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

I move the motion relating to the discharge of certain orders of the day, government business, in the terms in which it appears on the Notice Paper:

That the following orders of the day, government business, be discharged:

Second reading—Resumption of debate:

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payments Structural Reform and Participation Measures) Bill 2016;

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Budget Repair) Bill 2016;

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 2016; and

Fairer Paid Parental Leave Bill 2016.

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

What an extraordinary defence of four years' work! What an unbelievable defence of four years work! It is a thousand days since the 2014 budget, when some of these extraordinary measures were introduced by this government, and they come in here today and say, 'I move that they be discharged.' No argument, no defence for the complete waste of the Australian public's time that they have done for four years! Unbelievable!

I am gobsmacked. I cannot believe that they cannot even come up with a defence of the measures that they have been trying to get through this parliament for the last four years. Four years of trying to get these unfair cuts through this parliament, and here they are today of course—

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mealy-mouthed!

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

Why is it, do you think, that he will not actually say what is on his mind? It is because they actually believe in these cuts. This minister has stood at this dispatch box day after day and defended these cuts—defended the cuts to families, defended the cuts to the unemployed and defended the cuts to pensioners, because they do not 'get' fairness. These Liberals do not understand fairness.

It has been a long and very, very hard battle. It has been a hard battle. We have fought every single day of the last four years, and stood by the Australian people as we have stopped these cuts going through the parliament. Every single Labor member of parliament has done everything possible to stop these cuts going through the parliament. And today here we see this government—temporarily—removing them out of the Notice Paper. But of course we know, and the Australian people know, that we are not out of the woods. Do not think for a second that this Prime Minister is doing this for any reason other than to protect his own skin, to protect himself against the member for Warringah and to protect himself against the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, who happens to be here in the chamber today. Maybe even the Minister for Social Services has aspirations for leadership. We know that these Liberals would bring back these unfair and harsh cuts in a heartbeat if they ever got the chance.

I happened to hear the Prime Minister on Fran Kelly's show this morning, talking about these zombie cuts. What do you think he might have said, Mr Speaker? Fran Kelly said, 'Are you just getting rid of these zombie measures because you're sick of them and sick of the fights over them, or are you getting rid of them because you think they're bad measures?' The Prime Minister said, 'Um, they can't be legislated.' Fran Kelly said, 'But are they bad measures?' The Prime Minister said, 'It's not a question of good or bad; they were measures which we thought and which we believed had merit.' That is what they do believe. They believe these cuts to families, to pensioners and to the unemployed have merit. They think they are good cuts. That is why they pursued them for the last four years.

Let's go through them. First of all, in my view, the worst of all is the cut that was announced in the 2014 budget to say to young unemployed people, 'You will have nothing to live on for six months—nothing!' That is what this government said to the young unemployed people of this country. They could not get that through the parliament so they tried a different approach. They said, 'You have to wait for five weeks and have nothing to live on.' Fortunately, they could not get that through the parliament either. What this shows is they absolutely believe in those sorts of harsh cuts, like the cuts to young people who are aged between 22 and 24. They want to push them off Newstart, which is already low enough, and onto the lower youth allowance—a cut of $48 a week. That is what these people opposite want to do to the poorest young people in the country.

Of course, none of us forgets the absolute mess that this government has made of paid parental leave cuts. We know that this government really want to cut into paid parental leave. They would have actually cut paid parental leave to 70,000 new mothers every year. Mothers just getting home with a new baby would have found out that this government wanted to take away some of their paid parental leave. They want to scrap family tax benefit end of year supplements, leaving families worse off. They want to scrap the pensioner education supplement and the education entry payment. They want to cut the pension of pensioners who were born overseas. And so it goes on.

For so many days we have stood at this dispatch box defending the pensioners and defending families, and all we have gotten from those opposite—particularly from this minister—is a lecture about fiscal restraint. They have actually told us with a completely straight face that they think these measures are fair. This minister in particular has form. Do you all remember the snakes and ladders interview?

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We remember!

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

We all remember the snakes and ladders interview. What were the snakes waiting for families as he tried to cut their support? He gave this absolute train wreck of an interview on Sky TV and he tried to pretend that these measures—these cuts to family payments and to grandparent carers of teenage children—were fair. When he was asked about it he said to David Speers:

Well, that depends on their capacity to access childcare and re-enter the workforce.

David Speers said:

I'm talking about a 15 year old.

The minister said, quizzically: 'A 15-year-old. Oh, maybe Labor's got a point.' So David Speers asks if they are $2,500 worse off, and the minister responds, 'Well, in isolation. It depends on their willingness to enter the workforce or go into child care.' This is a 15-year-old, and he is saying this to a grandparent carer who is 70 years old. Honestly, if you ever wanted a definition of how out of touch these people are, it was that absolute train wreck of an interview.

I remember that on Mother's Day in 2015 I was at the Mother's Day Classic when I heard that the Treasurer and other cabinet ministers were out there talking about mothers being involved in a rort. Mothers were being told they were frauds for accessing paid parental leave that they were entitled to. Ministers lectured us day after day, saying that the only way to make paid parental leave fair was to take away paid parental leave from 70,000 mums. Now they expect us to believe that they have had a change of heart. Well, we do not believe you, and nor do the budget papers demonstrate that we should. If you look at Budget Paper No. 1, page 3-38, up the top, it says 'Decisions taken as a result of Senate positions'. It is not that the government do not believe in these things anymore. It is not that they are taking these things out of the budget because they are not government policy. They are only taking them out of the budget for now because they cannot get them through the Senate. If they ever get the chance to put these measures in front of the parliament again, that is exactly what they will do.

We do not believe you. We do not believe that you are committed to getting rid of these things, and neither do the Australian people. We know what else you still have left there too, which of course did not get mentioned in the budget papers last night. They still want to say to Australians, 'You're going to have to work till you're 70 before you get the age pension.' They have not changed that. They still want to axe the clean energy supplement, which of course means a cut of $365 a year to new pensioners. So nothing has changed with this minister or this government. We know that these cuts will be back.

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

Well, we are all stunned by the comprehensive defence that the minister is putting up on his measures today—sitting there like an Easter Island statue, looking blankly at us all. What is there to talk about? What is there for the parliament to talk about? We all know that this budget is an exercise in incoherence, desperation and defeat. We knew that from the moment the Treasurer got up here and started with his very positive message that families had not had a pay rise and how sorry he was about how tough times were. Four years of this government, and all it has is an opening with an apology about how bad things have got and this vague hope that things might get better in the future. Why would you believe this government when the very next day it rolls in here with its zombie measures, and what is its defence for them? Nothing. 'I move the motion.' It is like, 'Whoa.' And this guy wants to be Prime Minister, Treasurer or something like that.

We have this comprehensive defence of these measures that have been hanging around. They are not called zombie measures by mistake. They are zombie measures in every sense of the word—cuts that were in there which were calculated in the budget and which were spreading uncertainty within the community. Lots of people worried about their family incomes. Lots of people worried about what was going to happen to their benefits for months and months or years and years on end—a thousand days of uncertainty spreading through the economy. Those on the backbench are all up there, all voting for them, all going out there in the community and defending them. And what do we get after all of that? This sort of stunned silence from the minister—not even a word of defence.

We know the Prime Minister was there on Sky News or Fran Kelly. Fran said, 'Are they bad measures?' Mr Turnbull gave one of his great orations: 'It's not a question of whether they're good or bad. They were measures which we believed had merit.' So they have given up. It is like The Grand Old Duke of York, isn't it? He had 10,000 men—10,000 backbenchers. And up they went to the top of the hill and everybody sort of waited around for something to happen for 1,000 days. And then—

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

Marched them down again!

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

They marched them down again. They did not even get an order, though. There was no inspiring order to go back down the hill from this minister. Instead we got silence. We know that these measures are incredibly unfair. In my electorate, there are lots of young unemployed people. They find it very difficult to get a job despite the participation rates being very high. They go out from school and try to get a job, often a casual job. They try to go to TAFE or uni. They try their very best but often they do not get that chance. It is very difficult if you come from Elizabeth or Salisbury to get your foot in the door. Often there is a great deal of discrimination against these people based on their postcode. And people do not give them the go that they deserve. Previous Labor governments have been all about putting in place the programs that might give these young people a chance and the resources they need for a chance.

What does this government do? On the same day that they are knocking off their zombie measures—all these cuts; they are very quietly sneaking in here and hitting the reverse button—in the very same breath they are out there running this ridiculous line that they are going to drug test in three locations: a pilot scheme and another feasibility study. It is something to occupy the minds of a few people. And people get worked up about it. But what have we got in the end? A pilot scheme in three locations and no real help for people with substance abuse issues, because the government have cut the guts out of all the alcohol and drug services across the country in the health budget. They have absolutely cut the guts out of it.

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

That is right.

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

It is a tough thing to get job ready, particularly if you are going into a tough physical job. Not everybody can do it. I doubt the minister or many of the backbench could work in a packing shed, pick fruit or any of those things. Rather than getting people job ready, this government just wants to persecute and beat up on the unemployed. That is the one thing they have not given up, at least rhetorically, in this budget. At the same time, they are taking out these zombie measures. But, in that later part of the budget, there is a sting in the tail of this rhetoric, which is all about dividing the community and preventing us from making progress. In this sense, the budget is entirely consistent with what they have been doing for the last 1,000 days, and yet we have this surrender this morning. Perhaps that is why the minister had nothing to say. Perhaps that is why he is stunned into silence. He could not work this in with their normal—

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

He doesn't believe it.

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

He doesn't really believe it. Perhaps this is a strategic retreat from these cuts. We can go through them—a six-month wait. I have trouble keeping up with it, because it is such an exercise in incoherence. We have the bloke who is auditioning for Prime Minister every single day.

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

At least he would have said something.

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

At least he would have said something. At least he would have done a better audition than 'I move the motion.'

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

At least he would have had a go.

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

They will know about that shortly, I guess. They will know about how good the opposition are, because we are going to hold them to account on all of these things—for instance, what they are doing for pensioners. They are giving them $75 with one hand and tearing away $365 with the other. If they think any pensioner across Australia is going to be fooled with this pea and thimble trick, this three-card monte, they have another think coming. People understand the sort of cant and ridiculous sleight of hand that this government does. They are desperately trying to pretend that this budget is some sort of equivalent to a Labor budget, but, at the same time, there are all these things riddled throughout it which are part of their poisonous and sterile ideology, such as hacking into working mums who work at Coles, Myers and Woolworths. They are the working mums who suffer the most from the capping of the paid parental leave. We have this government out there calling them—

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

Frauds.

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

Frauds.

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

Rorters.

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

Rorters.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Double dippers.

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

Double dippers. These are working mums at Coles, Woolworths and Myers. These are places where we never thought we could get paid parental leave. It was a great achievement for unions to get paid parental leave in these sectors that are dominated by working women. Yet what does this government get out there and do for them, for their hard work, for their thrift, for them showing up every day at work? They label them as rorters, frauds and double dippers.

It is just outrageous that on top of a tax to pensioners, young people and families we get this sort of surrender this morning—a half-hearted surrender. Well, it was not even that. I do not know what it was.

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

Silence!

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

It is hard to argue with silence. Maybe they should extend this right across the government: give no interviews; not show up for any of the debates.

Opposition members interjecting—

The PMO does not let the minister out of the box. It must be galling for a former state treasurer to be struck into silence. The backbenchers, as you can see, are roaring in here to your defence. They are really keen to defend you!

An opposition member interjecting—They are scheming.

Yes, they are scheming. We know that this government is terribly divided. We saw that in the schools debate this week. We will see that later on. After the first wave of good headlines that for some reason the media in this country insist on giving the coalition—I do not know whether it is the lock-up that captures them—it will all wear off within a week or two and the bad things in this budget, the sterile, poisonous ideology that the people opposite pursue, the economic uncertainty that is riddled throughout the economy will all catch up with them, and then the auditions will begin again. The member for Dickson will be in here auditioning at the dispatch box. Maybe we will have the colt from Kooyong. We will have others. The member for Warringah is ever present in their minds, plotting a pathway back to the prime ministership via opposition. That is what this government has to give the people of Australia. (Time expired)

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who could forget the 2014 budget—the lifters and the leaners? This is what the government would have us try and do. They want us to forget that 2014 budget—the budget which attacked the most vulnerable of Australians at every turn. The government want to try and paper over the fact that they had the lifters and leaners budget, that they tried to attack the most vulnerable of Australians. When it comes to health care there are two measures that this government still desperately believes in. One measure that government member after member stood in this place defending was the increase in the price of medicines for everybody, not just general patients but concession card holders as well. It was going to cost $5 every time you needed to fill a script at the doctor. This government decided and argued in this place that that measure was the most important thing that they needed to get through this parliament from the 2014 budget—that is, make it more expensive for Australians to access the medicines that they need.

I would have to say it is not really a debate when the other side come in and look like they have had to suck on a lemon in order to get the words out: 'I move a motion that I really do not want to have to move.' It is not really a debate when the other side is not willing to defend itself or defend its measures, because we know at its heart it wants these measures through. It put them through before. It believes they are in fact good measures. The Prime Minister said they are measures of merit. If they have the opportunity, if they have a different Senate, if they do not have every single member of the Labor Party standing against them in the Senate, doing the hard work of convincing the crossbenchers that these are bad measures then this government would put every single one of the $13 billion worth of cuts to the most vulnerable of Australians through this parliament. We know that is what they want to do. The fact that the minister has been unable to defend this says absolutely everything. This is when silence says it all. They know that if they argue the case on this they are arguing exactly what is in their minds. They really want every one of these measures back.

With the PBS increases—the cost every single time someone goes to fill a prescription: frankly, we already know that many Australians are not accessing vital medicines because of cost. We have pharmacists tell us every single day that people go into their pharmacies with a number of their scripts and they say, 'Which one of these can I afford not to have this week?' That is what is happening across the country now.

Members in this place argued: 'Oh, it is hardly any money at all. It's not going to make a difference. There is already a co-payment on the pharmaceuticals—it's already a cost; we are just hiking it by $5 for general patients.' Often that is for people on very marginal incomes as well, or for people who are very sick. Sometimes you are talking about people who have 13 different scripts that they have to fill, and they are not concessional patients. Then of course you have concession card holders as well. The government stood in this place and argued that this was the most important measure.

Of course the other measure that they are getting rid of—or so they say; we will see what happens in the coming months ahead—is the cuts to the Medicare Safety Net. Remember, the Medicare Safety Net and the Extended Medicare Safety Net are designed for people who, because of a very significant illness or something that has happened in their lives, have to access a large number of Medicare services—cancer patients, people seeking infertility treatment and people with very significant, severe and enduring mental health problems who are accessing Medicare at a substantial rate.

That is not to say there are not problems with the Medicare Safety Net. We reached out to the government during the budget processes several years ago and said, 'We're happy to work with you, but what you need to do is tell us that you are not going to cut money—that you are actually going to help patients access the services that they need.' Remember: these are some of the sickest Australians who are bearing huge out-of-pocket costs through no fault of their own other than that they have got sick, and they have got really sick. Again, this is the measure in the health portfolio that this government believed was the most important thing it needed to try to get through this parliament.

Frankly, you cannot trust this government when it comes to Medicare. On every single measure this government has gone after Medicare, because it does not believe in a universal health insurance scheme. At its heart it actually does not understand it. It really does not understand. Why do we have a universal health insurance scheme? Why does the World Health Organization hold Australia up as one of the countries that has universal health care that in fact is actually the envy of the world? It is because it is a scheme that is equitable. It actually goes to the heart of equity of access and it lifts everybody up. That is what a universal health scheme does. It makes sure that everybody contributes according to their capacity to pay and it then lifts everybody up, so the health of the nation actually improves.

That is what has happened in this country because of Medicare. The fact that we have higher life expectancy than other OECD countries, even those with comparable systems, is something that we should be celebrating. But this government does not actually get it. What it thinks is, 'Well, really, if you can afford to pay you should get better services.' That is what they actually believe. 'And if you can afford to pay more and more then you should get access to better services. And why shouldn't you?' We all remember the GP tax and the co-payment, and now of course their glacial unfreezing of the Medicare benefit freeze. That is basically what they have done.

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

You wouldn't want to be sick for a few years!

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, you would not want to be sick for a few years under this government—exactly! That is what they have at their heart. They do not believe in Medicare. They never have, they never will and they can never be trusted with it.

These zombie measures are called 'zombie' measures for a very good reason. They are the walking dead. They are not able to get through this parliament. But we know that if the government had any single opportunity to put them back here and to ram them through the Senate—if they got any inkling that any of the crossbenchers might think, 'Oh, I might change my mind'—they would be back in here in the blink of an eye. That is what the government would absolutely do.

Their failure to defend this—they have probably gone in and had a bit of a tactical debate about how to handle this debate this morning and what to say: 'Less is more, less is more guys; this is really how we should manage this debate'—is because they know that the more they say on this, and the Prime Minister probably said a little too much today to Fran Kelly, the more they expose themselves for who they truly are. They truly are mean spirited. They want to attack the vulnerable at every single opportunity.

The member for Jagajaga reminded us that they decided Mother's Day is the day that they are going to tell mothers: 'You're double dipping and you're frauds, when it comes to paid parental leave.' It is a scheme that has been ensuring that mothers and fathers are able to care for their children at their youngest, that they are able to continue to engage with breastfeeding—a significant and important health measure. We should be actively supporting and providing every opportunity for women to breastfeed their children. That is what paid parental leave is designed to do: provide that support in those early days. Here they go on Mother's Day: 'Let's attack mothers.'

We know what this government truly thinks at its heart. We heard the Prime Minister, on Fran Kelly today, being asked the question: are these good or bad measures? I am sure he was holding his glasses as he spoke, clutching those glasses and waving them about, making sure that we all knew how sincere he really thought he should be at this stage. He said, 'It's really not a matter of whether they are good or bad. It's really not a matter of that at all.' In fact, it is a matter of that. These are bad measures. Labor has been saying they are bad measures from the start, when we had the lifters and leaners budget. It was bleedingly obvious that they were bad measures to everybody in the Australian community except for this government, because at its heart this government believes in them. It believes in these measures absolutely.

This government wants to attack the most vulnerable in our community. It wants people on concession cards, some of the poorest in our community, to pay more for their medicines. It wants some of the sickest in our community to pay more when they try to access the services that they require. It wants to attack mothers who want to access paid parental leave, and in fact tried to demonise them as it got these measures through this place. At every single opportunity this government will attack the most vulnerable. We know that at any opportunity they have to reintroduce a single one of these measures that is what they will do. The minister's silence in this debate absolutely says it all.

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

On one of the very first times I sat in this chamber I watched the Minister for Social Services introduce a bill to make unemployed people wait longer for their benefits. I thought: 'Okay, I'll listen to the arguments here. I'll listen to how he puts the case.' I was staggered to hear the lack of understanding of what it takes for a young person to put their hand up and apply for unemployment benefits in the first place. This minister, who now says, 'We don't need these measures any more, only because we can't get them through,' says nothing about the reasons why. He had conviction when I saw him speak. He absolutely believed that young people should wait, as long as this government could force them to, to be able to claim unemployment benefits, at a time when their self-esteem is low, because they have not been able to get a job, and when they have financial pressures on them.

What did he say about what those young people could access if things were a little bit tough? I remember this, because I was gobsmacked. He said, 'There may be some young people who experience hardship at this time, and we'll have a special fund for them.' Hello! What Earth do these people live on that they do not appreciate that to put your hand up and say, 'I'm struggling. I can't find a job and my family can no longer help me. I've called in all the favours that I have,' takes enormous guts. They have no idea of that, and yet they wanted people to wait. That is why I have no belief at all that there is any genuine intent to take these measures out of their agenda. They are parked. They have put them aside. They have said, 'Right now we just can't get these through. It's all a bit too tough. No-one is buying our arguments, so let's put them to the side.' That is what is driving this motion. That is why this minister has not a single word to say about why these measures are being taken off the table in this budget. They really believe in these measures, and nothing will persuade me that they have changed their minds.

It is not just making young people wait longer for unemployment benefits; it was the belief that it was okay to tell 22- to 24-year-olds, 'You should get $48 a week less because of your age.' Is your rent less because you are 22 to 24? Is your phone bill less? Is your electricity bill less? No, your costs are just the same, yet you are being discriminated against because of your age. This is the mentality of the people who sit opposite.

In the months that I have been here, I have been stunned to see the heartlessness that comes from the other side. This budget has just a veneer of civility. It is just a little smear across the top to make it seem a bit more acceptable. But I heard one of my colleagues, the member for Blaxland, this morning, and I thought he summed it up beautifully. He described it as 'a bucket of prawns sitting in the sun, not too bad on the first day, but by day 3, gee, it is going to smell'. Here we are; it is not even day one, and it is already smelling.

Every day that I have been in this place and my colleagues have been here, going back to 2014, when many of us were fighting in our communities against the measures in those budgets, we have fought, and in some ways you might say that these things are a victory for us. I would believe that if I thought that they had changed their minds, but this is a temporary reprieve, and it will only be a matter of time before those on the other side see an opportunity to sneak these things back onto the table. That is why we will be fighting every step of the way to make sure that what is taken off the table stays off the table.

It is not just the attack on young unemployed people. Let us talk about women with children. There was great celebration yesterday in the other place that a senator was able to breastfeed her child in the Senate for the first time. I think we would all acknowledge what an important step that is. Yet there is no true conviction from the other side of parliament that that is something we should be celebrating, because they want to make sure that women are forced back to work long before they would choose to finish breastfeeding. The cuts to paid parental leave that they wanted to bring in were not just on pragmatic grounds; it was because these women were 'rorters'.

I am not sure if they have any idea what it is like to have a baby. It takes it out of you just a little bit. Personally, I found the first year pretty tough the two times that I did it. Twice was enough. To have a little bit of time home with a child I think would make all the difference. I did not have that luxury. I was working for myself. There was no government scheme. Thank God for Labor that there is a government scheme in place that means all women who have been working can access it. I was back at work within a couple of days to meet a deadline, so I know how it feels to juggle working, raising a baby, looking after a baby—just getting enough sleep, for heaven's sake.

Yet on the other side they were happy to say: 'No, these women are rorters. They're double dipping. Happy Mother's Day.' Less than a year later, of course, as we come up to Mother's Day this Sunday, they have recognised that the rest of the world does not see things the way they do. The rest of the world hasn't got the heartlessness that they so easily access. The rest of the world, particularly in the other place, recognises that their policy to remove the access to government paid parental leave and to allow employers who have negotiated with their workers, the workers who have fought for additional time—the other place recognised that it was totally unacceptable to take away those rights. You can see—maybe they know it too in their hearts.

Opposition members: No!

No, they don't. No, what am I thinking? I still like to think that that there is some hope, but, yes, you are right; there is none.

Government paid parental leave needs to remain an absolute basis for women to be able to plan their future, and then employers need to be able to work with their staff so that they can find a way that works for both the worker—the mum, her family, her kids, her new baby—and the business or the organisation they are in. We cannot take that right away from any of the parties in that arrangement.

There is another group of people who I felt for in the government's matters that are now off the table, and that is the people from other countries who have chosen to come to Australia, become citizens of Australia and work their guts out here but hoped that in their retirement, in their pension years, they would get back to their homeland.

In my electorate in the Hawkesbury that is the Maltese community. They have grown vegetables, they have built businesses and they have educated their children at St Monica's, Bede Polding and all the wonderful Catholic schools that we have in our electorate, which of course are going to be facing real challenges as we move forward thanks to those opposite. As they get their pensions they think, 'I would like to go back to Malta and I would like to spend some time with my sisters, cousins and family that I have not seen.' Yet this government wanted to take that right away from them. That was a disgrace. When people have worked hard they deserve the opportunity to choose to have some leisure in their older years and to really enjoy the fruits of their labours. They may not have been able to stash away enough money to be able to do it on their own; they needed the pension to do that. It is there for people who need it and we should not ever have looked at taking that away. Those opposite should be ashamed that they even considered it.

But, sadly, they are not ashamed, and this is probably the bit that is heartbreaking: they actually still want to bring these measures through. We know that they would—given a change in polls, given a change in leader or given a change in the Senate—reintroduce these and any other measures that they could in a flash. This is a bit of cleaning up to make it look a bit neater. It is trimming around the edges, but really we know that they are still sitting there. They are still there waiting until there is a moment. And that is the horror of this government: it is only going to take a moment for them to step up and put all this stuff back on the table with all the other things that we know they would like to do, like $100,000 degrees for university students. It is all the things they have talked about: 'Let's make sure that the federal government does not fund any public education.' We know that, given the chance, all the things that they have had brain explosions about over the last few months would come back.

It really goes to the heart of their problem: they are so out of touch. They are out of touch with what ordinary people feel, what families feel, what pensioners feel, what self-funded retirees feel and what working mums feel. They are completely out of touch, and in fact the reality is that they will never ever be able to understand what it is like to be a real Aussie. They are in a totally different world, all of their own.

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

Well, what a morning it is in the federal parliament. We have done a bit of a history test here. It does not happen very often that we discharge bills. It does not happen very often that we see a minister from the other side come in here and give us a demonstration of what small government looks like. He looked small this morning, creeping into the chamber, and he is going to walk backwards out of the chamber when this debate is finished today because, of course, he is torn today. He has to come in here and discharge legislation that he passionately believes in. He has told us that time and time again while they have traipsed through those doors to vote for these pieces of legislation—not once, not twice but for months. For four years—for a thousand days—they have said they believed in these measures, and they have to come in here today and take them away from the parliament. This is not because they have a lack of faith in them and not because they no longer believe in them. It is not because, suddenly, they spent some time out in the real world, where we live, and learnt that some of these measures are appallingly cruel and that some of these measures would actually hurt our local economies. And it is not because they have figured these things out: it is because the division on their side, inside their own caucus, has meant that they have to try to find a new way and to pretend to have found a heart. That is what they are doing this morning. They are coming in here to get rid of measures that have been cynically called, 'zombie' measures, and they believe that after this morning they will disappear out of people's minds and people's memories.

It is a strange day in the federal parliament, but it is a great day to sit here and look at the face of the member for Jagajaga and encourage her in her war against their unfair measures in this chamber. It is a proud day for all of us to stand here and say that for a thousand days we have fought for the people who live in our communities. For a thousand days we have met with them and we have listened to them. We have imagined their lives if we did not know them. We have visited their homes and we have talked to them in the street. We understand what these measures would have meant in their lives. Now, we get to be in this chamber while those opposite crab walk away from these measures. They are crab walking, cynically, away from these measures that they firmly believe in.

Let us think about what these measures were. Like the member for Macquarie, I cannot get past the idiocy and imbecility of thinking that young people could go without support and without unemployment benefits for six months, that the planet they live on has parents who can pay mortgages without any contribution from the young people who live in their families. I cannot get past their absolute lack of understanding about how millions of Australians live, and their lack of understanding that we had to work for a decade to raise retention rates in schools. These were low not because kids were not smart enough to stay at school, and not because schools did not want kids to be at school, but because kids left school to work to make a contribution to their family income. There are families in this country for whom the 16-year-old's salary is the difference between paying the rent and not paying the rent. They wanted to thrust upon these families their children coming home—25-year-olds returning home to live with their families—on meagre incomes. 'Let's open the door and bring all the children home again, because we're going to kick them off benefits for six months.'

The government gave no thought to what that would have meant to someone who owned a rental property who suddenly had a vacant property because the tenants had not been able to pay their rent. They had no thought about what that would have meant in terms of tenancy. They had no thought about the backlog. They had no thought about evictions.

They have an absolute lack of understanding about how real people live. We saw it in their pursuit of changes to Medicare and in their pursuit to undermine Medicare. We had that confirmed last week—I do not know if we have mentioned it in this parliament since we have got back—in that moment when our Prime Minister congratulated the President of the US on undermining the health care for millions of Americans. It was that moment where we saw, with absolute lucidity, what our Prime Minister stands for: absolutely nothing. He stands for nothing. Lost in the moment, he chose to congratulate someone for doing something that would be abhorred by the people of this country.

This social services minister came to the portfolio in a reshuffle that occurred somewhere after the 2014 budget, when someone said, 'We'd better make a few moves here.' In fact, I think the current Treasurer had the portfolio before him, so they were his zombie measures originally. This minister came to that portfolio with a lot of fanfare. He was going to shake up the world. He was going to save the bottom line. He was going to fix everything for this government. Today, he walks in here and chooses not to speak while they discharge four pieces of legislation that have been in this parliament for 1,000 days. He fronts up to that dispatch box and says nothing. I understand that he is torn. I understand that he has to try and get to that box and say something that is going to convince the world that he no longer believes in these things, when he clearly does believe in these things. That would be a difficult thing to do. He has to try and not say something that contradicts all of the things that he has said in the last four years. So, really, it was a hard job. It was a hard thing they asked him to come in here to do today. It was a very hard thing. But he could have made some show of it. He could have given some heart to it. He could have made some suggestion at the dispatch box that he really has seen the light. But the Minister for Social Services has not seen the light, and this government has not seen the light. I predict these measures will be back. They will be tweaked. They might go after young people until they are 26 or 27. These measures might come back in a worse state than they are leaving the chamber today.

This government's decision-making across the last two months has been given wholly and solely to try and keep their current Prime Minister in the job. The division in their caucus is extraordinary. We have the front bench march in here and tell us they know how to run this country. It is all about the bottom line. It is all about being fiscally restrained. It is all about spending—remember it was all about spending last night. We woke up to—

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

Oh, that's old hat!

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

That is old, isn't it, Jen! How many times have I heard we do not have a revenue problem? They say, 'There's no revenue problem in this country; all we need to do is cut spending.' Well, today they are walking away from that, not because they do not believe in it. They are walking away because, led by Bill Shorten, this caucus—the people on this side of the chamber—have fought hard for the people we represent, because we believe in the people we represent. We believe that, if you give mothers the support they need financially while they are at home looking after new infants, they will make a better contribution to this country in the future. We believe in our young people. We believe that, given the right supports, they will find a way 'when times are better', to quote the Treasurer, to contribute. When we get to better times, if we have supported the most vulnerable, they will be fit and ready to take their place, engage in employment and make a better contribution.

The government are torn now. They cannot decide which narrative they want to run. They suddenly found they do have a revenue problem and their answer to fixing that revenue problem, of course, is for all of Australia to pay more in the Medicare levy—but the millionaires are still going to get their tax cuts. They are twisted. They are trying to find a new way forward, but it is all just another fake reset. We had the fake tradie; now we are having another fake reset. This Prime Minister is very confused about the direction he wants to take this country in. He is now busy doing what he does best, which is something about marketing—'If we just say the right things and do the opposite, somehow we'll deliver for the Australian people.'

The government need to hang their heads in shame today. They have been unable to win the arguments. They have been unable to convince the Australian people that they have the right measures, and they are taking some of those measures off the agenda today. I know that they do not believe in what they are doing in here. The minister proves he does not believe in what he is doing. He proves it by his silence and his refusal to contribute to the debate. They all prove it because they were here every time to vote for their measures but they are not in here today while they are discharging them. The benches are all but empty. The minister is not even joining the debate. There is nobody from the back bench prepared to come in here and talk about it. There is nobody here to defend what they are doing today.

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

They all voted for them!

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

And they all voted for it, Jen. They voted for it time and time again. (Time expired)

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call the member for Newcastle, I remind members, as per the Speaker's direction, to refer to members by their correct titles.

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

It is astonishing to sit in this chamber today. Here we are, debating the discharge of some of the most appalling cuts that the parliament has seen over the last two terms of this shocking Liberal government. Not a single government member—all of whom, as previous Labor speakers to this debate have noted, were very vocal about their support for each and every one of these cuts—is prepared to stand up today to defend this motion. No-one is prepared to stand up and explain to the Australian people this sudden change of heart. Rightly, we on this side of the House are indeed questioning whether there has been a change of heart. I think that is what we are seeing in the budget and in this attempt to, rightfully, get rid of all of those appalling zombie measures. The government have not been able to get them through this parliament, for very good reasons. The Australian people voted for members in this House and members in the Senate to keep an eye on these guys and keep them honest about the sorts of policies they bring forward. So, if you cannot get your cuts through the Senate, do not just bemoan the fact that you do not have a majority in the Senate. There is a house of review for good reasons. They have not been successful. They are finally facing up to the Australian people to say, 'Okay, we cannot get these measures through.' Let us not kid ourselves: for that reason and that reason alone, these zombie cuts are back here to be discharged from this parliament, as they should be, and to bring some honesty back to the Australian people.

These cuts were never going to go through because they are bad public policy, they are bad for young people, they are bad for women, they are bad for jobseekers and they are bad for every Australian who seeks some kind of secure, affordable, universal health system in this country. These are all shocking measures that deserve to be gone, but let us not pretend for one moment that this government has had a change of heart.

This is a budget best described as a tactical budget, in my view. This is about political tactics, not about a heart. These guys are still stuck in the 17th century, believing in Rene Descartes's mind-body split. They can operate with a tactical headspace, but when it comes to nurturing and caring for the medical health and wellbeing of our citizens and the bodies of our body politic they do not want to know about it. These guys can operate with a dualism around all pretence. Honestly, expecting the Australian people now to believe that they have seen the error of their ways and they are now going back, hand on heart, saying, 'We now understand the havoc, hardship and pain that we have caused the Australian people over the last four years. We've seen the error of our ways. We've learnt, and we're now going to move on to new measures, we're moving on to new measures like those in the budget last night, through which we're going to continue to punish young people and jobseekers. Let's not bother investing in getting people job ready. Let's not bother investing in proper job creation so that people might have something to go on and work in.'

These are the guys who run around the country holding Ice Taskforce meetings, but when it comes to wanting to assist people into rehabilitation and treatment options they have nothing. These kids—many of whom are in regional areas represented by all of the wonderful members of the National Party, who have failed to show up for the debate this morning—are out there in those regional seats, absolutely struggling to access any form of assistance and treatment options for drug, alcohol and substance abuse. What this government has in store for them now is: 'You know what? We're going to start drug testing you.' God knows how that is going to happen. Centrelink is already underfunded and underresourced and is battling to cope with its existing responsibilities. Indeed, we saw under the Minister for Social Services, who sits before us, the infamous robo-debt across the country. My electorate was no different from anybody else's. Thousands of people were allegedly defrauding Centrelink, only for it to be discovered later after a bit of digging and a bit of advocacy on behalf of those people that, gosh, they actually had no debt to repay at all: 'It was just a little error. We've got a few IT glitch problems going on over at Centrelink. We've chopped a few staff'—5,000 staff—'out of Centrelink, so we've actually got no-one anymore to check on whether these debts raised are genuine.' Now we have the government saying in this budget they will go on and they will do some drug testing and get Centrelink to get all heavy handed again. Of course, it is the same agency that under this minister sitting here with us today has lost 5,000 staff and is under extraordinary pressures. Now they are floating the idea that they might even outsource a whole bunch of services for them. I am sure that is going to go down really well in my electorate, where people are already spending 90 minutes on the phone trying to get through to Centrelink. The people of Newcastle are not going to be fooled by the pretence that these guys have put a fix on Medicare, with their so-called guarantee. I am loath to use this comparison, but I think the reference to a 'fake guarantee' is suitable here.

I can only imagine the shenanigans going on in the back rooms of the Liberal Party right now. The reason no-one is in this chamber to defend these zombie cuts, let alone to speak on why they have come belatedly to the realisation that they need to remove these kinds of fake savings from the budget books, is that the media is out there today calling this a Labor budget. I can only imagine what is going on in that back room with the member for Warringah, the member for Menzies, the member for Dickson and the member for Dawson. They must be just seething about any such comparison. Indeed, whilst the Prime Minister is hoping this is enough to stitch up his job for the remaining few years, I suspect there is news for him waiting in polls to come and, indeed, in the feedback from each and every one of our electorates, because the Australian people are not gullible. They make smart decisions. They deserve a lot more from their governments. They deserve some honesty. They deserve some ministers who might actually stand up and debate these issues in parliament. They are a little bit light-on here.

But I take the point that others have made: it is too dangerous to let these guys go out on the public record. Let's face it. The member for Warringah will be pouncing on anything that has been said. That will inflame the disunity in the Liberal Party again. That is going to become the news story. Everyone is clearly under strict instructions. There is no need to issue key lines today, because the key line is: 'Zip it up. Do not talk. Let's not have anything that the Australian people might actually hold us to account for.' They cannot be trusted to stay on song. Nobody has a one-page happening over on that side of the parliament, so they cannot be trusted to go down that path. The new tactic on that side, again, is, 'Let's not pretend our heart's in this, but our head—our political tacticians—tells us to say nothing.'

Actually, it would be kind of nice to hear these guys stand up and apologise for the trauma and the distress they have caused to thousands and thousands of Australian people—indeed, millions of Australians, many of whom are the most vulnerable and marginalised people in this community. Many of them do not have a voice or a platform. They do not have the privilege of access to ministers here. Fortunately, they have the Australian Labor Party's ear. We will continue to stand up each and every day in this parliament, trying to get a fair deal for all Australians and to expose the trickle-down world view of the Liberal Party and this government, which thinks you can just continue to look after your mates at the big end of town and they will somehow generously provide some largesse for those less fortunate in the world. No-one believes that is the right pathway to go down. No Australian is fooled by this government's efforts in last night's budget or by this attempt to discharge those shocking zombie measures now. We know your heart is not in it. We know that the measures are waiting to come back at any given time.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have never seen anything like this. This debate has now been going for an hour. I am the seventh Labor speaker to speak in support of a government motion that they will not talk about. Not only will they not talk about it but the minister refused to even read the motion out loud. The notice of motion says: 'I give notice that on the next day of sitting, I shall move the following orders of the day, government business, be discharged.' I thought I should read this out, because he never did. This has not actually gone onto the record yet:

Second reading—Resumption of debate:

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payments Structural Reform and Participation Measures) Bill 2016;

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Budget Repair) Bill 2016;

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 2016; and

Fairer Paid Parental Leave Bill 2016.

With the enthusiasm from the opposition to vote for a motion moved by the minister, you would think that at some point some member of the government would stand up and explain to the House why these bills should be discharged and why these bills were a bad idea. But instead they are like Jim Carrey in that Liar Liar movie, where Jim Carrey knows that if he opens his mouth he is going to say the truth, so he is constantly just holding back, trying to make sure no words come out.

We know their beliefs have not changed on any of these issues. Every piece of legislation that this motion is taking off the Notice Paper is a piece of legislation that every single member of that government supports. Every piece of legislation that is referred to in this motion and that the minister is asking us to take off the Notice Paper is a piece of legislation that the minister has himself introduced to the parliament, advocated for and ridiculed people for opposing it. And now he comes in here and will not give us any reason.

The Prime Minister was forced into a situation in an interview this morning where he was asked if this means they are bad measures. He had this beautiful quotation: 'It's not a question of good or bad. They were measures which we thought, which we believed, had merit.' Their beliefs have not changed, and the reason we know their beliefs have not changed is the moment we opened the budget papers themselves. Every other policy change has a reason as to why the policy is being changed. You get an argument from the public servants as to why the government has arrived at this decision. And what is the reason? 'Decisions taken as a result of Senate positions'—no policy reason but an acknowledgement that these were measures which they were not going to get through the parliament.

It is not the first time they were told that. As recently as today the government was still arguing that there was a $16 billion gap that they had between them and Labor at the last election. At the time when they were arguing this, we said: 'Hang on. That includes a whole lot of measures that will never pass the parliament.' And now we find they are acknowledging that $13½ billion of that amount will never pass the parliament.

So today ends the argument claiming there is some big fiscal gap in terms of their and Labor's proposals. But there is a fiscal gap if you are a family trying to make ends meet. There is a fiscal gap if you are a young unemployed person, who they really believe should be left with nothing to live on. There is a fiscal gap if you are a woman who wants to go on maternity leave, because you are dealing with a government that still believes these women are double-dippers, that still believes these women are rorters. They have believed it ever since Mother's Day a few years ago.

They come in here, ridicule those who oppose them and ridicule the opposition for holding their ground, but be in no doubt: this budget has found new ways of hurting ordinary Australians. This budget has found new ways of letting down everybody else. But you are not let down if you are in the top tax bracket. You are not let down if you are a millionaire. You are not let down if you are a multinational company. They all do pretty well out of this budget. But, if you have a kid at school, you are not doing real well. If you are reliant on Medicare payments, this government continues the cuts. If you are in any situation of looking at when you will get the pension, they are still pursuing the oldest retirement age. And so those opposite have not changed. If they had changed, the next speaker would be one of them, but we know that when one of them rises it will not be to give a defence of the motion. When one of them stands up, it will be to move that the question be put. They will stand up because they will have had enough of people standing up and agreeing with their motion. They will stand up because they are fed up with Labor standing up, supporting and giving reasons why we should back in the motion moved by the minister. They will say, 'Enough of all of that.' They will move that it be put, and that will be the first time that anyone rises at that dispatch box.

Between now and then, be in no doubt: every time those opposite come after vulnerable Australians, come after everybody who is not in the top end of town, we will stand in their way. We will stand between them and the people they want to hurt. Labor doing that shows those opposite will not even have the courage of their convictions to give an explanation as to why they are giving up on certain measures. The reason is simple. They are living right now with quotes about how they support these measures. They do not want to give a speech saying they do not support these measures, because that will be used against them in years to come when these measures reappear. That is what they do not want to have on the record. They do not want the contradiction to appear on the record when these measures return to the budget.

If they were not planning to bring them back, they would give an explanation as to why they are a bad idea. If they were not planning on bringing these measures back, we would hear the speech as to why these measures were unfair, as to why the 2014 budget was going down a path that was not a sensible way for Australia to go. For every other measure in the budget, they will give that sort of speech. They will not give it for these measures, because that would plant the seed of contradiction for when these measures return. Everything in the budget papers, in the budget speech and in the language of the non-speech we heard this morning is setting the parameters, setting all the bases and the foundations, they need for these measures to be reintroduced.

Be in no doubt, the concept of giving a young unemployed person nothing to live on is the wrong thing to do. It is an unacceptable, abhorrent thing to do. That is why these measures should be discharged from the Notice Paper. Calling women who are going on maternity leave 'rorters' and 'double dippers' is an appalling approach to public policy. A lot of focus has been put on the fact that the announcement was made on Mother's Day, which was out of touch and bizarre; however, they announced the 18C changes on the day to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination, on Harmony Day, so this is just sort of what they do. The policy itself meant that women planning to take time off to care for a child were going to be put in an impossible situation. Even though they had negotiated with their employer for particular benefits to give them additional time, that part of the negotiation was going to be thrown out the window. That was not fair on those women; that was not a fair outcome for those women.

These measures meant people losing payments that they relied on. It was the wrong thing for the government to do. We will keep making these speeches in the parliament, because we know every one of these measures is on the way back. If they are not, then the next speaker to stand up will be a speaker from the government to explain to the House why these measures should be taken off the Notice Paper.

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am proud to rise in support of the proposition that all of these measures be discharged from the Notice Paper, and I am proud to stand here with all of my Labor colleagues trying to put to bed the 2014 budget and the cruel austerity agenda that was once proudly propagated by this government when it sought to end what it called the 'age of entitlement'. And as previous Labor speakers have observed in this debate—well, it is not really much of a debate, is it? No-one from the government side has spoken, not even the Minister for Social Services. The minister, who is at the table, is not even paying attention to the contributions that are being made, as he tries to slink away from measures that he is, no doubt, personally deeply committed to but does not have the courage to advocate for in this place or in the community. The minister understands that, since that 2014 budget, the Leader of the Opposition and the Labor team have made the case to the Australian people that this kind of austerity is not acceptable. This government accepts that point politically, but it does not accept it in its heart. On this side of the House, we know that it does not resile from a single one of these measures. That is proved with a detailed look at the current budget and the current policy settings of this government, which continue to inflict pain on those who are least able to afford it, as the member for Jagajaga made clear. I hope to have time to draw out some of those measures.

What is striking about this government is that it is so utterly pointless. I wonder if the member for Wentworth can explain to himself, much less to the Australian people, what was the point in him replacing the member for Warringah as Prime Minister. It is unclear to me, and it is unclear to anyone reading the commentary following the budget yesterday. I hope that the ministers at the table might be able to enlighten us, but I suspect they will not even try.

It is becoming clearer and clearer this is a government that is completely dysfunctional as well as a government that lacks the courage of its convictions. But, on this side, we do not mistake that lack of courage for a lack of conviction; we know this is a government that sees inequality at a 75-year high and seeks to deepen that inequality. We see that in the agenda to continue to push for a $50 billion giveaway at a time of record company profits, at a time of record low wages growth—record low wages everywhere except in the revenue forecasts of this government of course. I am sure the minister will be a firm advocate to see—I do not know—public sector bargaining reflect the wage forecasts.

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

Don't hold your breath.

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no interjection, is there? It is another cruel falsehood. I will make this point again: whatever is to be read from this notice of motion cannot be read in isolation from the failure of government members to speak to it, from the failure of government members to publicly disavow the so-called age-of-entitlement mentality. To be fair to Joe Hockey, who I hope is enjoying himself in Washington today, every day that the member for Cook is Treasurer, Joe Hockey looks a bit better it, doesn't he?

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

That is a big statement.

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I fear I may have lost some of my colleagues. The former Treasurer, Mr Hockey, at least had the courage of his convictions. He set out his vision for Australia in a speech in London of course, a traditional place to debate Australian political issues—a homage to Menzies much like the member for Kooyong gave us yesterday. I guess, like the member for Warringah, they see Australia's best times as in the past, and we see that in so many of the measures, in the cruel way that they have dealt with paid parental leave in the last budget and in the way they continue to deal with it. Their vision of Australia's best times is that they are a long way behind us and that is clear in those cuts that continue. They do not have a vision for modern Australia. It is very clear also when we look at the measures that remain that they show no prospect of inclusive growth, no vision for an outward-looking Australia. The contrast between the rhetoric of the now Prime Minister on the day he sought the leadership of the Liberal Party and whatever story emerges from this budget could not be starker. Again, it raises this profound question: what is the point of him being Prime Minister, and what is the point of this government?

We see the member for Warringah—the member for Menzies—advancing an agenda, a cruel agenda but an honest one, one that they are prepared to articulate clearly, whereas what we see from those ministers who are active in the government, who hold significant portfolios, is they are continuing to prosecute this ideological war but they do not have the courage to set out the basis upon which they are doing so; instead, they seek to obfuscate at every turn. We have seen this most clearly in the positioning before the budget in how this government and Minister Birmingham deal with education. The effective imposition of a huge burden on students seeking to enter higher education, a ticket to a good life for them and a critical ticket in us being a high-wage, high skilled economy. The impositions on students and on our universities are a huge brake on Australia's growth, on all of us achieving our potential. And of course they sit very neatly—if that is an expression I can use—with dissembling and dishonesty when it comes to school funding, another cruel handbrake on Australia's future, denying every child every chance of fulfilling their potential.

We see the inequities emerge when we look around the country, when we look at what this $22 billion cut to school funding means. We know that today kids in remote and regional Australia, kids with disability, kids from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds and in particular Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander kids are not getting every chance to succeed in school and build the platform to a successful and healthy life. What does this government do? It delivers up a lot of words but not a lot of money. It uses David Gonski as a 'look away now pea-and-thimble trick' to distract from the fact that whatever they say, their commitment is to a vision of Australia that is small and mean, a vision of a Australia that is all about looking backwards not looking forwards, a vision of Australia which does not seek to bring out the best in each and every one of us and a vision of Australia which is all about division.

We take heart, on this side of the House, that we have made that case. The government's silence is eloquent on the fact that the opposition leader, the shadow minister at the table and others in the Labor team have persuaded the government not that they are wrong but that they dare not speak what they believe. The challenge for government members opposite is to make a case, treat politics seriously and engage in a battle of ideas, not a desperate scramble to survive. If there is any point to this place, it should be the place where we debate our competing visions for Australia's future. What do we hear? The silence has been deafening.

One of my other colleagues will, no doubt, seek the jump until such time as the government brings this embarrassing facsimile of a debate to an end. I bet they think that end cannot come soon enough, because this government does not have a vision for Australia. We see that at the individual level, with the cruelties that remain: the attacks on the most vulnerable in society. It is hard to exaggerate how offensive it is that this government's vision for the most disadvantaged is entirely focused, it would seem, on getting good tabloid headlines for beating up on people in the most unfortunate and unfair terms. Whatever this policy around drug testing is and wherever its genesis is, it is clearly not random drug testing. We know that. It is the same data-driven approach that Minister Tudge has demonstrated to be so effective in managing his responsibilities to social service recipients, consistent with a vision of Australia that is all about division, not about pulling us together. It is about blaming people.

Joe Hockey, the former Treasurer and member for North Sydney as he then was, at least had the courage to talk about 'lifters and leaners'. These members opposite say it under their breath. It does not mean that they do not mean it. It does not mean that they do not believe it. If they had changed their minds, they would say so. They would come into the House, put their hands up and say, 'The agenda we took to government and prosecuted under the member for Warringah was wrong. It showed no concern for ordinary Australians or any concern to advance our collective interests as a nation.'

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

They're too terrified of him.

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, they are too terrified of the member for Warringah. They should not be terrified of him. He has been tried and found wanting, because his agenda was not in the interests of Australians. The challenge for members opposite is to do one of two things: to come into this place and admit that they were wrong, or to support a different way forward—a vision for Australia and for all Australians that the Leader of the Opposition will articulate tomorrow night.

Milton Dick (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, the old saying that my father used to say is, 'Sorry is the hardest word to say.' That is not a word that we ever really hear from the government. It is a word that this government does not want to say, because it is not sorry for any of the cuts that were introduced and that the community have had to put up with, with fear and concern, for the last three years. This government has a horrific record when it comes to looking after those that are vulnerable and disadvantaged. My community in the southwest of Brisbane knows that. One of the things I heard continuously in the election, coming up to a year ago, was that people felt that they were under pressure. They felt that the government was not on their side. They felt that it was a government that had the deck stacked against them.

Nothing has changed whatsoever. The only thing that has changed is the fact that this government does not have the numbers. Let's be clear: if they had the numbers, all of these measures would be passed. They would be rejoicing. Who can forget Joe Hockey on that famous first budget night when he played the music and danced around in his office to 'The best night of my life?' Who can remember that? It was the best night of his life and the worst night of Australia's life, when we saw the unfair and cruel cuts introduced.

The electorate of Oxley has a high level of people relying on government support. They know that there are people in my community that are doing it tough, but they are a resilient and strong community. I want to place on record in the House today thanks for the community organisations, for the local residents and for the leadership of the Labor Party before I was elected, who have campaigned side by side with activists right across this country. Just last week in my electorate the community rallied and came together to make sure in the week before the budget that this parliament, this government and this minister heard very clearly, 'Hands off our services; no more cuts.'

I was so pleased that the shadow minister, the member for Jagajaga, was able to join the community. This rally had people represented from the community sector and from churches, volunteers and local residents. It did not make the front page of The Australian newspaper and it did not lead the news that night, but there was the power and strength of that community. The member for Jagajaga and I were was so proud that the community would take a stance, unite and stand as one. They are the people who deserve to be acknowledged, not this government that it is walking away slowly, backwards—cowardly, in my opinion. It does not even have the guts. It is little wonder that the minister is remaining silent on this. In this, the same week that showed he would lose his own electorate—polls have shown just how deeply unpopular his own government is in his own electorate—we saw Australians uniting and standing up to the bullying tactics of this government right across Australia.

At the rally we heard from representatives of the people like Father Peter Moore, a wonderful community leader who provides great care and compassion through the Anglican parish of Goodna in my electorate. He runs a fantastic organisation which provides counselling, housing support, food and clothing—all of those essential services—because the community is under stress and under pressure through no support and help from this government whatsoever.

We also heard from magnificent community champions, like Shirley Crawley from the Family Accommodation & Support Service in Inala. Shirley has been a volunteer in my community, helping disadvantaged people, for the last 30 years. She stood shoulder to shoulder with the member for Jagajaga and me, on stage in front of my local residents—standing strong and standing up to this government.

We know that the cruel cuts are not all gone. My community knows, just as every other electorate in Australia knows, that although the government may be dropping one iteration to cuts to family budgets they have introduced new cuts into this budget. These are cuts that will leave around 100,000 hardworking families worse off. We know that the government cannot be trusted when it comes to Australian families, and we know that there is a new cut to the family tax benefit that will leave a family with two children in high school on $105,000 worse off by $1,700 from 1 July next year.

That is not a lot of money for those sitting at the dispatch box on the government side. I know that that does not mean a lot to those opposite. It means an incredible amount of support for families in my electorate. I want to place on record just the cruelness that they are going to make as a result of this budget. It is all very well wanting to have some sort of pat on the back when the Australian community have forced you into this position. It is not because you have disagreed with it, or that you have had a change of heart or that you think it was bad public policy: it was the numbers. It was the numbers which showed that you simply could not deliver this project.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What's all this about?

Milton Dick (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can hear the Leader of the House asking: 'What's all this about? Why are they talking about all these cuts? Can't we do something about this?' No—through you, Mr Deputy Speaker—you cannot, because the Australian community are onto you. They are awake. Just as they rallied in my community, they will continue to rally against what you are proposing for Australia.

Earlier last week, before the rally, I was able to meet with a large group of seniors and pensioners, who the shadow minister addressed. It might be a lesson for the minister to actually go out and listen to the community. He is in a bit of a witness protection scheme! I cannot go through all of the issues those seniors had. There were a couple of hundred seniors who gathered together with the shadow minister and me at the Jindalee Bowls Club, and the feedback was very clear: hands off the pension and hands off on the cuts to seniors.

Time and time again, when this government needs to go somewhere they do not go to the top end of town. They do not go after them at all. We know that because their approach is to give the top end of town tax cuts, to give them a helping hand. We get that. We know on this side of the chamber and in my community that that is this government's agenda. The Australian community can see that. But, time and time again, when it comes to attacking those who can least afford it, that is the go-to. That is the alternative place where this government always goes first.

Just once, wouldn't it be nice if you had a government minister or a member of the government get up and apologise for the uncertainty, the fear, the issues that they have created. No, they are not interested in that at all. They are never interested in apologising or saying sorry or simply saying, 'We got it wrong'. Well, you have got it wrong. And you got it wrong in this budget as well. We will continue to fight what you are trying to do; you are trying to remove the social safety net in this country. Time and time again, cruel, conservative governments have gone down this path. When will you learn? When will you hear the message across Australia? Hands off our services. Hands off pensioners and making sure that they get a fair go.

Government members interjecting—

You can hear them bleating now. They do not like it when the truth is exposed—through their electorates, right across Australia—that the cuts have now been exposed. But it is not finished. It is not over. We know that they are still coming after pensioners. We know they are still coming after families who need support. Time and time again, this opposition led by Bill Shorten and shadow minister Jenny Macklin will continue to fight you every step of the way. We will stand beside the Australian community while you try to tear them apart.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It has been quite amusing watching the Manager of Opposition Business doing the oldest trick in the book when there is a leadership challenge on in the Labor Party, trying to get his backbenchers into the chamber so they are not in their offices to take calls from Anthony Albanese. We all know that is what is going on here this morning.

Anthony Albanese was on FIVEaa radio this morning with me on our regular radio catch-up. He was asked twice by the radio presenters—and once by me, to be fair—to rule out challenging Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, and he refused to do so. We have seen the member for Grayndler continuing his high profile in the press. This week of course he stood up to the member for Maribyrnong over the xenophobic television ad run by the Labor Party. He fired the starter gun on the challenge, and the Manager of Opposition Business has had his backbenchers in here this morning.

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

Point of order.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would ask the minister to resume his seat for a second. The member for Jagajaga has a point of order?

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

Thank you. That is exactly right. As the minister knows full well, he needs to actually speak to the motion, which he is not doing.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Jagajaga will resume her seat.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am just having a small preamble.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course, Minister. A brief preamble is allowed.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I see the member for Bass has been sent in here so that he does not get a phone call from Anthony Albanese, who is ringing around.

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

Point of order: the preamble is over.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am about to get to the substance here. I am about to get to the substance. You cannot bear it. You know it is true.

Ms Macklin interjecting—

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order. The minister has the call.

Ms Macklin interjecting—

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're a Grayndler supporter.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Jagajaga will resume her seat. The minister is of course allowed a preamble.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A very brief preamble, Mr Deputy Speaker. Of course the government would like to get on with things that I thought the Labor Party were interested in. I thought they were interested in vulnerable workers, and that is the next bill that we are supposed to be debating here today—protections for vulnerable workers. But Labor does not want to talk about that. They would rather this ridiculous distraction. We want to know what the Leader of the Opposition's position is on the corrupting benefits legislation as well. We want to get to the corrupting benefits legislation because the Leader of the Opposition is yet to say what his position is on the corrupting benefits legislation. So we will draw a curtain on this amusing pantomime from the Labor Party this morning. I move:

That the motion be put.

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

The question is that the motion be put.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

(In division)A point of order, Mr Speaker.

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

A point of order from the Manager of Opposition Business.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Under standing order 67, immediately after this motion—which I presume will be carried—that the question be put, I will not have the opportunity to ask for the primary question to be restated. The House has the problem that the minister never told the House what he was moving and never gave a reason as to why anyone would vote for it. The opposition have had a series of speeches explaining why we think it should be agreed to, but, given that the question has never actually been explained to the House, I wonder if there is a point in time, given that the minister did not, when you might make it clear to the House what it is voting on.

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

I thank the Manager of Opposition Business. Can I say to the Manager of Opposition Business that this issue has been raised before in another context. I am going to put this in the 'innovative and good try' category, because, as the Manager of Opposition Business knows, I was in the chair not only when the Clerk read the item of business that is on the Notice Paper but when the minister read what he was required to read. The Manager of Opposition Business's quibble I think was outlined pretty clearly in his own contribution, which was that the minister simply moved what he was required to move but did not make a speech. There is no point of order.

The question now is that the motion moved by the minister be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Ms Macklin interjecting—

The member for Jagajaga might want to remain in the chamber. I have been very lenient.