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

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

The government’s unfair budget hurting ordinary Australians.

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

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

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

This week we have actually seen the 'tale of two puppets'. I do not mean Punch and Judy and I do not mean Bert and Ernie. I mean the member for Wentworth and Harold the giraffe! They are both noble, stately, proud creatures. They are both exotic. They enjoy a water view. They are at home with the safari set. They are both famous for looking down on everyone, and in some parts of the world both are endangered species!

Now, we are hearing some familiar rumblings from the Liberal backbenchers. They have started to wonder if anyone is listening to the Prime Minister. They are questioning, with that head-slapping Conservative attitude, 'Is our message getting through?' And yet the first puppet to get it in the neck was not the member for Wentworth; it was our friend, poor old Harold the giraffe. At least he sticks his neck out for something! This is what Life Education has said:

The recent news that our 2017/18 Budget Submission was unsuccessful now finds Life Education defunded by the Australian Government for the first time in ‘literally decades’.

Sometimes it is the little things that speak volumes about the government.

In a budget which contained $65 billion given away to large companies, banks and multinationals; in a budget which has $37 billion protected for property investors; and in a budget with $19 billion for tax cuts for the top two per cent, this mean-spirited government could not find half a million dollars for a program that last year reached nearly three-quarters of a million children. It talked about a healthy lifestyle and the dangers of drugs. And now they say that it was all an honest mistake—it was an oversight.

But I can tell Australians what was not an oversight by the Liberal Party and their country cousins, the National Party: a $22 billion cut for Australian schools; cuts to TAFE, training and apprenticeships; increasing the cost of university; punishing graduates—especially women—by lowering the threshold at which the HECS repayments have to be paid; and, of course, the ongoing wreckage of Australian Apprenticeships.

These are all deliberate acts of political vandalism and they undercut the key to our future prosperity: education and training. Education is how we make our luck in this country. I acknowledge the work of our commodity sectors in meeting world demand. That is fantastic. But in some way that world demand is the luck that the world gives us. This budget does nothing to address the luck that we make for ourselves—being a clever country.

That is why if we want to compete in the world—if we want to be able to cope and collaborate and create in a world where we see the marvellous rise of India and China and the countries in our region—only Labor has a plan. It is Labor which will put $22 billion back into our school system—the $22 billion that the Liberals are cutting from government and non-government schools.

We heard today in question time about the special school in the South Australian system. Mr Turnbull says they are adding more money, but what the member for Wentworth does not tell us is that they are taking that increase using Mr Abbott's cuts—the member for Warringah's cuts—as the baseline. The fact of the matter is that the Catholic education system in South Australia, which run this special school, are desperate. They are the ones the parents will listen to. All of the rhetoric from the government, saying, 'Trust us,' is not going to wash with the parents. We know that some of those backbenchers with their heads down right now understand that the principals and the parents are not buying what Senator Birmingham is selling.

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

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

That got their heads up!

And of course we will reverse the trend of privatisation in our vocational education sector. We will put TAFE back at the centre of vocational education, where it should be. We will help rebuild our TAFE campuses in the outer suburbs and the regions and we will back Australian Apprenticeships on infrastructure projects. We have a one in 10 rule for when we get elected: one apprentice for every 10 people employed on Commonwealth infrastructure projects. We will never support the government putting up the price of going to university while they cut funding to university and while they lower the trigger point at which Australians have to repay their HECS debts.

Of course, the more that Australians learn about this budget, the less they like it. The unfairness is showing through more and more every day. Of course, this is especially in the way that this government is steadfastly supporting increasing the income taxes of every Australian above $21,000. They want to increase those income taxes; but at the same time they are supporting a tax cut for millionaires on 1 July this year. There is nothing fair about that. This government, in its cynical fashion, is pretending that there is only one way to fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Well, we have got some advice for the government. We have come up with a smarter, fairer way: the ANU modelling shows that. We have done our own homework. We believe in a system which funds the social services of this nation without increasing income taxes on the battling, working middle-class families of this country.

This government loves to say, 'Well, we've increased the Medicare levy before, so let's just bang it through.' But a lot has changed in the last four years. Back in 2013, wages growth was over three per cent. Under these rotten twisters sitting opposite, wages growth has flatlined at 1.9 per cent. I bet when you top up the wages of senior executives, wages growth for low-paid workers is even lower. We have got underemployment; casualisation is at an all-time high. This is a government that can deliver you a part-time job, but they are just not so good at delivering full-time jobs. Living standards are stagnating, and Australians know it. Apprenticeship numbers have collapsed. It is harder than ever for young Australians to enter the housing market and this government's only plan to help battling people is to increase their income taxes.

They used to scream about a budget emergency. The deficit has gone up 10 times since then. The gross debt is projected to hit three-quarters of a trillion dollars. Now, they have moved off the budget emergency and they have got a new dose of hysteria: the NDIS emergency. These people know that they do not have to give a corporate tax cut of $65 billion. They could afford negative gearing. They do not have to give a tax cut to the top two per cent, but their default position is to tax the working people of this country more and hope that no-one notices their largess to the top end of town. The Liberals can badge it whatever they like: a tax is a tax is a tax. They are increasing taxes on a lot of Australians who do not deserve it. The Liberals do it because they are too lazy to do the hard work and tackle vested interests in this country.

We have got a fairer and more progressive plan. It has already been costed. It produces more in the medium term to the bottom line, and it does not slug working people under $87,000. We just heard that gobbledygook from the Prime Minister in question time. What he did not say—when he was talking about marginal effective tax rates—is that, under their plan and ours, if you earn $87,000 and one dollar then you will pay the same. What he did not have the honesty to say is that if you earn less than $87,000, you were a damn sight better off if Labor was in government.

We heard the plea of the millionaires: 'What about poor us?' The Prime Minister gave it yesterday. He said, on somehow keeping in place a budget repair levy to deal with a deficit which has got worse, that this is a tax on success. Let me just remind the government of a couple of things about our definition of success. If you are a building worker helping build the buildings Australia needs: you might not earn $180,000, but you are a success in my book. If you are a childcare worker earning $60,000 a year, if you are lucky: you are a success in my book. If you are a teacher teaching our kids, if you are a policeman keeping us safe or if you are one of eight million Australians who earn less and $87,000: you are still a success in Labor's book. We do not define the size of your pay cheque and equate that to somehow being better person or not.

The Prime Minister speaks about the tax on success for those who earn half a million and a million. Well, I think that their tax on the success of everyday Australians is something that we are going to call out, and we will call it out every day to the next election. We are so beyond the debate of this government when they say that somehow they have got a fairer plan. It is not fair to raise the income taxes of eight million Australians when you have other perfectly acceptable means of funding the functions of government. We suggest to the government: if you want to have a battle on fairness, bring it on, because you are more lost than Burke and Wills. You do not have a view about it. You are out of touch about Australians. And, secretly, you all know that your Prime Minister is the most out of touch Prime Minister in a very long time. (Time expired)

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Burke is not lost; he is just there, member for Maribyrnong. He is just behind you. I bet he is probably doing the numbers, too, just like the member for Grayndler is. There we heard 10 minutes of politics of envy. The member for Maribyrnong, the opposition leader, talks about teachers and nurses. Look out, those same teachers and nurses, if they happen to have an investment property because 'Mr Anti-Negative Gearing' is coming to get you. Back to your bunker! Off he goes, back to his bunker to count the numbers.

I like to see that there are plenty of children up in the gallery. That is great. They should know that their principals, teachers and parents will benefit from the fact that they are about to get more needs-based school funding. It is great that there are so many of them in the gallery—and they are giving a wave. They are going to be getting more funding thanks to the coalition's recent budget.

For many Australians, today is just another day. They may be ordinary Australians, older Australians in need of help through the National Disability Insurance Scheme or a student sitting in a classroom—or, dare I say, in one of the galleries—which is in desperate need of needs-based funding. They might be a farmer whose crop can feed or clothe thousands—somebody from your own electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton. They might be a truckie travelling along one of our country's connecting highways, delivering those goods to market—perhaps from the member for Lyne's electorate to one of our fine cities. Or they could be a worker, just like 5.6 million Australians are. Almost half of our workforce who got up today went to work in one of Australia's small businesses. Ordinary Australians are at the heart of this government's agenda. Deep in the heart of those opposite, they know it is true. All of these people, all of these ordinary Australians, all of these everyday Australians are the people our budget was for. It represented them. It was fair and responsible, and provided opportunity for them. And it was measured. Our plan, outlined on 9 May, means that from the inland to the coast, in the cities and across the regions, there is a bright future for ordinary Australians who are just trying to get ahead.

As we deliver our budget of fairness for ordinary Australians, those opposite, just like the member for Maribyrnong, play politics with people's lives. He would be in his little bunker now doing the numbers and making sure that the member for Grayndler is not getting too far ahead of him. There was a time when those opposite called for needs-based funding for our kids, but they sit silent as this government delivers it. There was a time when those opposite told the Liberals and Nationals to: 'Do the right thing by people with disability; support the increase in the Medicare levy.' But the opposition leader rolls his shadow cabinet to stand in the way of delivering it.

There was a time when those opposite would have you believe that the Inland Rail corridor from Melbourne to Brisbane was built by the member for Grayndler himself—it was already there! But they can only muster calling it a 'valuable idea', as construction is set to begin through places such as my electorate and your electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton. Deep in the heart of those opposite is a division which cuts to the core. They know this budget has a Liberals and Nationals stamp on it—a Liberals and Nationals letterhead above it—because it has real money to fund it. It is not phoney money; it is not Monopoly money; it is real money. They know it will improve the lives of those who are most in need, be they students or people with a disability. The politicking of their leader means they cannot support it. They will not support it. They will be just as obstructionist. They will just stand in the way. Ordinary Australians are the ones left behind and hurt by Labor as politics pummel people. The Labor letterhead—speaking of letterheads—says, 'We'll put people first.' What a joke that is! It is ordinary Australians who are getting left behind by those opposite.

Our budget delivers for ordinary Australians. We stand with them shoulder to shoulder, and it starts with small business. Small business is everyone's business. It is ordinary Australians' business. There was a time when it was Labor's business. Once, there was a speech soaring in rhetoric from a man who knew what it took for the economy to grow. Once there was a man who knew that our country grows when our small-business sector is strong. There was a man who invited this government to join him to boost our country's economy. That man said the following:

I invite you to work with me on a fair and fiscally responsible plan to reduce the tax rate for Australian small business from 30 to 25 per cent—not a 1½ per cent cut; a five per cent cut.

He continued:

A 1½ per cent cut for small businesses might be enough to generate a headline but it is not enough to generate the long-term confidence and growth our economy needs.

That is what he said. He knew that ordinary Australians had a big future in small business. As a minister in the Labor government he used to skite about small business and how Labor cared—or purportedly cared. Once he told ordinary Australians:

Any student of Australian business and economic history since the mid-80s knows that part of Australia's success was derived through the reduction in the company tax rate.

He went on to say:

We need to be able to make life easier for Australian business, which employs two in every three Australians.

But that was when the member for Maribyrnong actually believed in something. It was when he wanted to actually support ordinary Australians instead of lecturing them.

But it is clear from today's matter of public importance debate that something has changed. Today, the member for Maribyrnong thinks of just one thing: his own job; politics. He is so spooked by the machinations within the Labor Party that the references to small business have gone. So too is the belief that small business has a big future and that it creates real jobs. Gone is the support for tax cuts. Gone is the quest for growth. Gone is the jobs focus of the modern Labor Party. From the man who once told parliament about the economic boost from small business tax cuts comes today the ridiculous notion and the ridiculous belief that those with a $2 million turnover are somehow millionaires. From the man who once invited us on that journey to cut small business tax, we have had just eight references to small business in this parliament since the last election—just eight.

I thought I would take a look, because surely the journeyman to 25 per cent could not have jumped that far off the bandwagon—surely not! Sadly, it seems that this is true. Of the eight references to small business from the member for Maribyrnong since the last election, three were when he was tabling the shadow ministerial arrangements. I thought I would give the so-called ordinary Australians' champion the benefit of the doubt. After all, he has written a book! It is a book, I hope, like those of his frontbench colleagues, that says what they are too scared to say in this place—a book like those by the members for McMahon and Fenner, where good sense can prevail. Alas, it is no better there. There are just a handful of references from the self-appointed small business journeyman, nothing like the 'Labor thing' the member for McMahon once espoused—he called cuts to small business tax a 'Labor thing'. There is nothing about the good economic theory applauded by the member for Fenner.

No, today the member for Maribyrnong forgets that ordinary Australians who own small businesses think about the responsibility they have to their employees, their workers. He forgets that they think about the responsibility of paying wages that support their employees' families. He forgets that they think about the burden of far too much red tape and far too much bureaucracy. He forgets that they think about their plans to expand their businesses even further and provide even more jobs for locals.

But today, just like every day, the Liberals and Nationals do think about them. We do care. We do support them. We think about those who wake up early and start work in their small business. We think about those for whom paperwork and commitments mean that the work clock ticks long past five o'clock. We think about those who employ almost half the Australians in work and the $380 billion they contribute to the nation's gross domestic product. We think of ordinary Australians doing extraordinary things in small business. That is why we have cut the small business tax rate to its lowest level—27½ per cent—in many, many decades. That is why we have an incentive of $300 million on the table, from the budget, for the states and territories to further reduce red tape. That is why our bill, which passed this House last night, will extend the instance asset write-off for another year.

But as we deliver for ordinary Australians in small business, those opposite stand in the way. They voted against our tax cut. They will scrap our incentive to cut red tape. They will hike small business tax in government. Hopefully they will not get there too soon; hopefully they will not get there at all. They are not even shy about it. Gone are the days of job creation. Gone is the soaring rhetoric and the economic plan. Here instead are ordinary Australians—the pawn in Labor's political game.

I wonder what happened to Labor's small business journeyman and how we can get him back on track. How can we get him back on track? Maybe it is one of those books from the members for McMahon and Fenner, which he can purchase from any good local bookstore—now paying less tax, thanks to this government. Or maybe it is the simple fact that small businesses—ordinary Australians, each and every one of them—have a applauded this year's budget for its fairness, its security, its opportunity for all Australians. So I will say to the Labor Party something simple: deep within their heart they know this budget is fair, they know it is fair, they know it is fully funded, they know it is full of opportunity. They know it delivers David Gonski's dream of needs-based funding for schools, with an $18.6 billion increase in funding over 10 years. In their heart of hearts, they know it is right.

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

And in our guts we know you're nuts!

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, could you ask him to withdraw that. It is bad enough that he gets up and makes a false matter of grievance. He should withdraw that. He is in and out of his place. That is highly disorderly.

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

You just lied to the parliament.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did not lie the parliament. Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask him to withdraw the statement he made—the fact is that he is out of his place—and that I lied to the House.

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

The Minister for Small Business will resume his seat. I ask the member for McEwen to withdraw. The statement he made is unparliamentary and he is sitting out of his place. I heard the interjection. He will withdraw.

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

I will withdraw to make you happy.

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

Thank you. I call the member for Braddon.

Justine Keay (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If this budget is fair, than I must be on a different planet—and so must every other Australian in this country who does not believe a word that comes out of the mouths of those sitting opposite. It is quite clear that this government do not listen to people in their own communities, those people who actually elected them to sit over there; they do not even listen to them. They do not even take any notice of evidence, of research. They should take a grassroots approach to policy development by actually going and talking to the people who elected them. Or, if they cannot do that, they should take an academic approach and look at the evidence provided by researchers and independent people. I question whether they have the ability to do that—or else they would not have arrived at this unfair budget.

A headline today in The Sydney Morning Herald reads 'Twice as many households worse off under coalition's Medicare levy rise plan'. Let's look at this in a little bit of detail, if you are not convinced by that. The article says:

Twice as many households will be worse off under the federal government's plan to raise the Medicare levy by half a percentage point than under Labor's alternative, according to new modelling by the ANU's Centre for Social Research and Methods.

And middle-income earners will do much more of the heavy lifting under the Coalition than under Labor …

It continues:

If the Liberal policy were in place from July 1, 2019, according to the ANU modelling, 60 per cent of households would be worse off, 39 per cent would see no change, and just 1 per cent would be better off.

Now I reckon 60 per cent of those households would be in the seats of a number of those sitting opposite—maybe not the member for Wentworth, we can understand that. But many of the members over there, particularly those in regional and rural seats, would have to look at this research and question whether they support this measure. And I bet that one per cent are sitting in the seat of Wentworth. Who are these people listening to—the people who elected them or the Prime Minister? It beggars belief.

When I look at the Medicare levy, I try to imagine how the government arrived at this measure. They are saying we have to give big business a tax cut. But they do not even look at their own Treasury modelling, which suggests that in 20 years time it will deliver economic growth of 0.1 per cent—negligible growth. They are not even looking at their own modelling!

Let's go back to the conversation the Treasurer probably had in his office with his advisers and so forth: 'We want to give big business a $65 billion tax cut. How are we going to fund that? What are we going to do to make our budget return to surplus at some point in time? The Medicare levy was really popular when Labor introduced the NDIS'—which Labor fully funded, mind you. 'People actually thought that was a pretty reasonable measure. So let's just say that the NDIS is fully funded and we will raise the Medicare levy to pay for that big gap of giving big business a tax cut!' We have a party sitting over there saying they are the party of lower tax—that is, lower taxes for millionaires and big business, not for the rest of our community.

Let's look at another measure—the energy supplement. I do not know about those sitting opposite, but I have been listening to my community because I have been inundated with letters from people in my community about the government's plan, in its budget, to remove the energy supplement. The carbon tax does not exist any more, but we know that energy prices are rising. So Bill from Penguin says, 'Stop whacking the poor and the pensioners—have a go at the rich individuals and the large companies.' Helen from Wynyard said, 'Dear elected representative, I'm horrified to read that the public are facing another threat to the clean energy supplement. Families are struggling with daily living costs. Every dollar counts. I urge you not to push people further back into poverty.' Aileen from Somerset says, 'As a pensioner in Tasmania, it costs more than a pensioner can afford to keep the heater on from about 5 pm, when it gets very cold, until a sensible bed time. Surely it is not expected that we put up with being cold. Most Aussies would not think this is fair.' Then I go to Malcolm from Devonport: 'I am a pensioner. If these Liberal mongrels have their way they will try to get rid of the energy supplement, putting a heavier burden on the poor, and look after their rich mates in the coal industry.'

So we know the priorities of this government. It is not the pensioners. It is not the low-income and middle-income earners. It is the rich and big business.'

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The budget that was announced just a few short weeks ago is all about security and opportunity. This government, this side of the House, is all about providing opportunities for everyday Australians. This government has provided an extra $18.6 billion in Gonski needs based funding for schools. In my electorate alone, just in my 35 schools, let's just have a look at some of the schools in my electorate of Fisher. There is $27 million more for Unity College over a 10-year period; $26 million more for Glasshouse Christian College; $22 million more for Chancellor State College; $21 million more for Meridan State College; $17 more for Siena Catholic College. I was very heartened to see Brisbane Catholic Education come out in the last couple of days and support the budget education reforms.

Turning now from education to infrastructure, how is it fair that people on the Sunshine Coast have spent years and years stuck on the Bruce Highway? The member for Grayndler, when he was the infrastructure minister, did absolutely nothing for the Sunshine Coast—no improvements to the Bruce Highway, no improvements to rail. How is that fair? Under this government we are spending a total of $929.3 million between Caloundra Road and Sunshine Motorway. Was that done under a Labor government? No, it was not. $929.3 million for a new interchange at Caloundra Road, a new interchange at Sunshine Motorway. This is reforms to transport that the other side and the member for Grayndler, when he was the transport and infrastructure minister, did not even dream of. This side of the House wants to ensure that people get to work safely and as quickly as possible. Those people on the Sunshine Coast who have ever travelled to Brisbane in peak hour traffic—peak 'hour' is now around three hours in the morning and three hours at night—will know and relish that this government is stumping up and doing for the Sunshine Coast things that the Labor Party never did when they were in government.

But we did not stop there. In the budget we announced a further $650 million for the Bruce Highway upgrades south of Caloundra, on top of the announcement that was made in September. How is it fair that under Labor the Sunshine Coast and the Bruce Highway did not get a brass razoo?

But under the Turnbull coalition government we are now seeing these sorts of fantastic funding opportunities.

And it is not just road; it is also rail—a $10 billion national rail program. That is on top of the $8.4 billion being spent on the rail from Brisbane to Melbourne. There is the $10 billion National Rail Program on top of that $8.4 billion that the Queensland a Labor state government can tender for. They can tender for that $10 billion. So we will be able to get duplicated rail from Beerburrum to Nambour. It is a matter for the Queensland state Labor government to actually put in a tender for that project. But will they do it? There is very likely chance that they will not—zero chance—because they do not want spend the money. The chances are that they do not have the money! But they would not spend it, because they do not care about the Sunshine Coast.

Let us look at the NDIS. As the father of a disabled child, I know that all of you people over there, or most of you, will want to see funding for our most disadvantaged. But your leader does not want to do it, and he is a disgrace. (Time expired)

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

We should remind those opposite that they did not want to do it. They were dragged to it. I was in this chamber. I know; they do not. They come in here late and pretend they know things. Let us go to the fundamental heart of what we are talking about today: this unfair budget. What we have seen today is a prime example of those opposite only being concerned about the top end of town. We have heard all day from this government—and the muppets keep yapping—that millionaires and people such as them, people on the frontbench like Dr Gillespie, are going to get a $6,000 or $7,000 tax cut. But what about pensioners? Why do they need to be paying more? Why will you take the energy supplement off them and only give them back $75? Why would you do that? That is the question that we ask. Why would the government do that?

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Only millionaires drive, do they?

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

I will take that interjection. It is a perfect example of the ignorance of the LNP. Remember Joe Hockey and 'poor people cannot afford to drive cars'? We have just had that today from another right-wing ideologue who wants to look after himself and thinks that pensioners do not deserve more money. Why does he think that people on low incomes deserve to be taxed more? Why do they deserve to have less money in their pockets? We heard it today from the prime minister. We know the Prime Minister is a well-rounded individual with his top hat, his monocle, his truffles and his money hidden in the Cayman Islands.

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

Order, Member for McEwen.

David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party, Assistant Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask the member to withdraw those comments about the Prime Minister.

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

No, you cannot. Learn your standing orders while you are still here and stop wasting time. Today we again heard the Prime Minister talk about people earning less than $87,000. He said, 'We actually want to help people earning less than $87,000.' They don't. They want to punish them. The Prime Minister said, 'You're rallying against people who are successful.' In the eyes of the Liberal National Party, people who are out there defending our country, police officers, nurses and all those earning $87,000, are failures. By their own words they should be hanged because of this. People earning less than $87,000 are not failures.

I will tell you what a failure is. A failure is someone who goes and sits on the government benches like you lot and talks about Whyalla being wiped out, talks about $100 lamb roasts, tries to take the energy supplement from pensioners, cuts funding from needy schools and drags Medicare prices up so that people cannot afford to go to the doctors. It costs $75 to go to a doctor on a weekend in Mernda. Who can afford that? Certainly not people who are earning low incomes and certainly not families.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How about lying?

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

I ask that he withdraw that immediately.

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

No—

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

If he is going to say that I am lying then he has to withdraw it.

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

I was listening to the member for Fisher. He did not accuse anyone of lying.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, I suggest that you have a look at that again. He is sitting there saying that we are lying.

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

I heard what he said. He did not accuse anyone of lying. I call the member for McEwen.

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

What can you say? It is ridiculous that people can come in here and make mendacious claims, be deliberately untruthful and sit there and not have the guts to withdraw it. It shows what a low rent character the people who live in your electorate have as their representative. It is really disgusting that those opposite want to come in here and punish poor people to the benefit of the rich. We had a Prime Minister—when he had knifed the previous one—come in here and say that he was going to talk about economic leadership. Where did that go? Gone. 'Explain issues and foster understanding in the electorate' was his quote. Where did that go? 'Respect people's intelligence.' What did we get? 'Continuity with change'. They were that lazy, that pathetic, that they ran to a TV show to get their slogan. This is a Prime Minister who has failed and backflipped on everything he ever stood for. We all remember of the Q&A Turnbull who would sit there with his leather jacket on, saying he supported same-sex marriage and he would not lead a party that did not believe in climate change. Where did those policies go? They are gone.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He is not leading them.

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

He is not leading the party, we know. (Time expired)

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I read the topic of this matter of public importance and I thought, 'There's a typo.' There has got to be something wrong here:

The Government’s unfair Budget hurting ordinary Australians.

It is not hurting ordinary Australians. It is helping them. It is rebuilding the Australian economy. It is mapping a path for security, for expansion and for growth. That is what this budget is doing. I really wonder at those on the other side of this House, who come into this place now and are having to fight against policies that they actually believe in. They are having to fight against the things the government is doing that they know are right, because recently they were calling for them.

We were just accused a few minutes ago of not supporting the NDIS. That, of course, is not the truth. That is absolutely not the truth. The Prime Minister was generous enough the other day to say, 'Yes, Labor first tabled the idea, but we backed it from day one.' So it has full support, but it does not have full support when it comes to funding. Labor half funded the NDIS and left a black hole, and now Labor oppose the government's proposal to fix up that funding hole. It is worth remembering the reason we have to raise any tax at all is that Labor have been opposed to savings in the Senate. They have blocked the government's budget reforms in the past. It has come to the point where a responsible government has to take a responsible decision to Australia. It cannot go on and say that these things will remain unfunded forever. Because of your intransigence—not yours, Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton, I hasten to add; those who sit across the chamber—we have come to a new conclusion. And that conclusion is exactly the same as what those on the other side promoted at an earlier hour. They were the ones who raised the Medicare levy by half of a per cent to partially fund the NDIS. In a noted difference in this chamber, they found a friend on the other side. When we sat on those benches, we said, 'Yes, the NDIS must be funded.' But they did not go the full mile; but now we are, and it sticks in their craw—just as it sticks in their craw that we have delivered true needs based funding for schools, true Gonski. That is what we have delivered. That sticks in their craw. They had 27 different agreements right around Australia, and we have delivered a flat bench. Everybody gets the same adjusted on needs based social conditions. They would have loved to have done that, but they could not get it done. They had to stitch up their deals. In the past they had championed the idea of reducing taxes on small and medium businesses—but, no, they oppose that as well

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

No, we don't. We are not opposed to tax cuts for small business.

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You certainly do oppose those tax cuts flowing through.

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

The member for Grey will address his comments through the chair and the member for Macarthur will cease interjecting.

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have delivered a tax cut to Middle Australia. Those earning $87,000—that is not a fortune—were getting caught up in bracket creep, and we have fixed that issue. And, at the end of the line, we are delivering a surplus—something that that side of the parliament promised to do on no less than four occasions. They never got anywhere near it, and they still do not have a path to get there. We know what would happen if Labor came back to these benches—those surpluses would just keep disappearing into the future. This government is responsible—it is meeting its commitments to the Australian public. As well, we are helping rural Australia by pumping an extra $472 million into those areas. We are helping ordinary Australians—I think that is what this matter of public importance today is about—by pumping that extra $472 million into a Regional Growth Fund, and we are helping ordinary Australians by providing another round of funding for the Building Better Regions Fund. (Time expired)

Meryl Swanson (Paterson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This unfair budget is hurting ordinary Australians, and nowhere more so than in my electorate of Paterson. It is hurting pensioners in Paterson. It is hurting parents in Paterson. It is hurting schoolchildren in Paterson. It is hurting university students in Paterson. It is hurting women in Paterson. It is hurting every single person who is on any sort of income support whatsoever in Paterson. It is hurting young people in Paterson. It is doing nothing to help young people who want to own a home in Paterson. It does nothing to help ordinary people in Paterson trying to get an education—to skill, to upskill or to reskill. In fact, the only people who are getting a win out of this unfair budget are the millionaires and the multinationals—and I do not think we have all that many of them in Paterson.

I have heard from many, many people in Paterson over the last three weeks, because I get out and talk to a lot of people in my seat, about how unfortunate this budget is, and I would like to share a couple of their emails:

Dear Meryl, at an exclusive $300 a head 'future of welfare' luncheon last week, Minister Alan Tudge delivered a speech likening our social safety net to 'poison'.

He doesn't need the pension, does he?!

The last time the Turnbull Government tried to slash the clean energy supplement to push people further down into poverty, the Nick Xenophon team, Labor, the Greens and Senators Lambie and Hinch shut it down before the Bill even made it to the Senate.

Let's make sure we all hold the line again this time.

Another email was titled 'A fair go for all':

I don't want to live in an American-style society.

Everyone deserves the dignity of a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, as well as a hand-up when disaster hits.

I don't want families living in tents in church car parks and working 2 or more jobs each to put food on the table.

I don't want CEOs and politicians wallowing in excess at the expense of exploited workers and taxpayers.

That's a good one. Another email says:

Snatching money away from age pensioners, people living with a disability and single parents is unacceptable.

Especially when the Turnbull Government is pushing to give corporations a $65 billion tax cut.

This is what people in my electorate of Paterson are telling me about this budget and this government—that they are extremely unacceptable and completely unfair. They wear fairness like a cheap suit—they do not understand the word; they drag it out every day and say, 'I've got to get the fairness suit on and get out there and get amongst the real people'. We actually understand the weft and warp of fairness, because it is our very fabric—we stand up every day for those ordinary people, and deliver. This is not a fair budget, and the people of Paterson know it. They do not ask for the world, but they expect a fair go and a good life—and the detail of this budget is not lost on them. The government are chipping away at public education, they are chipping away at health services, they are chipping away at the safety net and they are chipping away at opportunity.

Paterson is a place that is proud of its working-class roots. We work in manufacturing, in retail, in health care and in social assistance. These are not high-paying jobs, but they are hardworking jobs. We know hard work. This budget fails these hardworking people because it does not recognise or reward this hard work; it chips away at it. It is asking people to pay more in their Medicare levy, to pay more in their taxes, to pay more to go to the doctor, to pay more to get an X-ray and to pay more to get a Pap smear or a mammogram. Paterson is a place of high youth unemployment as well, yet there is nothing in this budget for young people. Our schools will lose $23 million. Our university students will be asked to pay more, our apprenticeships are few and far between and our TAFEs are left wanting.

Paterson is a haven for retirees. It is a beautiful place to put your feet up at the end of your working life, and you know what they say about retirement—you never get a day off! But Paterson retirees are not by and large wealthy, self-funded retirees; they are people with modest incomes who have squirrelled just enough away to put their feet up in modest comfort with a little bit of help—and good on them for that. Yet we want to take the energy supplement away from them so they cannot even afford to put the heater on. They will be pulling on their knee rugs and putting on their jumpers, because this government wants to take away their heating.

This is a budget about values—very few values on that side but plenty on ours, and these values are not embodied by the government. The people of Paterson want a fair go. They want a fair day's pay for a good day's work, a hand up for those in need, not handouts to millionaires and multinationals, not some champagne-sipping, cigar-sucking lot.

Rick Wilson (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The theme of today's MPI is the alleged unfairness of the budget. It made me reflect on what fairness actually means, so I have listed a few issues where I think this budget is extremely fair. Firstly, is it fair to hand on my debt to my children? Is it fair for me to say, 'I'm going to spend myself into debt. I'm going to spend more than I am earning, more revenue than I am raising'? And is it fair to say to my children, 'It is your responsibility to deal with that debt'? I think it is terribly unfair. It would be terribly unfair for me to do that.

One of the really fair aspects of this budget is that we are finally on a trajectory back into surplus. We came into government in late 2013, and it was the objective of the then Prime Minister and Treasurer to repair the budget and get us back into surplus as soon as possible. Those on the other side blocked every measure that we put up to get the budget back into surplus. It has been a hard road, and I take my hat off not only to former Treasurer Hockey but also to Treasurer Morrison for the hard work they have had to put in to bring this budget back into surplus. And we are finally on a trajectory to reach a surplus. I think that is a very fair measure; it is a fair measure for my children, because at this stage they are going to be responsible for a large amount of debt that was clocked up by this generation, starting in 2008 with the Labor government, which had inherited $60 billion in the bank and a $20 billion surplus. That is what they inherited in 2008. They then spent that money and embedded deficits in the budget going forward, into the foreseeable future, and then blocked every measure that we proposed to try to bring that budget back under control.

Another area where I think this budget is very fair is in relation to people with a disability. The National Disability Insurance Scheme was a bipartisan policy. We support the scheme not only in principle but also through funding. I am very blessed across the electorate of O'Connor. We have some wonderful disability service providers—for example, Lower Great Southern Community Living Association. I met with Ian Campbell and Penny Bryant only a few weeks ago with the Assistant Minister for Social Services and Disability Services, the member for Ryan. Also, in the Goldfields, we have Goldfields Individual and Family Support Association. Robert Hicks and his team up there do a fantastic job delivering disability services. I have also met many of their clients as well.

Those people need certainty and security going forward and need to know that the National Disability Insurance Scheme is going to be fully funded. We put up a proposal in this year's budget to increase the Medicare levy by 0.5 of per cent, because every Australian will benefit from the insurance that that scheme provides—every Australian. I think that it is fair that every Australian contributes 0.5 per cent of their income, because, as my mother used to say, there but for the grace of God go I. Any of us or any of our children could require the services that are provided under the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Everyone that I have spoken to—I obviously speak to some different people to those on the other side—feels that that is a very fair impost on the community.

But I tell you what is not fair. It is not fair that someone who is earning $87,000 who might work a day's overtime will lose $500 of that in tax. That is not fair. It is not fair that a nurse or a policeman who might do an extra shift will lose $500 out of their pocket. That is not fair. (Time expired)

Tim Watts (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks to a Liberal Party focus group somewhere in the lead-up to the budget fairness is now the rhetorical terrain in which we engage in this chamber. But, because it is a Thursday afternoon, let's put aside the political rhetoric and talk about the reality outside this building for a minute. Inequality is the defining economic trend of our time. It is at a 75-year high in this country. Inequality is growing at such a rate around the world that most economists, including those long hairs at the IMF, now view it as a major brake on economic growth. Inequality is becoming so pervasive that it is now interfering with fundamental dynamics in our economy and our society that we used to rely on—dynamics like reward for effort and equality of opportunity. This inequality is leaving average people feeling like they have no control over their prospects, no way to improve the lot of themselves or their families—leaving them feeling like the rules of the game are rigged against them by forces they have no power over. And it is this inequality that this government seems absolutely oblivious to.

The dynamics of the modern economy, driven by technology change and globalisation, mean that we are seeing increasing returns to capital and shrinking returns to labour. Through the Menzies era, hourly labour income and productivity grew at about the same pace. The labour share stayed roughly stable and growth in inequality was kept in check. But, since the turn of the millennium, wages growth has decoupled from productivity and the real hourly labour income received by workers has failed to keep pace with their productivity growth. As a result, the labour share fell by 5.2 per cent in the first decade of the 21st century and a further 0.6 per cent so far in the second decade. Wages growth is at record lows, at just 1.9 per cent per annum, below the inflation rate. Underemployment, the number of people in the workforce who want to work more but are prevented from doing so, is at a record level. More than 1.1 million people or 8.7 per cent of the workforce want to work more but cannot. Wherever you look, working Australians are struggling. Living standards are stagnating and people are anxious and angry about it.

There are no easy answers to these structural challenges, but government should not be actively intervening to make things worse. Yet that is exactly what the Turnbull government's unfair budget does. According to the ANU Centre for Social Research and Methods report, released today, 60 per cent of Australians—working Australians—are worse off under this budget. Only one per cent of Australians are better off. And you know which one per cent—those top income earners getting a $20 billion income tax cut in this budget. Let us put it simply. This is a budget that increases income taxes on everyone earning more than $21,000 a year—people like registered nurses, whose average salary is $55,000; teachers, $66,000 a year; fireman, $60,000; paramedics, $61,000; and police, $56,000. These are people whose wages are growing at the lowest rate on record. And this is all to fund tax cuts for millionaires—to give people earning a million dollars a year a $16,000 per year tax cut; to give Ian Narev, the CEO of the CBA, a $171,000 tax cut; to fund $65 billion in tax cuts for banks and multinationals; and to protect $37 billion in tax breaks for property investors.

And who are these property investors? They are not the middle income earners that the Prime Minister absurdly claimed in question time today. According to the ATO, only three per cent of cleaners negatively gear, nine per cent of nurses and 12 per cent of teachers. And what is the average tax benefit that they claim from negative gearing? It is less than $100 a year for cleaners, around $200 a year for nurses and around $300 for teachers. In contrast, the 20 per cent of lawyers who negatively gear benefit by around $1,700 a year and the 30 per cent of surgeons who negatively gear benefit by around $3,900 a year, all the while putting the prospect of an Australian average income earner buying their first home further and further out of reach.

This budget exacerbates the inequality that I was talking about earlier and that sense in the general community that the rules of the game are rigged against average Australians. And that is not fair.

You know that the government knows this too, because they tried to hide it. Previous governments of both political persuasions used to publish tables in the budget overview, showing the impacts of the budget measures, taken as a whole, on the incomes of different kinds of families. They are gone now. And we know why: because those tables would show a very unfair story indeed, with low and middle income earners going backwards while high income earners go forwards.

One of the things that scares me the most about being a member of parliament today is that sometimes I can feel the wheel of progress slipping backwards—feel the gains we have made in building an egalitarian society, where everyone has an equal chance to reach their full potential, somehow slipping away. If we want an egalitarian nation, we need to fight for it in this building against those macro trends I was talking about earlier. Those of us on this side of the chamber will fight for it. We will fight for it in the schools. We will fight against the unfair $22 billion funding cut to our schools. We will fight the attacks on our universal healthcare system and the funding there. And we will fight it in our tax system because middle income earners should not pay for tax cuts for millionaires. (Time expired)

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

We heard earlier in this discussion that members opposite think that they might be living on another planet. Well, I think they are. Not only is this budget fair; it is one that delivers opportunity and security. A couple of headlines, for those opposite, who I think have probably not read the budget papers properly at all: there is record schools funding of $18.6 billion over 10 years; the so-called $22 billion was never in Labor's budget. And let us not forget the words of the former tertiary education minister in the Labor government, Craig Emerson, who described Labor's attempts to block our education bill as 'heartbreaking'. He said that this was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to guarantee record funding for schools, and what the Labor Party is doing—and this is from a former Labor tertiary education minister—is 'heartbreaking'. So we are seeing fanciful claims by members opposite, and even Craig Emerson has called them out on it.

We are delivering record funding for child care and more funding for kindergartens, to fund 15 hours a week. We are delivering tax cuts for 3.2 million small businesses, to grow jobs, business confidence and investment. We are delivering massive investment in infrastructure. We are guaranteeing Medicare. We are unfreezing Labor's indexation freeze. We are delivering a financial services complaints authority—access to justice for consumers ripped off by the banks.

As for Labor: as I mentioned, Labor members, yes, are living on another planet. This is a party that championed business tax cuts a few years ago and now demonises those initiatives, in utter hypocrisy. This is a party that talks about tackling multinational tax avoidance measures that will deliver something like $4 billion in additional revenue in this financial year, and a party that votes against those measures. The Labor Party talks about standing up for those with a disability and then will not fully fund the NDIS—in contradiction to everything that members opposite have said before. This is a party that indulges in a fake class war, when it does not have the guts to admit that a millionaire is not someone who earns $87,000 a year or more. It is a party that talked about 'the most vulnerable in our community' but which, when it was in government, stripped billions of dollars out of the family tax benefit and, in one of the most shameful acts under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years, slashed the sole parent pension. Even Kevin Rudd said belatedly that that was a terrible mistake. And we hear members opposite talking about standing up for single mothers—what an absolute joke! The Labor Party left single mothers high and dry.

This is a party that is so intent on being an economic wrecker that it blocks its own savings. It took $5 billion in savings to the people of Australia when it was in government and then it turned around and completely blocked those savings. This is a party with a policy black hole—

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

Order! The time for the discussion has concluded.