoidance: will cutting company tax to 25 per cent from 30 per cent help that? It probably will. But they were not serious about it, because they did not vote for our measures either. Indonesia, our nearest neighbour, has a tax rate of 25 per cent. Singapore has 17 per cent, Ireland has 12½ per cent, Poland has 19 per cent and Montenegro has—what is it?—nine per cent over there. (Time expired)

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I speak today on a matter of critical public importance in my electorate, and that is the government's complete failure of economic leadership.

The Prime Minister promotes himself as an economic lion, but in fact he is a pussycat. He has had more backflips than a Russian or Romanian gymnast. I think that today's policy is very likely to change tomorrow. Australia, as he is constantly telling us, should not be leaving a great burden of debt to our future citizens—our children and, in my case, grandchildren. But in fact we are at risk of turning our children into a group of serfs: unable to afford a house, with part-time jobs and with very poor education.

To me, what we need to be doing is concentrating on the principle that economic growth is important only if it is important for our people, not for our corporations. Giving billions of dollars of tax cuts to multinational corporations is not the way to help our children.

Australia has recently celebrated 25 years of uninterrupted economic growth, and many people have much to show for it—but not all. After those 25 years we do not even have an official rate of unemployment that is acceptable, and unofficial unemployment is much higher than we are being told. Certainly in my electorate many young people who I have cared for and who I see cannot get a job. They were at risk from this government of having even their very minimal allowances cut back.

What is truly scary is that, monthly variations in unemployment aside, we have unacceptable unemployment. If there is another major international economic problem, we are at risk of falling off a cliff. We may be also, for the first time, living in an era where the destruction of jobs through technological change is happening faster than we can provide jobs. If that is the case, we need to be very careful that in seeking to address one problem—the budget deficit—we do not totally ignore other issues such as access to employment, housing and health care.

I saw a lady during the election campaign who had terrible heart failure. She could hardly walk into the polling booth. She told me she could not afford to see her cardiologist because of the gap cost. That, in Australia in the 21st century, is a great shame. The great tragedy with this government is that there is no clear or consistent direction. The country has no confidence in this government to provide a continuing rational program of providing services. All they talk about is this mantra of jobs and growth. The growth might be in corporate profits but it is not in services to our people.

This is a government that cannot see the basic economic truth that spending $50 billion on poorly targeted and ill-considered tax cuts to corporations will not make a difference to our people. How can you have faith in this government? I had a small business for over 30 years. I know that tax cuts may very well end up in my pocket, but that would not make me employ more people. Housing affordability, specialist care for medical problems and infrastructure—we are going to build a second Sydney airport, yet I heard this week it is very likely to open without a rail link—are very important to the people in my electorate. Economics is about people; it is not about budget deficits or corporate tax cuts, it is about people. Our TAFE system is being emasculated to the point where many children I see cannot get proper training in the jobs we need. According to this government, we are not going to fully fund the Gonski reforms, and that will mean our educational outcomes will fall further behind international standards. Youth unemployment is terrible. Most of the new jobs being created are only part time. And the superannuation changes from this government seem to vary every day. (Time expired)

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

This is not a birthday party, this is not a game; this is our national parliament. All of us here, no matter which side of the House we sit on, have a responsibility to govern in the national interest and in the interest of all Australians. I say to those opposite—and I reflect upon the decisions the Australian people made in 2013 and 2016: we were voted in by the Australian people because Australians do not trust Labor to manage their money. We saw a disastrous six years of Labor. After we left the national books in really good shape, in 2007 our economy was trashed. When we tried to do a whole range of responsible things, including passing measures worth some $5 billion proposed by the previous government led by the likes of the member for McMahon, members opposite turned their collective backs on those savings. Can you imagine how much more difficult our job became when members opposite did not even have the courage to back their own savings? I do reflect positively on the decision members opposite have made this week to back our omnibus bill, which has delivered savings of $6.3 billion, but we have got a lot more hard work to do. And the reason for that is the irresponsible approach members opposite took not just in the six years in which they governed this country but in the last three years. So I say: stop playing these games. Australians are sick of these parlour games, all of these ridiculous analogies. Under the previous Labor government we saw four so-called record surpluses—which were never delivered—record debt, record deficits and even their refusal to pass their own particular savings.

We are very proud of our economic plan. We were the only side of politics to go to the Australian people with a strong economic plan—an enterprise tax plan to drive small and medium Australian businesses and lower the company tax rate. I am absolutely staggered by the contribution by the member for Macarthur, who has absolutely condemned company tax cuts. The Leader of the Opposition previously supported tax cuts. Members opposite do not know whether they are coming or going—and that is a perfect illustration. One minute, the Leader of the Opposition supports tax cuts—because he recognises they will delivers jobs and drive incentives and business confidence—and now you are condemning business tax cuts. What an absolute joke!

We have addressed bracket creep and rewarded hard work by raising the middle income tax threshold from $80,000 to $87,000. We have delivered the defence industry plan. As the member for Corangamite, I am working very hard to attract a big slice of that work—particularly with the LAND 400 project, which is worth $3 billion to $5 billion, a very important once-in-a-generation project for our country. We saw the absolute slothfulness from members opposite in not progressing any defence industry plan when they were in government. We have a very important innovation and science agenda—$1.1 billion of investment. There is $50 billion for national infrastructure.

We are also ensuring that multinational companies pay their fair share of tax. And what an absolute disgrace. When we tackled multinational tax avoidance, we needed the support of the Greens in the Senate to pass the legislation because, regrettably, Labor opposed that very important measure.

So let's contrast. Today, of course, we have had some very good news with employment, which shows that our management of the economy is working—a 5.6 per cent national unemployment rate, and it is even lower in the Geelong region at 5.4 per cent. So we are driving jobs like there is no tomorrow. Our growth is strong—3.3 per cent. New jobs are being created. Over 180,000 jobs over the last year. Business confidence remains high and consumer confidence is high. Exports are strong. International education is playing its large part, and small business is playing its large part. I say to members opposite: please, for all of us, stop playing these games. It is absolutely irresponsible. Australians expect better of you. Join with us to make sure we can continue to run the economy responsibly.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the opposition for the opportunity for a crossbench spot to contribute on this very important debate on the government's complete failure to have a plan. It is either a failure to have a plan that is going to sustain Australia in to the 21st century or they do have a plan—that is, to deliver only for the top end of town and the rest of the Australian population can fall behind.

We are increasingly running out of money to fund the services that Australians rightly expect. In Australia, we should be able to—

Mr Taylor interjecting—

No, you can send your kids to a good public school and get a world-class education.

We should be able to know that if we get sick or someone in our family gets sick, there is a public health-care system that will look after us. We should be able to know that the government are going to invest in productive infrastructure that will set Australia up for the 21st century—things like renewable energy and building more public transport.

We should be able to know that if you lose your job or you fall on hard times, there is a safety net that will hold you until you get your next job. We should be able to know that when governments boast about rising employment figures that they are actually meaningful jobs, that they are not just part-time or casualised jobs when actually what we are after is a full-time or a secure job.

If we do not have an economic plan, we will keep seeing governments like this one decide that the only way to balance the budget is to make average Australians pay more to go and see the doctor. We are going to keep seeing governments like this one say that there is not enough money for public schools and whatever promises they make prior to the election they are going to defer off to the never-never. We are going to keep seeing governments like this one say that the only way to balance the budget is to rip half a billion dollars out of renewable energy or take money off students start-up scholarships, or take money out of aged care, or take money out of the research and development tax concessions—measures that will drive and grow the industries that will succeed in this country in the 21st century and set ourselves up for what counts as real growth. Sadly, that is what this government have done, and sadly they have done it this week with the support of the opposition.

Why are we finding ourselves in this situation where there is so much pressure on the budget and we are finding it more and more difficult to fund the services that every Australian rightly expects? In large part, it is because this government continues to give unfair tax breaks to those who, frankly, do not need it. At a time when everyone else is being asked to tighten their belts, this government is quite happy to hand out billions and billions of dollars to those in the top one per cent who really do not need it.

When everyone else in this country goes and puts petrol in their car to fill it up, they are paying 39c a litre in tax. When the likes of Gina Rinehart put diesel in their trucks at a mining site, they get that tax back. Wouldn't every Australian love to be able to get that tax back? Well, no, they are not Gina Rinehart, who has the ear of this government. That costs us a few billion dollars each year.

We also know that the big banks are enjoying world-leading, record profits and the IMF has told us that the big banks get the equivalent of several billion dollars each year in subsidies. Does the government go to them and say, 'Perhaps you could chip in a bit more so we don't have to ask everyday Australians to pay to go and see the doctor?' No. They say: 'We'll keep giving handouts to the big banks. We'll keep giving the handouts to Gina Rinehart.' Then we wonder why there are these pressures on the budget.

A real economic plan requires courage. It requires standing up to those who have significant power in this country. It requires standing up on behalf of the Australian community to the big banks, to the likes of Gina Rinehart and saying: 'Maybe you could afford to pay a bit more. Maybe you don't deserve quite as generous a tax break as you are getting at the moment.' If we had the guts and the courage to stand up for those powerful vested interests and say, 'We're going to wind back some of the tax breaks that you get because there are pressures on the budget,' that would count as a real economic plan.

The government loves to come in here and tell us about the threats to the AAA credit rating. But they do not tell us that the rating agencies are saying there is also a problem on the revenue side. This government have a problem on the revenue side. What is the best way to fix a problem on the revenue side? It is not to come after students, as the government have done this week. It is not to come after the aged-care system. It is to say to those who are already doing very well, thank you very much, 'Perhaps we don't have the capacity to pay you the unfair tax breaks that we used to.' That would be a real economic plan.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To be honest, I am a bit surprised the member for McMahon has put this motion forward given the economic mismanagement this country endured during his party's six long years of government. I can remember coming back into this place in 2007 and being on the other side of the chamber. I see the member for Moreton is here. You did not get thrown out today which is amazing. But as I said in a speech recently, and you agreed, 'You have been nobbled now because you are a whip.' Congratulations on your elevation.

When we came back to the parliament in 2007, just to remind the new members on the other side, we had GroceryWatch, we had Fuelwatch, we had pink batts and we had the mining tax and the carbon tax—all economic disasters and all visited upon the Australian economy by the Labor Party, who were on this side of the chamber at the time.

I need to remind the chamber that only three months ago during the election campaign, Labor also proposed adding $16 billion to the deficit. What sort of economic plan is that? What a great plan—adding $16 billion to the deficit; a massive budget black hole! They also put forward $100 billion in higher taxes and tried to con Australians by calling them saves. How do you call a tax a save?

Dr Leigh interjecting—

I see the member for Fenner here, who used to be the member for Fraser.

Andrew Leigh (Fenner, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Very impressive!

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You were; and most of the time you were referring to yourself when you used the word 'impressive'.

Andrew Leigh (Fenner, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do you know who the seat's named after?

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am talking about the economy. I am not talking about you and your seat.

I guess Labor has always had a short memory when it comes to the drastic economic leadership failures. We heard the member for Sydney referring earlier to being rolled. I saw a couple of Prime Ministers being rolled by that side. The member for Sydney has a short memory.

We have maintained our commitment to budget repair and demonstrated economic leadership. Should Labor decide to base an argument on fact, if they ever do, rather than the untruths that they have continued to spout since the election campaign for the purpose of misleading the Australian people—just like they did with 'Mediscare'—I will remind those on the other side that in the past year alone almost 220,000 jobs have been created. Our Ten Year Enterprise Tax Plan will give 870,000 incorporated small businesses in Australia a tax cut this year, allowing them the ability to create more jobs.

Not only have we done this; we have also been forced to once again clean up Labor's economic mess. Our abolition of Labor's Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal has allowed 35,000 owner-drivers to stay on the road. The road transport sector employs around 200,000 drivers and contributes $51 billion to the national economy. The RSRT had the potential to be immensely destructive to the economy and financially devastating for everyday Australians. As someone who has a transport hub in their electorate, as I do with Welshpool in Western Australia, which is full of trucking companies, I can say that you would not believe the applause they gave to the coalition government for stopping the RSRT. They thought it was so good that we had gone out and saved their jobs. The RSRT was simply another economic disaster from that side of the chamber that was bad for small business, bad for truck owner-drivers, bad for thousands of Australian families and bad for our nation's economy, but when has public interest, the economy or the livelihoods of everyday Australians ever got in the way of Labor's deals with unions?

In addition to this, our government has secured support for over $6 billion in budget savings through the amended Budget Savings (Omnibus) Bill, which has provided immediate and tangible progress towards restoring our budget. We will arrest our debt and, in doing so, continue to strengthen our economy and our living standards and create opportunities for our future generations.

This government has set out a clear plan for our economy, providing the economic leadership Australia needs. The Australian economy is growing at 3.3 per cent. Our economic growth is faster than that of any of the other G7 economies. Our exports of goods and services from Australia are 9.6 per cent higher than a year ago. Consumer confidence remains above the long-run average, where it has now been for 20 consecutive weeks—the longest stretch since late 2013.

In the great state of Western Australia, iron ore exports from Port Hedland reached a record 42.9 million tonnes for the month of August. Need I remind the other side about the disastrous, anti-Western-Australian mining tax imposed by those on that side, which was no sign of economic leadership. The coalition will continue to provide economic leadership for the Australian economy, for the Australian people in this term of parliament and into the future as well.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for the debate has expired.