Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before the election we told the Australian people we would not block the appropriation bills. It has been our principled position certainly since the 1970s and before. We have had experience with the coalition blocking appropriation bills or deferring them. I recall the instance of the 1975 dismissal crisis. In not blocking appropriation bills, Labor always acts responsibly to ensure that the function of government continues for this year and every other year, regardless of whether we are on the Treasury benches or, indeed, in opposition.

That does not mean we are supportive of the government's management of the economy. In fact, we would call it mismanagement. In late September it was interesting to look at the final outcomes in relation to the budget for the 2015-2016 year. What it showed was that the deficit for 2015-2016 had soared to $40 billion, eight times bigger than was estimated the day Tony Abbott became the Prime Minister of this country. We saw the net debt reach $296 billion at the end of the last financial year, which is $77 billion more than was projected when Labor lost office in 2013. That comes on the back of the coalition's previous budget, which projected a net blow-out by over $100 billion in 2016-2017.

I recall the many statements from the former member for North Sydney, then shadow Treasurer, Joe Hockey, saying that there was a budget emergency. I remember opposition leaders saying this repeatedly when we were in government, talking about debt crises and Labor's alleged mismanagement of the economy. They never talk like that anymore, because the figures really show the true situation. The Turnbull government expects us all to show gratitude for a $35 billion blow-out in the deficit and a $77 billion blow-out in net debt in 2015-2016. This is all at a time when they want to give $50 billion in tax cuts to the corporate sector, including $7.4 billion in tax cuts to the big banks. Having had six positions to avoid a royal commission, they should simply do what the Australian public wants, and what Labor urges, and have a royal commission. Giving multinational companies $50 billion in tax cuts makes the budget situation much, much worse, and I think it clearly jeopardises our much cherished and hard-won AAA credit rating.

This is a government that when in opposition said that they would 'deliver a surplus in our first year and every year after that', to quote the then member for North Sydney and the shadow Treasurer. But we know they like to point the finger at us and ignore the action that we took to protect this country during the global financial crisis. 'Global', 'financial' and 'crisis' are three words that they refused to acknowledge when in opposition and almost never acknowledge now they are in government.

It was eight years ago that the Labor government took one of its most important decisions: the first stimulus package and bank guarantees that oversaw the fact that we would protect our financial system during the global economic meltdown over Christmas 2008. Bernard Keane of Crikey in 2010 wrote of the Labor government, with the Treasury and the Reserve Bank:

They stabilised our banking system, kept credit flowing, and launched two waves of stimulus that put a floor under falling consumer confidence and employment.

He went on to write that Henry's advice—that is, Ken Henry—to then Prime Minister Rudd and Treasurer Swan to 'go hard, go early, go households' was the 'playbook for a spectacular policy success'.

But what have we seen from the Abbott-Turnbull governments? They have plunged us into further debt, they have risked our AAA credit rating, they have overseen spiralling deficits since the 2014 budget—which would have to go down as one of the worst budgets in history, notwithstanding the smoking of cigars and the dancing in the then Treasurer's office before the budget was delivered—and they have undermined the national safety net, which protects the most vulnerable. Labor, however, will support these appropriations and not block supply. That is our legacy. No Labor opposition in history has ever blocked supply. Given the budgets that those opposite have thrown at us, it is not something we do lightly. But we will defend the national safety net and we will stand up for the values that we hold dear in terms of education and opportunities for all, universal health care, and we will oppose, as we always have done, the heartless cuts which will impact upon Australia's most vulnerable people.

One of the most heartless cuts that this government has undertaken over such a long period of time is in the area of Aboriginal and Torres Islander affairs. Recently my colleague, the member for Barton, spoke out against the harsh cuts to services in the face of critical rates of family violence, particularly amongst Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Indigenous leaders, including the member for Barton and the assistant shadow minister, Senator Pat Dodson from Western Australia, have spoken out against this for decades, as I did in the last parliament when I was shadow minister for Indigenous affairs.

The response of the then Prime Minister and the present Prime Minister and the Minister for Indigenous Affairs was to shrug their shoulders, to cut half a billion dollars to Indigenous services and resile from a previous commitment of development of justice targets in closing the gap. These cuts slashed millions of dollars from the Family Violence Prevention Legal Service, community legal services, legal aid and frontline services in areas of housing, health, education and the like—essential services that tackle gross inequality, whether in urban areas or rural communities. I challenge the now Prime Minister to reverse these cuts to Australia's First People and to commit to tackling the scourge of domestic violence—as I said yesterday in my speech in relation to migration legislation—and the tragedy of Indigenous suicide rates as a matter of urgency.

During the election campaign I, as shadow minister for ageing, fronted up to each and every meeting in relation to aged-care providers, who were dealing with a $1.2 billion blow in the May 2016 budget, where there were cuts to complex health care and pain management for older Australians in residential aged care. Unsurprising, the government would not release the financial basis for these cuts, the background to it and why they were making these cuts. Of course, this is a government that had a $107 million hole in the omnibus bill figures and relied on us to provide additional savings of $6.3 billion to make sure that the omnibus legislation went through in accordance with our previous commitment during the election campaign and to make sure that they could get their maths correct and undertake the necessary budget reform which we need to undertake in this country.

During the election campaign, I said to aged-care providers that we should be investigating what should happen in relation to these budget cuts in aged care, and I am pleased to see that shadow minister for ageing, the member for Franklin, and her deputy, Senator Helen Polley—both from Tasmania—have introduced an amendment to the Aged Care Act to ensure an independent review of residential aged-care funding. The Minister for Aged Care's rationale for cutting $2 billion over the 2015 MYEFO and 2016 budget was that aged-care providers were gaming the system—an outrageous claim. We want to make sure that there is responsible management, and I call on the minister to release the financials and the background to it to show why these cuts are necessary.

In my own shadow portfolio area of immigration and border protection, the annual report tabled yesterday tells a worrying story about the immigration minister's management of the department. This comes on top of the Australian National Audit Office report on offshore processing on Manus and Nauru and the Rand Corporation report, commissioned by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, which looked at the merger of the customs and immigration departments. The immigration minister has blown the budget, with the final budget outcome showing a $257 million blow-out. This blowout is driven by a $236 million overspend for departmental costs in relation to 'Outcome 1: protect Australia's sovereignty, security and safety by managing the stay and departure of non-citizens', which is essentially Operation Sovereign Borders.

At the same time, there is a significant cost blowout in the program area. The department's 'Function 5: Offshore maritime security' failed to meet targets for contracted aircraft and Royal Australian Air Force assets, square nautical miles; the commercial contracted satellite; Ashmore vessels, station and streaming days; marine unit patrol days; the number of apprehensions of illegal foreign fishing vessels; and the number of illegal foreign fishers apprehended and processed. But these are not the minister's only failures. It is quite clear that the minister has taken a tick-and-flick approach and a hands-off approach in these areas.

The Rand Corporation reports and the ANAO report clearly show that the government has engaged in some very bad maladministration and stuff-ups in the department, such as the failure to meet KPIs, including management of travellers and goods moving across borders occurring in accordance with the department's service standards—target not met; immigration status of the majority of non-citizens located in the Australian community for breach of immigration law resolved in a timely way—target not met; percentage of citizenship conferral applications decided within service delivery standards being at least 80 per cent—target not met; and visa applications finalised within an acceptable service standard—target not met. That is specifically for student visa, working holiday maker visas, general skilled migration, employer sponsored, business innovation and investment, partner, parent and other family programs. It is especially worrying that 52.4 per cent of permanent visa applications were not finalised within service standards. It is simply not good enough.

It is all very well to lecture the world—as the Prime Minister and the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection did recently in America—but you should be able to run your own department properly. There are three reports which clearly show that the Department of Immigration and Border Protection has serious systemic problems. This is a department that has been merged and there are reforms that continue to need to be undertaken. This is a government which, in terms of budget allocations, is blowing money, and we also have a minister who is clearly not focused on making sure the necessary reforms in the department are undertaken and we see that the necessary targets have been set are not being fulfilled. So it is all very well for the government to claim that they are doing things right in border protection—and we believe in strong border protection as well—but we need to treat the management of the department better and we need to make sure that money is spent more wisely, because this is taxpayers' money.

Another contentious issue is Medicare. In the 100 days since the election the government have not dropped one of the savage health cuts that you find in the budget—not one. Yesterday there was an opportunity for coalition members to go back to their electorates this Friday and say, 'We stood up for Medicare,' but they did not take that opportunity; they voted in the House to continue the savage cuts. The government refuse to protect bulk-billing. Members here have refused to protect bulk-billing. They refuse to reverse the harmful cuts to Medicare by unfreezing the indexation of the Medicare Benefits Schedule. They are in a situation where they will go back to their constituents who may have cancer and tell them that they will end up paying more for blood tests because their member of parliament voted against reversing the government's cuts to pathology. They are going to tell women with breast cancer that, as a result of the government's cuts to breast screening, MRIs, X-rays and other diagnostic imaging, they will pay more for vital scans. The government refuse to listen to the public on Medicare and refuse to listen to the public on the banking royal commission. We will support the appropriations legislation. We will support our long-held position, but the government must manage the economy better and do what they said they would do—that is, reduce debt and reduce deficit.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to make some comments on the appropriations bills and, more broadly, on the government's lack of an agenda for most Australians. We might remember that the government ran an election campaign entitled 'Jobs and Growth', under which sat nothing. The government's only understood policy was to find a way to provide $50 billion by way of tax cuts to, predominantly, large businesses and banks and, in some cases, multinational companies that do not reside in Australia. That is $50,000 million spent on cuts to provide opportunities, perhaps, but the idea that those fiscal cuts to our budget—money that would be lost from providing support in hospitals or investing in education and skills—was going to be a panacea for what ails Australia is false.

Whilst the government scraped over the line, I think it is fair to say that the Australian people were not convinced about the message from the government. Whilst I think people are concerned about their jobs and employment prospects generally, I do not believe they believe the government are sincere in their concerns for workers and for those seeking work. If we look at what is happening not only in Australia but more broadly around the world, there are some concerning things happening in comparable democracies. We see the rise of Donald Trump—a person who identifies problems and has simplistic solutions or, even worse, seeks to find the wrong reasons for the problems that beset that country. He seeks to blame people—in some cases ethnic minorities. He seems to blame others rather than perhaps finding a solution to some of the challenges that that country faces.

If anyone wants to get a real sense of what has happened to America—and it is quite disturbing, when you think back to a time when often, certainly in some respects, we looked to America as an exemplar in terms of jobs, in terms of income, as a wealthy nation that had a middle class; you really have to wonder what is going on that has led to such disquiet, to protests in the streets and to the capacity for so many Americans to consider that Donald Trump is the answer—I would refer members and senators to Joseph Stiglitz's book. I have looked at it and I am relooking at it. A Nobel laureate who won the Nobel Prize for economics, he identifies what has happened to the United States: the hollowing-out of the middle class; the impoverishment of working-class people; the fact that millions and millions of workers who are working a full-time job are still living below the poverty line; the fact that they do not have access to health care; the fact that a rich nation like that impoverishes so many of its citizens; the fact that, through de-industrialisation and through globalisation, there has been no effort to stop the growing gap between the very, very rich and the majority of Americans.

If you look back and draw the comparison between what has happened in the last 40 years in America and the growth in the obscene wealth of the one per cent and the 0.1 per cent of those citizens compared with what has happened to the middle-class and working-class Americans, it is a salutary tale, and it is an example that we must avoid. The reason why it has some relevance and pertinence to our situation is that we currently have a government that does not address issues about the rising inequality in our own country.

How could it be the case that the only answer to provide secure, decent jobs for Australians is to provide tax cuts in the order of $50 billion to multinationals, big banks and others? The notion that trickle-down economics works has been repudiated by all eminent economists over many years. When Milton Friedman was around, it might have been the case that this notion took hold and people believed that equality was what you had to sacrifice for growth. Well, that has been repudiated. Even bodies such as the World Bank and the IMF have made it clear, along with the OECD, that the growth of economies is adversely affected by inequality. The less equal your society is, the more likely you are not going to grow your economy. Further to the point, in that economy, of course, people are not sharing, and that is why there is a lack of confidence and faith. In America you see it writ large with the fact that Donald Trump is running for the most senior, most powerful political position in the world. Despite all of his conduct, behaviour and offensive, abusive admissions, he is still running as the presidential candidate for one of the major parties. I think that is an indictment.

Labor's fear is that, if the government does not attend to some of the very serious issues in our own society, we will tread down America's path. I am concerned, for example, that we make sure we maintain the minimum wage. Bill Shorten and I made a submission last parliamentary term to make sure we arrest the decline in the minimum wage. Recently, the shadow Treasurer also added his voice to support this important social benefit to the lowest paid workers in our society. We do have a relatively high minimum wage, and that is a good thing, because we want to make sure we have a decent society where people, when they work a full week, can afford to make ends meet and can afford to pay the bills, look after the family, pay the mortgage or rent and keep a car running. I think people in this place can sometimes forget how difficult it is to live on the minimum wage or do not have any idea how hard it would be, particularly if you are not supported by family, to try and survive on a very low wage.

We need to make sure we do more, continue to have the argument and repudiate those who would like to see the minimum wage fall. We would like to see it grow. I would like to see it increase as a proportion of the median wage. I would like to see it not fall. In fact, if you look—even with the efforts in recent times in maintaining the minimum wage—it has started to fall against the median wage and the mean average wage. I think that is something that we need to arrest, and Labor is going to make sure we say more about that in the coming weeks and months.

Equally, we are concerned that, as we speak, the Fair Work Commission is looking at cutting the real income of low-paid workers by changing penalty rates. We know the Liberal Party love the idea of cutting penalty rates. That seems to be the only thing that they all agree on: 'Let's cut penalty rates. Let's abolish it. There are going to be lots of jobs that will come from it.' What it means is that there will be real income taken out of the economy. Of course employers would like to pay less, but they will have customers with less money in their pockets if they go down the path of supporting cuts to low- and middle-income earners who rely upon penalty rates to make ends meet. We do not support it, and that is why we made a submission to the Fair Work Commission to argue against any cuts. We impress upon the Fair Work Commission not to, in any adverse way, affect people that are struggling—particularly at a time where the wage growth in this country is as low as it has been in a generation.

Since figures were collected in 1998, we have not seen wage growth so low. In many parts of our labour market there is actually a wage recession. Wages are going backwards in real terms for many Australians. So, when your constituents talk to you, Deputy Speaker, or talk to me or other colleagues about struggling, they mean it, because their wages are not going forward and they are struggling and we need to be sensitive to that. I do not think the government has a plan other than to hope that the commission cuts penalty rates—and, again, Labor stands against those cuts and will argue that strongly. We did say, if elected, we would have intervened and argued that strongly. Of course, the government is hoping the Fair Work Commission does its work for it and makes the cut in real terms to low-income earners, and I think that is a dreadful shame.

Again, it is the government turning its back on those people that need the most help. It is the movement away from what, I think, is a fair society towards what has happened in the United States. People in that once great nation, which seemed to allow people to realise the dream, now just have empty promises. They have broken promises and broken dreams because of the impoverishing of the working class and the hollowing out of the middle class—people cannot find a decent job. They are working three or four jobs just to make ends meet. I think this government has to wake up to what is happening in this country. It might not be happening in such a pronounced way as it is happening in the United States, but it is happening. Inequality is at a 75-year high.

We have seen the bank CEOs recently come before a parliamentary committee and argue that they do not need any royal commission. Of course, with their wages in excess of $10 million each, they do not understand why people are affronted by the sort of money they receive and the bonuses they get, when they treat their own clients the way they have. The government does not have answers to some of these issues around the growing casualisation of work, the fact that people are not finding full-time work, the fact that 90 per cent of the jobs created in the last 12 months have been part time when people are looking for full-time work, or the fact that there is now the highest number of Australians underemployed, according to the ABS, with 1.1 million Australians saying, 'We are looking for more work but we cannot find it.' They cannot find more work. They are struggling and unemployment is at its highest in our history. So there are some real issues.

The slogan 'Jobs and growth' will not cut it. The notion that people still believe in trickle-down economics—that you give all the benefits to the wealthy and it trickles down to the less wealthy—has been repudiated and, quite frankly, I think Australians do not believe it. There might have been occasions when Australians once believed it, but they do not believe it now. We have to have a government that is in tune with the needs of ordinary Australians and believes there should be decent conditions of work. Where people are looking for full-time work, there should be opportunities to find it, and, when there is massive exploitation on the scale of 7-Eleven, something should be done about it. There is no point mentioning it in the election campaign and forgetting to put it into the top 25 priorities. It would appear that at least $100 million was not paid to workers at 7-Eleven. One hundred million dollars—this is just one example and, yet, what has the government done in two years to respond to the most blatant exploitation of workers? There are still workers that have not been paid back the money owed to them. A $100 million debt is owed to workers and the government has done nothing about it, obsessed as it is with the double dissolution bills, the registered organisations bill, which is so esoteric that no-one in the real world knows what we are talking about, and this ABCC bill, which is about introducing a regulator for the building industry which already exists. We have a fair work building commission that has coercive powers now. This was the big election about nothing. It is like a Seinfeld episode. We have the registered organisations bill, which one in 1,000 Australians knows anything about, and we have the ABCC bill, which is supposed to be introducing a regulatory body that already exists—that is the ambition of this government. That is its intent. That is the reason upon which the election was predicated. It just shows you how empty and hollow the Prime Minister is, how empty and hollow the election campaign policies of the government were, and why it was left with a margin of one in the lower house.

If the government wants to get serious, it should take heed of Labor's policies—making sure that there is fairness at work and making sure that, when we do grow our economy, people share in that growth. It is about inclusive growth. As I said, it is not just Labor saying that. The IMF and the World Bank have said fairer societies—societies that are more equal than others—will grow faster and will grow for longer because people can see the benefits in growing the economy if they are beneficiaries of the growth. It makes perfect sense. But, when people have lost faith in an economic system where they are not the winners—in fact they are being deprived of the benefits—and they see the five per cent at the top getting everything and themselves getting nothing, it is no wonder we see the rise of Donald Trump in America and we see certain minor parties here benefiting as well.

This government has got to get real, listen to the concerns of working people and businesses, invest in skills, invest to make sure that we can grow, invest in our industries too—not turn our back again on manufacturing like we saw with recent decisions by this government—and engage in order to make sure we prosper as a country. Labor is willing to sit down with the government on a series of these issues because they are so important; they are in the national interest. But the government has to stop just tending to the top end of town. The merchant banker has to become the leader of this nation, because up until this point he has been an abject failure.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure today to be here to speak on the appropriation bills and to represent the people of Hindmarsh. As I have said many times in this place, I represent a very diverse electorate, an electorate that has very diverse businesses, stretching from the beachside suburbs right into the city. It is filled with some fantastic businesses, both small and large, and some great community groups, great organisations. It has a vibrancy and a real sense of community. But there are also many challenges to these groups, whether they be community groups, businesses or families just going about their business, mums and dads just wanting to get to work, get their wage, pay their mortgage, pay their bills and be mums and dads. There are also challenges to people running a big business, a multinational company, within the electorate—and we have a few—or a small niche market business. There are challenges, and I want to talk about some of these challenges today and compare the government's record with the record that Labor had.

Some of these businesses in the electorate, both large and small, need our help to thrive. Even though some of them are doing very well, they need this help to be able to create more jobs. We just heard the shadow minister speak out about jobs and industrial relations. We definitely need to be concentrating and focusing on the creation of more jobs, especially in South Australia. That is why I am very proud today to be showcasing some of the great products that are made locally in the electorate of Hindmarsh. In my parliamentary office, I have a sample of biscuits that were sent to me by Arnott's. Most of us know of Arnott's biscuit making. The company are located right in the middle of my electorate, in Marleston. They employ about 200 people and they are operating two shifts at the moment. Occasionally they may even go to three shifts. They are an example of a company exporting around the world and setting up businesses in other places as well. Not only that; I am very proud to say that Hindmarsh is the home of Tim Tams. The member for Bendigo may lay claim to having the home of the Chiko Roll in Bendigo, in her electorate; we have the home of the famous, wonderful Tim Tam biscuits in Hindmarsh. I am very proud of that. Arnott's require assistance and good policy from governments to ensure that they can thrive and go on producing their product, exporting it around the world, employing people, going to that third shift and being a thriving business that is part of the community.

Another great business in my electorate—I visited it a couple of weeks ago, with the shadow minister for industrial relations actually—is Pak Fresh. Pak Fresh is an amazing little company that was started up a few years ago by two people. It is a cold store, based in Adelaide Airport, for chilled and frozen products to be exported all over the world. It is a logistics sort of company. Those people found a niche market. They started off the business through hard work, through enterprise and through some thinking outside the box about where there was a market. Obviously they filled that market. They export goods for people who want to export certain things. For example, they showed me how they could have fresh and frozen seafood brought down from Port Lincoln on a plane and have it ending up in Asia within 24 hours.

I raise these businesses because these are hardworking people who are employing people in my electorate, people who are trying their darned hardest to do what they can. That brings me to the point of infrastructure and how these businesses really require good infrastructure, whether it be roads, rail or other transport, to ensure that they can move their products across metropolitan and regional areas and across the country in reasonable time frames to be able to get productivity up and to do a whole range of other things.

I am very proud that, when I was here in 2013, the federal Labor government, together with the state Labor government, announced the upgrade of Torrens Road in my electorate. It is called the Torrens to Torrens project, because it is from Torrens Road to the River Torrens. Approximately four kilometres of road is being upgraded. It was a very narrow road with thousands of cars banked up bumper to bumper every morning and every afternoon—most of the day, actually. I was very proud when Anthony Albanese announced the Torrens to Torrens project. The project cost about $896 million. We turned the first sod in 2013 with the then Minister Albanese. It created 480 jobs there—480 jobs that have been going since 2013. This is the benefit that you get out of infrastructure.

But there are other added benefits as well. The upgrade features a new lowered road under Grangeand Port Roads, providing nonstop routes from my electorate through to the northern suburbs. It reduces delays in east-west travel. You may say, 'What does that mean?' If you are travelling to the northern suburbs from my electorate, it will reduce the time by about 12 minutes. If you are going one way, it is a reduction of 12 minutes. If you are coming back, which most people do in the afternoon—or if you are a transport company—that is close to 25 minutes a day that you are saving. Over an average week of five days—and many companies work six or seven days—that could be anything up to two hours. When you think of the productivity hours that are saved, the benefits to the nation, the benefits to those companies that use that road, the benefits to the mums and dads who can spend an extra couple of hours with their kids reading a story to them at night or playing with them on the weekends or in the mornings, it is a big difference. It actually makes a difference not only to people's lives but also to the economy as a whole. That is why I am very proud of this project, which is a four-kilometre nonstop section of roadway with wider lanes and a flow-on of traffic which will be much more convenient for everyone using it. It starts at Pym Street, Croydon Park, and finishes at Ashwin Parade within my electorate.

When this was announced and when I was fighting to make sure that we got the money for this infrastructure project back in 2013, I remember the then opposition arguing against it, saying that there was no benefit to it and it was a waste of money and carrying on like pork chops that this was not going to be a good project. Funnily enough, though, in the last three years it has been claimed by the government as their wonderful, great project. It was featured on every flyer that went out with Liberal Party members who have represented those areas over the last three years. So on the one hand it was bagged, and then on the other hand, when they were in government, they praised it—and rightly so; it should be praised. It is a great project that will improve everything—for cycling, for pedestrians and for the economy. That is why it is so important. I was very proud that we announced it and that we funded it.

There are many other projects in my electorate. The Michael Herbert Bridge as it is known now—it was formerly known as the King Street Bridge—in Glenelg provides better traffic conditions for local residents. This benefits not only local residents but the businesses that use it as well. If this bridge had not been built—it was going to be closed down because it was dangerous—it would have meant an extra six kilometres for people travelling to that side of Glenelg in the electorate or wanting to head north or south. If you add six kilometres one way and six kilometres the other onto everybody's timetable every day, that is an enormous amount of hours spent on transport, just travelling. Again, it is hours that mums and dads save. They can have more family time and businesses can value add to their business through productivity and the saving of time.

Another great project from Labor has been the Glenelg to Adelaide recycled water pipeline—and let us not forget that all of these infrastructure projects created much-needed jobs. It cost about $61 million and was funded by state and federal governments. Previously, the wastewater treatment plant at West Beach treated the sewage a little and then pumped it out into Gulf St Vincent, an extremely important ecosystem for our fisheries and a range of other things. This system was killing the seagrass; therefore, diminishing the ability for our professional fishermen to fish in these waters. But now, with the funding that came from the then federal Labor government and the state Labor government, that sewage is treated at the sewerage plant and the water is pumped back into the city, watering our parklands and also fed off to businesses that require it. It is a great project.

Again, that infrastructure has created much-needed jobs and it is a plus for the environment and a plus for Gulf St Vincent in South Australia. It has ensured that we maintain our fishing industries and that we look after the environment, and we are giving much-needed water to businesses and parklands between the city and the sea. Anyone who has visited Adelaide and seen our wonderful metropolitan parklands will know what I am talking about. During the drought, these areas all dried off and gum trees that were 150 years old were dying. This will never happen again because of this project, and I am very proud of it.

At the other end of the scale in the education and training area, I am very proud of our St George College in Mile End. We were able to secure funding for their hospitality trade training centre. We put money into training kids so they can get VET credits. Kids train in hospitality, get some credit and then go straight into an apprenticeship when they finish. It is very important to give kids the pathways to go on into apprenticeships. This centre delivers innovative, creative and quality training. I visited that centre with the then Minister for Education Peter Garrett. It provides kids with a certificate I in hospitality and a certificate II in kitchen operations, making them ready to be employed as apprentices and be productive from day one as apprentices in the hospitality industry in restaurants and big hotels. That, of course, saves money for the people employing them because they are productive immediately. It gives those kids a pathway and an interest whilst still at high school doing certificate courses that count towards an apprenticeship. Also, it prepares students for employment in the dynamic and fast-paced hospitality industry in my electorate of Hindmarsh.

These are just some of the examples of the great initiatives that Labor delivered for Hindmarsh. Compare that to what has happened under the Abbott Turnbull government. It is clear they have done very little for my electorate and for South Australia as a whole in terms of investment and infrastructure. We know that when you inject money into investments in infrastructure, you are creating jobs and much-needed facilities for particular electorates. Compare the government with what we announced during the last federal election campaign. We announced big infrastructure projects for the electorate of Hindmarsh that would have created jobs and solved some of the infrastructure issues we have.

One project on which I was very proud to be able to secure a commitment from the Labor opposition in the lead-up to this election was $40 million towards the Brown Hill Keswick Creek Stormwater Project, which will safeguard thousands of homes, businesses and residents from the devastating damage of flooding. One of those businesses that would be affected by this is the Adelaide Airport—a major piece of infrastructure in my electorate. Last week, with the storms and the bad weather, we came very close to having a devastating flood through these creeks in my electorate. There were people who were sandbagging and people who were asked to leave their homes. They tell me we were just lucky it did not rain for an extra hour, otherwise we could have had some massive disasters. We were willing to fund to the Brown Hill Keswick Creek Stormwater Project, which would mean that the flows of water could be controlled to prevent flooding. I am very proud of that commitment.

Another Labor pledge in the lead-up to the election was $500 million for the AdeLINK tram network to expand the tram line from the city to Henley Beach, going through the Adelaide Airport in my electorate as well. That would help to reduce traffic on roads in my electorate, not to mention the environmental benefits it would have. I go back to that point of infrastructure and the money that you spend. That $500 million would have alleviated traffic problems, provided much-needed infrastructure, and also created 200 jobs in the electorate, which are badly needed at this point in time. (Time expired)

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

I, too, take the opportunity to speak on these appropriation bills. These bills, effectively, are a result of the last election. Labor has agreed to pass these bills. But it is worthwhile noting that, together with the supply acts, which were passed earlier, these three bills of appropriation from the Consolidated Revenue Fund are for annual service of the government for the full year of 2016-2017 and to facilitate the implementation of the 2016-2017 budget. In total, around $58 billion is sought for the remainder of that financial year, and these amounts effectively form the bottom line for the budget.

As I say, this very much results from the last election and, to that extent, I think it is worthwhile to test some of the government's record as it now appears. The basis of this budget, if you listen to the government, is called 'budget repair'. Interestingly, one thing that you will never hear this government talk about is the global financial crisis. They will never talk about what occurred there. They will never talk about what their response was to the global financial crisis when they were in opposition, because, through their then shadow Treasurer, they said, 'We should wait and see what develops.' It is clear that Labor acted in accordance with Treasury advice. We acted to protect the citizens of this country, we acted to protect growth—we were the only OECD country during that period that recorded growth—and we acted to protect jobs. And there was a cost to that—there is no question about that. But what this government has done is come along so many years later wanting to lay the blame for budget repair solely at the feet of Labor. Particularly at that time in opposition, they just buried their heads in the sand and played politics.

I would contrast that to the position that Labor is adopting today. We are supporting the government's position. We do acknowledge the need for addressing budget repair. As a matter of fact, in the lead-up to the last election, Labor made it very clear that we would partner with the government in addressing issues of budget repair. We spoke about increasing tobacco excise, which is not necessarily popular out there. We actually proposed that. We spoke about negative gearing and adjustment to capital gains tax. I know we were not the first to do it. I know the then member for North Sydney, in his valedictory speech, also made mention of the need to do that. We know that Treasurer Morrison spoke on many occasions about it being subject to various successes. But when it came down to it, there was only one party prepared to take the hard decisions. We are committed to doing something about this. It is an issue that particularly affects those of us living in Sydney and those of us living in Melbourne who are very much impacted by the inflating real estate markets. We said that we were prepared to do it and we committed ourselves to do it.

Similarly, in terms of VET FEE-HELP, we on this side do want to get young people through trades. We do want people to actually gain an education which is going to help them be more job ready for employment opportunities. We said we would put an $8,000 cap on that, which was not what we saw this government do over a period of time where I think it blew out 300 per cent. People were receiving various certificates, diplomas and all sorts of magical documents with lovely crests and headings on them but they did not eventuate into jobs. And yet people are being stung for VET FEE-HELP debts of over $30,000 and not netting employment. We do not think that is a very good idea. It is not a smart idea. And it has taken this government a long time to actually come to terms with that and to be committed to doing something about it.

The plan of those opposite was to give big business a $50 billion tax cut. In the course of this concept of budget repair, they thought there was something to trickle-down economics. They proposed that if they could give business a $50 billion tax cut then those businesses would, in turn, pass it on to their employees in higher wages. Put this to the test: how many times have you ever heard of a conservative government popping up in a test case of the Industrial Relations Commission of the minimum rates adjustment to say, 'We support it'? In the whole time that I have been involved in public life, I cannot remember a government from the conservative ranks ever saying that they support a wage adjustment. The fact at the moment is we have the lowest possible wage growth seen in the last 20 years; it has stagnated. Most economists say that is one of the issues we currently face. I would have thought that, through trickle-down economics, a $50 billion tax reduction might see corporate profits go up a little, may see dividends to shareholders paid out and may see a little bit of corporate buyback, but I am not sure I would have backed that in as being the biggest drawcard to budget repair.

The same could be said for giving people earning $180,000 a tax cut to their marginal rate. Those opposite would propose that, if they gave the top three per cent of wage earners in the country a tax cut, those people would invest, they would put their money somewhere else, they would stimulate the economy and they would create jobs. Maybe not, maybe they will buy their sixth or seventh house. If that occurred, 75 per cent of people would not get anything.

Deputy Speaker Coulton, I know you are familiar with my electorate. There are many things my electorate is very proud of. We have the most multicultural community in the whole of the country. Thirty per cent of my community speak Asian languages. It is very diverse, colourful and vibrant. But my community is not a rich community. When the government indicated it would give these tax cuts at the higher end of the scale, it basically took away any chance of anyone in my community receiving a zack. In my community, the average household income is under $60,000, not the average income but the average household income. People want to talk about things such as education. They have high aspirations for their kids. They know that in a society like Australia that the ticket to success is a good education. They understand that and, quite frankly, they make their kids work pretty hard to attain good results. Mums and dads will work two or three jobs to make sure their kids get a proper education and the resources they need. Education is a very high priority for them.

Health was also a big issue, with the government wanting to talk about Medicare insofar as cutting financial support for people going for MRIs and cutting funding for various aspects of oncology treatments. It is all very well to say that people are expected to pay as they go, but, in a community like mine, health is very, very important. In a country like Australia, we expect that people will be able to access first-class health care with their Medicare card, not their credit card. Those things were important.

The central plank of the budget was $50 billion in tax cuts for business, showing that those opposite turned their backs on working-class areas like mine and those that many members on my side represent. Although the truth of it is that, while many of those opposite might not want to admit it, people in their electorates would have been in the same financial position as those in my electorate. They turned their backs on those people, and the consequence of that is that they lost in the vicinity of 16 or 17 seats. They turned their backs on the needs of ordinary people in their community.

Those opposite are cutting $30 billion from schools, and they want to talk about Gonski, asking what it has delivered and all the rest of it. Apart from everything else I have indicated, my community is over-represented by families that live with disabilities, and there is a reason for that. As I said, it is a very working-class community; it is not a very rich community. A lot of people gravitate to Western Sydney because the land is cheaper. They will compromise on houses and land to make sure that their children are able to receive the necessary support. For instance, 52 per cent of all families in New South Wales that live with autism are within a 20-kilometre radius of the Liverpool CBD—and it is certainly not due to the water we have or the air we breathe. It is due to the fact that people make compromises to look after their kids, particularly kids who are on the autism spectrum. Probably the most devastating statistic is that 82 per cent of all those families are single-parent families; regrettably, very few marriages survive issues associated with raising children with autism.

These people want to know, and they deserve to know, that their kids will be given the necessary assistance through our education system and through our health services, that they are not going to be forgotten, that their kids can do what all the rest of our kids can do, which is to reach their potential. The Gonski money was used pretty constructively in schools in my electorate—I cannot speak for everyone else, but in my electorate I saw what was happening. For kids with a learning disability or kids who needed speech therapy, including kids on the autism spectrum, there were special classes aimed at adjusting kids into mainstream education. These are areas where we can make a difference. We are a lucky society. We are a very fortunate society. But society cannot be lucky and fortunate for a certain few—we must make sure that we do not allow people to fall through the cracks.

We must be, and we must always aspire to be, a caring community. That does not mean to say that we are simply going to be a welfare state. I was just talking to a member at the table about the need for people to be in work. We made that very clear—in fact, while in government we made it very clear. We drew a distinction between people on a disability support pension or an age pension and people on Newstart, on the dole. We did not want to establish an alternate economy where people could opt-out and simply say, 'I'll join John Howard's surfing team'—as they used to call it in the past. We want to make sure there is an incentive for people to get out and gain employment and contribute to the community. It is a two-way street. We tried very hard to deliver that message in the community.

Quite frankly, when we talk about jobs, education and health, these were things that resonated with the community. Because of that, particularly in Western Sydney, all these seats came back to Labor. They had a flirtation with the Liberals—and I am talking about the fancy things—but they found out that it meant a tax cut for big business. There was nothing for mums and dads raising kids in Western Sydney, nothing for their struggle to pay a mortgage and nothing for them in relation to job security. These are issues that were important. These are issues that Labor was able to focus on. These are the issues that delivered Labor election victory in Western Sydney. As I said at the start of my contribution, we will not oppose the passage of these bills, but I think we ought to have regard to how that came about.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour.

Sitting suspended from 13 : 31 to 16:00