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

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

The need for the Government to address rising inequality and division in Australia.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

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

There is indeed an urgent need for the government and the parliament to address rising inequality and division in Australia. In that vein, this is undoubtedly a lesson to be learned from the recent US election. I appreciate that, whilst our two nations share common values and ideals, we are not the United States. Three decades ago we took a different economic direction. We went a different way. The United States chose Reaganism and trickle-down economics; Australia chose Hawke and Keating and the Accord.

In Australia we believe in a minimum wage that is a living wage, a wage that rises regularly and prevents poverty, not sustains it. We believe a university education should be earned on merit, not determined by one's income or by the income of one's parents. It is why Labor governments keep university affordable. We believe Australians who work hard their whole lives deserve dignity in retirement. It is why Labor built universal superannuation and why we always fight for a fair go for pensioners. We believe that the health of any one of us matters to all of us. It is why we created Medicare and why we will fight to protect it.

The numbers tell the story about addressing inequality and division. In 1985 the minimum wage in Australia was A$5.66 an hour; in 2015 it had risen to A$17.29 per hour, an increase of 11.2 per cent in real terms. In the United States in 1985 the minimum wage was US$3.35 an hour; in 2015 it was US$7.25 an hour, a decrease in real terms of 21 per cent. In the last 20 years the proportion of our population aged 25 to 34 earning a tertiary degree grew by almost 90 per cent, but it increased by just 30 per cent in the United States. Australia's middle class holds 40 per cent of our national wealth; the American middle class holds just 19 per cent of theirs.

The Australian model is one of a decent safety net and a strong middle class, and it steered Australia through the global financial crisis. The member for Lilley presided over an economy that did not just weather the world storm; it grew. This was not in spite of Labor's belief in inclusive prosperity but because of it. After the GFC we reinvested in productivity and social equity through the National Disability Insurance Scheme, empowering an extra 470,000 Australians living with disability, and their carers, to participate in our growing economy. The Australian model grows national wealth through productivity, skills, permanent migration, and trade and investment, underpinned by a strong safety net of a fair minimum wage, compulsory superannuation, Medicare, the NDIS and the pension.

We can never be complacent or arrogant about what we have built, and we should acknowledge that all sides of politics have previously made a contribution to the Australian story. But economic change is never even, and it is always hard. We must recognise that there are real challenges in our economy right now. Living standards are two per cent lower than when Labor left office. Most jobs being lost are full-time jobs; most jobs being created are part-time jobs. Productivity is at a standstill; wages growth is flatlining; insecure work is on the rise. More and more Australians worry about being offshored, outsourced, contracted out or downsized. Income inequality is at a disturbing 70-year high. Childcare costs are devouring the wages of working parents. Our tax system continues to disproportionately favour the wealthy individuals and multinational companies who can afford the advice to avoid paying their fair share. Next time, for the first time ever, homeowners will be in the minority, because a generation have been locked out of the market by tax concessions for speculators.

Our regions are all too often missing out on local jobs in the regions. People in Gladstone, Townsville and Mackay listen to this government talk about massive headline growth and they wonder why it has not delivered for them. People in Gove and Geelong, the Hunter and the suburbs of Perth work their last shifts as their factories and refineries close; yet all they hear is this Prime Minister talking about exciting times. People in Elizabeth and Broadmeadows and North-Western Tasmania see the government puff its chest out about creating jobs and they wonder why so many people in their own community cannot find work. From mining towns to manufacturing suburbs and regional Australia people are hungry for recognition, hungry for Australia's leaders to recognise that the economy is not working in the interests of ordinary Australians. In this place we should never discount or dismiss the difficulties of people who are struggling—the more than 700,000 Australians who cannot find a single hour of paid work a week, and the more than a million Australians who regularly record that they would like more hours of work by simply cannot obtain them. There are the 800,000 of our fellow Australians on the disability pension, marginalised and blamed rather than supported into work.

We should not be surprised that in our own country Australians doing it tough are furious when they see workers brought in on 457 visas and exploited to undercut Australian wages—dodgy operators bringing people in to work as cabinetmakers, cooks, carpenters, electricians and motor mechanics and paying them, in some cases, $10 an hour or less. We need to recognise that where economic change is fast and uncertain, where economic growth is concentrated in the hands of a few, where there is a widening gap in incomes and opportunities, rewarding the top end and leaving the rest behind, these are the conditions for demagogues and the breeding ground for the politics of blame, of us versus them.

We are not yet at the point of the United States, but unless action is taken it is the direction in which we are heading. This is not the time to aggravate inequality and division with cuts to working- and middle-class families and a $50 billion giveaway to multinational companies, with $17,000 tax cuts plus for millionaires thrown in for good measure. This is no time, also, to appease those who peddle prejudice by giving into their demands.

Where ever there is a vacuum in leadership, it will be filled by extremism. But Labor will not be retreating. We will not lower ourselves to the politics of fear. We will not play the race card; we will not weaken protections against hate speech; we will not marginalise the poor, the sick and the vulnerable for a grubby political dividend. We give more credit to Australians than that. We think more of this country and what we can achieve and where we can go. This is not the time for weasel words; it is the time for policies that put people first. It is time to prioritise the first home buyers and to put the great Australian dream of housing affordability back into the reach of working- and middle-class families. It is time to stand up for Australian jobs. It is time to crack down on employers using and abusing our visa system to import and exploit cheap labour. It is time to invest in our schools. It is time to back public TAFE and Australian apprentices. It is time to get nation-building projects like high-speed rail up and going and to put Australians to work on these projects. It is time to protect Medicare, because every Australian should be able to see a doctor when they are sick and be able to afford the medicine that makes them better.

Labor does not believe in a world of trade agreements which do not deliver the blue-collar jobs for those hurt by these agreements. We cannot be a parliament that protects the banks during the GFC but denies a royal commission to the victims of banking scandals in these circumstances. We cannot allow corporate donors to exert their influence on election campaigns without transparency, accountability and election-funding reform. This government should not and cannot subsidise private health providers exclusively while cutting Medicare and our hospital funding. All this does is concentrate power in the hands of the wealthy few and guarantee that more and more people are left behind.

My party will heed the lessons we saw in Detroit, Michigan and Ohio, Pennsylvania. Labor will deliver an economy that serves and includes working- and middle-class people. Labor will buy Australian, build Australian and employ Australian. We will never leave people behind.

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

Between 2007 and 2012 I was happily working away in my family business but I was strongly of the opinion that this country faced real problems. In the four years I have been in this place—and the Leader of the Opposition talked about division—I have taken great pride in representing one of the most culturally diverse seats in federal parliament and standing up to unite our community at every turn. There is no us and them—and the Leader of the Opposition used that term in his speech. There is no us and them; there is just us. I have been saying this for four years.

I am glad the Leader of the Opposition spoke at least a little bit about the numbers because the thing that drove me to this place—the thing that made me turn my back on my career for a little while before I go back to it—is the gross misunderstanding of the gravity of the challenge that this country actually faces. You hear the term 'structural budget' used—it is used day in and day out—but it is never explained. Between 2013 and 2014 former Treasurer Hockey brought down the Intergenerational report. It happens every 10 years and looks 40 years into the future. It belled the cat. In the next 40 years our population will grow in the 65-plus-age bracket at three times the rate that it will in the zero-to-65-age bracket.

In 1910 in this country we introduced the pension. We set the retirement age at 65. Why did we do that? Because the average life expectancy in 1910 was 55. No-one got there. If you did, it was a rarity. The pension was a genuine safety net for those who were considered old in those days. In the next 40 years average life expectancy will reach 92 years of age for a female and 90 years of age for a male. You will work between 18 and 65 or 67, depending on where the retirement age is moved to, and you will retire after that. If you live on social security from zero to 18 you will most likely be the recipient of a public education and the recipient of universal health care. You will work between 18 and 65 and pay tax. Between 65 or 67 and 92 four out of five of us will live on a pension. That is the structural budget deficit. What does it look like? Where is the equality built into this system?

The Leader of the Opposition so quickly passed over—he did use the term, and he was correct—the fact that almost one-third of the workers inside Australia's tax system sit in our middle tax bracket. That 37.3 per cent pay 28.7 per cent of the tax. Where has the equity always been in Australian politics? It has been in our progressive taxation system. As we speak our top rate of tax is 49c in the dollar. What does that mean for me coming from a business background? The Australian government is a joint venture partner with everyone who pays 49c in the dollar in tax. The Leader of the Opposition uses—and used in the election campaign—the example of the taxpayer earning $1 million. He mentioned the $16,000 tax cut for that taxpayer, which we took to the election. What he does not say is that if you earn $1 million a year in this country, under the scheme as it sits today, you will pay $460,000 in tax—an effective tax rate of 46c in the dollar. If the deficit levy expires, the marginal tax rate will go back to 47c in the dollar. That will mean that if you earn $1 million you will pay $443,000 or an effective rate of 44.3c in the dollar. If you earn the median wage in this country, $80,000, you will pay $16,000 in tax—an effective rate of 21c in the dollar. That is where the equality in this country lies and where it will always lie.

Those opposite want to talk about the composition of those that pay tax, but they do not want to focus on what makes taxpaying fair. If you want to know what it is, here is the break-up: if you earn less than $18,200 a year in this country, you pay no tax, due to the coalition government.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Yes, we abolished the carbon tax and we kept the tax-free threshold. One in five Australians pay no tax. If you earn between $18,200 and $37,000 a year—24 per cent of Australia do that—that is 2½ per cent of our tax take. If you earn between $37,000 and $80,000—which is 37.3, as the Leader of the Opposition said—that is 28.7 per cent of our tax take. Here is the kicker, 18 per cent of Australia sit in the demographic earning $80,000 and above, and they pay 70 per cent of the tax in this country. That is where the equality lies.

The problem we have is sitting on the expense side, because of the structural budget deficit that I have explained. In the next four years, welfare expenditure in this country will move from $159 billion a year to $192 billion a year—an increase of $33 billion. Health expenditure will increase from $71 billion a year to $80 billion a year—an increase of 12½ per cent. Inside welfare, out of that $33 billion, pensions will increase from $63 billion to $73 billion—there is $10 billion; there is a third of the $30 billion. The NDIS, which was left unfunded by those opposite—a $5 billion black hole—will move from $33 billion to $53 billion. There is your $30 billion increase in those two categories alone.

We have real issues in this country. The one thing I agree with the Leader of the Opposition on is that we have issues confronting us moving forward. However, there is no magic pudding economics. The troubles are real. They are demographic. We have fertility rates sitting at all-time lows. You need 2.1 children per woman under the age of 49 to replace yourself in this country. That is just replacement. Our fertility rates are sitting at 1.5 to 1.6—historic lows. It is not unique to any other First World economy; we are just getting there later. We are there, and we need to work together.

The Leader of the Opposition wants division and he wants to sit here and offer all sorts of opinions up about the Trump campaign and the Clinton campaign. Well, I will tell you for the eight weeks of the campaign in Reid every morning within a half an hour of getting to a train station, I had people turn up in black shirts, green shirts and red shirts. I had people from the CFMEU yelling abuse to the point where I think they actually won me votes, but I felt like I was in the front lines of a US election campaign. Yes, he spoke about casual jobs. Why are there casual jobs—160,000 of them since September 2015? I will tell those opposite, because they have never run a business. You need flexibility since the GFC. You cannot increase prices, because of uncertain demand, and you need the flexibility of having casual workers so that, if the trade is not there, you can send them home. Why? Because, if they are there and you are not taking revenue, you lose money. I have spent four years in this place. I agree that so much of the US does flow this way—

Ms Husar interjecting—

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

The member for Lindsay will leave, under standing order 94(a).

The member for Lindsay then left the chamber.

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

The Leader of the Opposition sat there and told us about how much Bob Hawke and Paul Keating did to stop it, whether it is McDonald's, whether it is suing people—which was never around in my lifetime. You know what I hope never does come here, but I had a snapshot of it in the eight weeks in Reid—it is sheer and rank hypocrisy for the Leader of the Opposition to sit here and lecture, after he lied to the Australian people, bald-faced and looking them in the eye, telling us that we should go to a higher level—

Pat Conroy (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask that the member withdraw that.

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

Member for Shortland, he lied. He looked Australia in the eye and told them we were selling Medicare. Ed Husic agreed to it in a 2GB radio interview.

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

Assistant Minister—

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

He misled the Australian people. I withdraw 'lied'. He misled the Australian people.

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

Thank you.

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

He tricked them.

Mr Conroy interjecting—

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

The member for Shortland will return to his seat.

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

He tricked them into voting Labor and, you know what, it was American in style. It has no place in this country. I know that on our side we will fight to stay above what those in opposition delivered for the eight weeks of the election campaign.

Mr Conroy interjecting—

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

The member for Shortland will return to his seat. There is a general warning on this House. The member for Newcastle is out of her place. The member for Bruce is out of his place. If there is any more of this behaviour, I will be removing them under standing order 94(a).

Pat Conroy (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member withdrew the—

Mr Hawke interjecting—

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

The minister withdrew. The member for Shortland will return to his seat. The member for Mitchell will not undertake a private debate across the House while one of his cohort is speaking.

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

I too rise to speak about the need for this government to address rising inequality in our society, in our community, and division in Australia. I do so by giving a couple of quick examples. We just heard the other side claiming that this side is the divisive side. I want to say one thing to this House. It is that side that speaks about 'lifters and leaners'. It is that side that wants to give $50 billion to the richest people in Australia as a tax cut, and yet at the same time, last week, over 300,000 pensioners across this country received a letter telling them that they will have their pensions cut because of the changes in the assets test and the deeming rates. We are giving $50 billion to the richest people of Australia and punishing pensioners who have worked all their lives, who have saved their meagre savings to not be a burden on the taxpayers and on this nation, and we are punishing them. This is what the divisiveness is all about.

The flow-on effects of inequality can be disastrous for a nation. It stifles economic growth, crime can increase, people's health outcomes worsen, there can be political unrest and poorer education levels in society. I do not need to tell you all that has very dire and long-lasting consequences for Australian society. The Abbott-Turnbull Liberal government in recent years has undertaken policy decisions that will undoubtedly adversely affect our nation's equality. But what can you expect, as I said earlier, when you have a government that divides people into two groups, lifters and leaners? You can see examples of this inequity in virtually every single portfolio, and it is very disturbing. Medicare is the perfect example. We heard the member opposite talk about some furphy or lie about Medicare during the election campaign. People were scared of this government when it comes to Medicare. In the last three years they tried to bring in a co-payment. When they failed through the parliament to bring in a co-payment—because we voted against it and others in the Senate voted against—they then decided to go through the backdoor way. What was the backdoor way? Putting a freeze on the payments to doctors.

Mr Hawke interjecting —

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

The member for Mitchell is warned.

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

No wonder people were scared of your Medicare policy. Your record is inadequate when it comes to Medicare. Your government and your side of politics continuously want to water down Medicare. We need a society and a country where we have universal health care. We want it to matter when you show your Medicare card, not your credit card. Medicare is a perfect example of a good policy, a universal policy, that takes away the inadequacies of inequality.

The result of this freeze on payments to GPs will be dearer trips to the doctor. They will be more expensive, and people will not be able to afford to go to the doctor. It is okay if you have got money. If you are part of that cohort that will receive the $50 billion tax cut, that is fine. But, if you are a single mum with three kids and they all get the flu continuously over the winter period, what do you do then? Does the government care about those people? Certainly no thought has gone into it at all. And, if that is not enough, you are even cutting the children's dental program. Where is the equality there? Tell me where that equality is, when we see $50 billion for the richest people in this nation and we are cutting from pensioners.

We also see this growing inequality in our schools. The government has torn up the unity ticket that they took to the election campaign. In other words, they have stopped 'giving a Gonski', and all students will suffer as a result, because through education is the best way to deliver equity. It is the best way to change someone's life for the better, and we want to make sure that every single student, every single child, in this country gets the education that they deserve, regardless of the postcode where they live, regardless of their background and regardless of what circumstances they come from.

The government tried to deregulate our universities and burden students with $100,000 degrees, imposing a 'debt sentence' on thousands of Australian students. When it comes to blue-collar workers, they have literally chased industries out of this country. We all remember the former Treasurer Mr Hockey's speech in this place towards the end of 2013, where he basically shooed GMH out of the country. We need this government to stand up for blue-collar workers— (Time expired)

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

It is great to rise to talk on this MPI. You want to talk about inequality and division in Australia. That is what Labor is all about. They thrive on division. This MPI is totally disgraceful. They try to create division everywhere they go. At the last election, they created division by telling porky pies about Medicare and other issues. The member for Hindmarsh's contribution did not line up with what they were saying at the federal election. He was talking about $50 billion tax cuts to the richest Australians, but during the election they said it was $50 billion tax cuts to overseas investors. You might remember that, Member for Hindmarsh. You need to listen to your leader, champ, because at the end of the day he was saying that tax cuts would deliver dividends to overseas investors. On that side of the House they do not want to talk about small businesses. They do not want to help businesses above $2 million, above $10 million, above $50 million. Every single one of them spoke only about billion-dollar companies. But the jobs growth is in those small and middle companies as well.

We heard from the Leader of the Opposition. He talks about university costs as though somehow they are going up, when the government pays 60 per cent of them. We have been left with this massive debt from Labor. Do you think it is in the government's best interests for university costs to go up, when we are paying 60 per cent? Their argument is void. It is defunct. We saw the Leader of the Opposition talk about saving Medicare, yet at the same time health funding has gone up in this country. It continues to go up. It is the same with education funding. School principals and members of the gallery would have thought, based on the Labor Party's arguments, that somehow, when the coalition got in, education funding was going to go down, but it has actually doubled in the last few years. It has doubled and it is continuing to go up and it will continue to go up by a few per cent every year. How do you think we pay for that? It is through income tax. It is through company tax from businesses. You talk about company tax cuts. If the member for Hindmarsh understood the way it worked: if you lower company tax and a shareholder takes an investment, they pay it through income tax anyway. You need to think about that.

But division in this country has never been higher when it comes to the Labor Party. The Leader of the Opposition spoke about the member for Lilley and how he saved us during the GFC. He failed to mention that there were billions of dollars in the bank and no debt. But what did the member for Lilley and others continue to do? They continued to increase income tax. And the members for Shortland and Newcastle are right: they did raise the tax-free threshold to $18,000. But at the same time, they put it up for middle- and high-income earners—once again, a class-warfare and divisive act.

The member for Lilley introduced a luxury car tax, as though somehow that would tax the rich more. But what did it do? It hit everyone who drove a LandCruiser. They continue to slash superannuation contributions. They have this divisive debate about employees versus employers. They talk about foreign workers versus Australian workers. They want to give tax cuts to backpackers. They want to give it a rate of 10 per cent, as though 81 per cent of take-home pay for foreign workers and backpackers is not acceptable. I would think it was pretty good if I could get 81 per cent of my take-home pay and was paying 19 per cent tax. But what do they want to do? They want a rate of 10 per cent, and some divisive rhetoric, when most of them do not even represent country areas.

Look at the same-sex marriage plebiscite. They divide the nation in relation to same-sex marriage: those people who support same-sex marriage and those people who do not. The poor old member for Blair has changed his position on this issue. He was bullied into it by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He said for years—he has gone to all the churches in the area—'I don't support same-sex marriage.' And now he does. They are a divisive, angry bunch on the other side of the House. If I had a dollar for every time the member for Lilley and the Leader of the Opposition mentioned 'inclusive prosperity' and 'trickle-down economics', I would be a millionaire. Yet the member for Lilley says today in his own article that thankfully in Australia we have not gone down the American road of a hollowed out middle class and an army of working poor. They come up with all these great analogies that draw in their base, but they have no practical solution. And look at multinational tax avoidance. They voted against it. What a joke. (Time expired)

Mr Hill interjecting—

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

I remind the member for Bruce that there is a general warning.

Peter Khalil (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to highlight the need for this government to address rising inequality and division in Australia. Across a range of policy areas—Medicare, education, jobs and economic fairness—this government is failing Australia and failing my constituents in my seat of Wills. Right across the nation they are failing the people of Australia at a time when these areas are really crying out for attention.

While this government is preoccupied with its divisive agenda of cutting the social safety net, removing protections from hate speech and cosying up to the big end of town with a $50 billion tax cut for big business, they have taken their eye off the critical matter of Australian jobs. They have no plan to reverse the slide in full-time work which has seen 112,000 full-time jobs lost since the start of this year. They have no plan to help the 1.1 million Australians who are underemployed to get more hours at work. They have no plan to close the pay and participation gaps for Australian women, which have been stubbornly high for far too long. And they certainly have no plan for the 600 workers at the Ford factory in Broadmeadows or the 750 workers at Hazelwood who have lost their jobs in the past month alone, or the thousands of other Australians around the country who are now wondering whether their jobs—their livelihoods—will go the same way. This is a government that deals in division instead of dedicating itself to the task of growing more good jobs for the Australians who need them.

While there are many winners in our globalised world, there are also many people who have lost out. Thousands of workers have lost or are about to lose their manufacturing jobs. Many live in my electorate of Wills. And not all of these workers, after 20 years or more in a Holden or a Ford plant, can become baristas or start-up tech gurus in our so-called exciting innovation society that the Prime Minister is so fond of talking about. I say to these people that we on this side, the Labor Party, and the labour movement, are doing the hard yards, thinking hard and developing policies that, upon winning government, we will implement—policies that actually retrain and retool workers, provide vocational education, establish job creation programs and provide support to families that are struggling. Even though this government has abandoned them, I say to these people who feel disconnected, who feel lost, who feel angry: don't give yourselves up to the haters. Keep faith in us, the Labor Party, because we will ensure that there will be better days ahead.

In the suburb of Glenroy in my electorate of Wills, 34 per cent of children are considered highly vulnerable on at least one index measure provided by the Australian Early Development Census. This census measures physical health, social competence, emotional maturity, language and cognitive skills, and communication skills. The Victorian average for vulnerable children is only 20 per cent. These statistics make it startlingly clear that investment in both health care and education is desperately needed in suburbs like Glenroy, which has a rapidly swelling population. That is why we on this side, Labor, are so committed to projects that will work for people in those local communities. The Glenroy Community Hub, for example, which we, Labor, have committed funds to, would include, amongst other things, an integrated children's centre—including maternal and child health services—a kindergarten, child care and facilities for the operation of a community health practice. We have committed money to that project because we believe that this will help the people in those communities.

Despite promising to invest in early childhood education, this government has actually delivered nothing that will assist families to ensure that their children get more access to early education, and now families will not see a cent of new investment in child care until mid-2018—if ever. Labor took to the last election policies that would help ensure that our children are equipped with the skills they need to get ahead in our modern economy. Investment in education is proven to be good for our economy, good for advancing equality and good for reducing inequality. That is why we are committed to it. In contrast, this Prime Minister has torn up the commitment on schools funding he took to the last election, and we have a government intent on undermining our entire education system.

I have also spoken extensively in this place about my passion for multiculturalism and in defence of Australia's vibrant multicultural model, a model that works because we embrace diversity. This model works because we can be proud to be Australian and proud of our cultural heritage. Yet we have a government here which promotes divisiveness. They are attacking section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, trying to undermine the protection that exists there, to stoke division and undermine one of the key pillars of our multicultural society. We will not let them do this.

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

When the Leader of the Opposition conceded defeat at this year's general election, he promised to be a constructive opposition leader and oversee a constructive opposition. The toxic Labor politics of the 44th Parliament was to be no more, he promised us—the refusal to support our legislation to combat multinational tax avoidance, the nonsensical refusal to support Labor's own $5 billion budget savings, the refusal to acknowledge the corruption and lawlessness in the Australian building and construction sector, the toxic lies that were peddled about Medicare. The Leader of the Opposition even today spoke about respect for women. What about respect for the women and men who were so fearful of not being able to pay their health costs, because of the lies that Labor told?

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's the truth!

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

It was an absolute, utter scandal, but Labor could not care less. Truth mattered not. The Medicare rebate was frozen by Labor back in 2013. The Medicare rebate was frozen because Labor had made such a mess of its budget, with spiralling debts and deficit, and four surpluses that it promised to deliver but never did. There was only one ice king responsible for that frozen rebate in this place, and it was the Leader of the Opposition. This year we are investing more than $22 billion in Medicare, over $1 billion more than last year. This will increase to nearly $26 billion in 2019-20.

The Leader of the Opposition speaks about manufacturing jobs in Geelong. I am very proud to represent a large part of Geelong. Yes, the people of Geelong are hurting after Ford closed its manufacturing operations—under the previous Labor government. The auto industry started to close in this country under Labor, not helped by a carbon tax that was costing manufacturing $1.1 billion. Before the election we heard about Labor's 50 per cent renewable energy target, but with no plan to get there, putting at risk thousands of blue-collar jobs for green votes in the city. Labor took the same approach when it sat in silence as Daniel Andrews cancelled the East West Link at a cost of $1.2 billion, sacrificing blue-collar jobs once again for green votes in the city of Melbourne. It was an absolute disgrace. We saw division everywhere. And, yet again, this Labor opposition sat in silence as Labor attempted to destroy the CFA, working in conjunction with the militant UFU. Did Labor understand the division that this caused in regional Victoria, including many communities right throughout the Corangamite electorate? Where were Labor's guts to stand up to something that they knew, fundamentally, was wrong?

What have we seen in this 45th Parliament? Despite the promises of the Leader of the Opposition, more of the same. Our alternative Prime Minister of this country determined that it was proper to call President-elect Trump barking mad. We all may have different views about different leaders in different parts of the world, but for an alternative Prime Minister to do that was absolutely irresponsible and divisive. He refused to support a plebiscite for same-sex marriage after saying he would support it—divisive politics, that is what drove that decision. Now we hear again in this chamber, in this debate, a continuation of the Medicare lie—more gutter politics from Labor. A continuation of the lie. And now we hear more gutter politics about a backpacker tax giving a better tax rate to foreign workers than Australians. Once again, we see an unprincipled, divisive Labor Party who put foreign workers ahead of our Australian workers. Even on small business tax cuts—what hypocrisy, what divisiveness from Labor. Previously, Labor supported small business tax cuts, because they knew they were good for jobs. Now, because it is unprincipled and divisive, it is opposing those tax cuts. Even on pensions, where we delivered $30 a fortnight to 170,000 of the most vulnerable pensioners, Labor has denied that. It is divisive, gutter politics from Labor.

Ms Butler interjecting—

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

The member for Griffith is out of her place, and she is warned.

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

In medicine, I am used to dealing with reality, but it seems I have been dealing with a fantasy world in here today—after what I have been hearing from the other side. This is a matter of public importance that is very important to me and to the kids I have been looking after for many years.

In his seminal book, The End of Certainty, the journalist and thinker Paul Kelly identified egalitarianism as one of the six pillars of what he and others have called the Australian settlement. The other pillars were a faith in government authority, centralised wage fixation, protection for industry and jobs, dependence on a great power for our security and finance, and, above all, a hostility to our location, as exhibited by the fear of external domination and internal contamination. The former great Prime Minister Paul Keating was able to rightly say, in 1996, after the social, cultural and economic reforms of the 1980s and 1990s, that the essentially introspective, defensive and dependent framework had crumbled. But 20 years on, I am not so sure. Much of what was nasty, short-sighted or selfish about the Australian settlement of the 1900s seems to be making a comeback. The question for us today is, can that faux nostalgia for those imaginary, safer, better times return in some new mutated and malignant form?

It seems to me that the dark but enticing promise of a new age of populism will fail only because of the sixth principle of the Australian settlement—egalitarianism has continued to work as a moderating influence. Because of its permeating influence, Australia does not have the same horrendous disparities of income and wealth that we see elsewhere in the world. We are far from perfect, it is true, and we are heading in the wrong direction. But because reforming governments here have tempered their zeal for economic reform and greater efficiency with a solid commitment to protecting those harmed or hurt by change, we have a solid chance of saving ourselves from our own worst instincts. That certainly was the case in the Hawke and Keating years and it, too, was a hallmark of the Rudd and Gillard governments as they struggled with the shock and consequences of the GFC and were able to bring us through successfully.

Egalitarianism is not perfect. It has its weaknesses. It can be very blokey and, unfortunately, invariably seems to stop at our borders. It is a weak reed—a weak defence against baser urges, but it did and it does matter. In particular, I would like to focus on two main areas: health and housing. There are many other areas of inequality but health and housing are the two most important and dear to my heart. It is my view that without access to good quality health care and housing it is almost impossible for families to function appropriately in our society. This means that children are born of low birth weight, often have nutritional problems during pregnancy, there is substance abuse and lack of a stable environment. It makes them very prone to neuro-developmental outcomes that follow on.

Martin Luther King said that discrimination in health care is the worst form of discrimination. I recently visited the Nagle Centre in Campbelltown, a wonderful community asset run by the St Vincent de Paul Society. I was appalled by the number of people living on the streets who attend to just simple things: hot showers, food, psychological support, and sometimes just someone who cares about them.

Equality in access to health care is fast becoming a dream for many Australians. I was recently contacted by an 86-year-old gentleman suffering from bilateral cataracts who had been on the public waiting list for over a year, yet he was told that if he could afford $4,000 to $5,000 he could have the operation next week. Waiting lists in my electorate for ear surgery for children with hearing loss are now over one year, which affects schooling and speech development and long-term outcomes. This is not the Australia I want for my grandchildren.

In housing, almost one in 200 Australians are homeless and 200,000 households are on social housing waiting lists. In his inquiry in the last parliament the member for Bennelong demonstrated that there are things that need to be done for housing affordability. For his trouble he was removed and his inquiry was shut down.

I have spoken about these major areas of inequality. Many people feel that they are being ignored by governments, and particularly our government, in having equity in our society. It is easy to understand why. Australians have always regarded themselves as egalitarian. I do think we all want an inclusive society. However, if we are to reverse recent trends away from equality it will take active policies from the government rather than the laissez-faire attitude demonstrated to date, both in health care, in housing and in many other ways.

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

I want to pick up on a point mentioned earlier by the member for Petrie. He brought up the example of the backpacker tax, and we are talking about the issue of inequality. The previous Labor government, in fact, brought in the backpacker tax of 32.5 per cent. We were told by industry groups that a tax at that level would not work and the backpackers would not come. We obviously did not want the blueberries and other crops to just rot away without being picked, so we lowered the tax to 19 per cent. Why did we lower the tax to 19 per cent? We did so because that is the lowest rate of taxation you pay in Australia. The lowest tax rate in Australia cuts in at 19 per cent. We felt that it was fair and reasonable that a backpacker here picking fruit standing next to an Australian worker should pay the same rate of tax. So their inequality measure is that they actually want to the backpacker to pay less tax than the Australian worker. So they want to almost make it easier for foreign workers to do Australian jobs. That is not an inequality that we want to get into.

Some of the points that have been raised by members of the opposition talk about us and them. I think the member for Reid said it very well: 'There is no us and them in this country. There is simply us.' We make no bones about the fact that we want to help those who are having a go. We want to set the parameters of this country so that if you are trying to run a small business or employ other people we make it as easy for you as we can.

In fact, I would like to acknowledge Candy from Candylane Fashion Boutique, who is in the chamber today. She is a small business owner and operator in Alstonville, in my electorate, who employs not only herself but other people as well. We want to make life easier for Candy. That is why we have brought in the small business tax cut: because we know that small business is the biggest driver of employment in this country and that it is important that we extend this to as many businesses as we can.

I was interested too—I struggled, but I actually did listen to the Leader of the Opposition earlier. He went back to the Hawke and Keating days and started to discuss Reaganomics and Thatcher, and Hawke and Keating, but he did not go on to mention some of the things that the Hawke and Keating governments did. But I will remind members opposite, because it is important that they learn the lessons of people they regard as great Labor legends. Do you know what Hawke and Keating did? They lowered company tax rates. They lowered company tax rates enormously. They took them from levels like 60 per cent down into the 40s. The lowered them progressively over time.

Do you know why your great previous Labor leaders did that? Because they understood what drives job growth in this country and what drives economic growth in this country. They knew that we had to remain competitive with countries and tax rates overseas. Your great Labor legends lowered company tax rates, and not just for small business—what we are proposing in the short-term—but for big business, for everyone. Your great Labor leaders understood that our company tax rate had to remain competitive and they lowered it enormously.

Deputy Speaker, as you would probably know, we have created 160,000 jobs just in the last 12 months. We are doing it through a whole array of measures, whether it be reducing red tape or, again, making things easier for small business. Labor, unfortunately—it is easy to do, and we saw the Leader of the Opposition do it today—are running populist politics and using fear as the great motivator. That is why they are opposing things that they previously supported. That includes business tax cuts.

As I think the previous member on our side, the member for Petrie, suggested, you would think from listening to Labor that we are actually cutting money to essential services. We are not. Money spent on education has increased. It was $13 billion when we got into government in 2013 and in the forward estimates it is projected to be $20 billion by 2020. It is the same with health spending. We have also increased spending on health every year. The great failure of the other side is that they do not know how to create the money. They think there is a gold and honey pot out there. We need to support business so that we have more taxpayer dollars to support social services.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Vocational Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have to say that the MPI raised by the Leader of the Opposition is a really pertinent issue to be addressing at the end of this week—rising inequality in our communities and of the potential for division that can come from a society where people are missing out on the opportunities that we have, for many generations, seen as a birthright in Australia.

I was doing some research this week in preparation for a Remembrance Day speech tomorrow in the suburb of Corrimal, at Corrimal RSL, in my area. There was a fabulous story in one of the old newspapers that I found about a Red Cross branch being established in 1914 in the suburb and about how it was actually established. It was through the efforts of local workers, some of them in a manufacturing base there, some miners and some local community people, determining that they were going to do fundraising activities. I think the local soccer club was doing a fancy dress game and raising money that way. Every week, the workers were pitching in a percentage of their wages towards establishing a fund for the Red Cross. At the same time, in that same period in my area, miners union lodgers regularly put forward a contribution out of their wage to establish things such as our local hospitals.

We have a very strong foundation of communities in this country who take responsibility for helping each other. We see that even up to today. I regularly see on my Facebook feed social media fundraising efforts from local people for a local organisation or a local family who is doing it tough. It is great to see how many people go on and give a little bit—whatever they can—using that mechanism. It is the modern version of those very early, turn-of-the-century forms of fundraising 100 years ago. We have a very entrenched, pervasive and valuable culture that says, when people are struggling or having difficulties, we all pull together. That egalitarian spirit has to be reflected in the parliaments that represent those people. That is what people expect. They did it then, and they do it today. They stand up and take action to help each other and to create strength, unity and opportunity for people in their communities. They want governments that do the same.

In the last federal election, we were addressing those very issues across the portfolio areas. It may have been the fact that, for the first time, we were about to face a generation who will not have the retirement security of home ownership. It is a foundation that has given so much stability in Australia for people as they leave the workforce in their older years. It was the combination of a strong pension system, which was then built upon by a sound and effective superannuation system, and the capacity to achieve homeownership that gave us dignity and security in our retirement years. We are now seeing a generation of young people for whom housing affordability and home ownership is looking like it will never be within their reach in their lifetime. Shadow ministers from the Leader of the Opposition down were talking about tackling these growing inequalities. A generation may not, for the first time, be able to give to the next generation better circumstances than they had in their lifetime.

I am glad the member for Lilley is here because he has been a powerful voice for these issues that are playing out in our communities. Our communities know how to look after each other. Whether it is health, whether it is education, whether it is supporting apprenticeships—which I am very passionate about—or whether it is giving opportunities for higher education, communities expect their governments to create circumstances that support them. They do not expect them to be ripping away at the fabric that has created the great egalitarian Australia that we know, we recognise and we are determined to keep. (Time expired)

Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have to say how saddened I am, too, that this week closes with an MPI opened by the opposition leader. The opposition leader framed today's debate around an implied threat that Australia might be going down the path of the United States. To anybody who might be listening to this chamber today, I say, as a humble new backbencher to this House: despite the opposition leader's previous words about the President-elect and his words in this House today denigrating the United States, we the Australian people in fact hold our relationship with the United States very dearly. We have an enormous amount of respect for what is ultimately our most important strategic alliance.

I think all members of this chamber should be made aware, if they do not already know, that Australia is a medium-sized liberal democracy living within a very volatile, uncertain global environment. It is so important that we work closely and collaboratively with our allies, and there is no greater ally to this country than the United States. So despite the opposition leader's words, despite what he previously called the now President-elect of the United States and despite his insinuation today in the MPI wording that any increase in inequality and divisiveness in Australia would lead us down the path of the United States, I for one reject that notion. I for one am proud of our relationship with the United States, and I am absolutely appalled that on this last day of this sitting, the day after we hear about President Trump being elected, we have the opposition leader taking such a stance.

Let me now move on to the question at hand, which is all about the need for the government to address rising inequality and division in Australia. If there is an inequality right now for which we should all hold responsibility for fixing, it is generational inequality. Generational inequality comes about if we do not take action to arrest the debt. That is precisely, unfortunately, what the Labor Party would have us not do—they do not want to arrest the debt. Despite the fact that we are carrying a deficit due to the overhang of responsibility from the former Labor government, their proposals put us $16½ billion behind in debt—$16½ billion that their policies would add to the deficit and we would have to borrow. And who pays back that debt? We do, and our kids do. Will our generation be able to pay back the debt? I am a dad; I am a father—do I leave it to my four-year-old little girl and her peers to pay back this debt because the opposition refuses to take economic responsibility? Inequality starts with the economy, and the economy needs to be fixed. If we do not fix it, we create generational inequality.

My colleagues in this debate have already pointed to the backpacker tax and the need for us to ensure that Australian workers are not disadvantaged compared to foreign workers—something the opposition will not accept. We actually do have policies that are creating opportunities for growth and jobs—half a million jobs are being created by this government. We have another year of economic growth in this country.

Social disparity is another area of inequality. One of the big social issues we have debated in recent months has been the proposed plebiscite on the issue of same-sex marriage. The opposition will not have every Australian's vote equally considered. They do not want the Australian people to have a vote, because they think their conscience is more important than that of the Australian people. Is that equality? No, it is not. There is hypocrisy at the heart of the MPI that has been proposed today, and that is why I am very happy to be speaking against it.

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

The discussion is concluded.