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

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

The Government’s failure to provide leadership on the economy.

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

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

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

Understandably the attention of the House and in many respects the attention of the nation has been focused on the Deputy Prime Minister and questions that he has to answer. Not only is there no doubt that the Treasurer has questions to answer but, in fact, there's no doubt that he's not up to the job he holds. The Deputy Prime Minister may or may not be eligible for the job he holds, but the Treasurer is not up to the job he has. There's a pattern of behaviour when it comes to economic policy.

Mr Pyne interjecting—

Well, it might be a little bit complicated for you, Christopher, but you stick with it. There's a pattern of behaviour when it comes to the economic policy of this government—and I do use the term 'economic policy' lightly, because they don't have much policy. When it comes to a speech from the Treasurer, a press conference with the Treasurer, I'd encourage honourable members to do a word search. You will see 'Labor', you will see 'Shorten', you will see 'Bowen', but you won't see any vision, you won't see any plans, you won't see the economic policy of the government being laid out. The Treasurer and the government are obsessed with the Labor Party and have no plans of their own.

On the other hand, we on this side of the House have over recent weeks been continuing to lead the policy debate. For example, we've been taking something out of the too-hard basket and putting it on the to-do list, dealing with family and discretionary trusts—actually repairing the budget through difficult decisions. I fully acknowledge that we are not the first people to think of this. We are not the first people who think that family trusts have to be reformed. In fact, John Howard, when he was Treasurer, thought that family trusts should be reformed. In fact, Peter Costello, when he was Treasurer, thought that family trusts should be reformed. Joe Hockey thought that family trusts should be reformed. Out of the last four Liberal Treasurers, three have thought family trusts should be reformed. The only exception is the current one. I give credit to Treasurer Howard; he did introduce some reforms to family trusts. Peter Costello and Joe Hockey both tried but got rolled in their party room. Well, we'll actually do what was too hard for them.

What was the response from the current Treasurer? There were two stages to the response. The first was the hyperventilation stage. When the Leader of the Opposition and I were explaining the need for reform, laying out the problem, the Treasurer went out there and held press conferences about how we were cracking down on farmers. He was asking what we had against disability trusts and saying how terrible it would all be. Then, when we actually announced the policy, we got to stage 2. Everything the Treasurer had said was wrong. Everything he'd warned about wasn't real. So then he went back into the witness protection program. He'd been a week out warning of all these terrible things and then he went back into hiding.

But he burst back onto the scene yesterday, onto the front pages of the newspapers. Pulling at a hole in Labor's policy or having some sober or well-crafted criticism—he couldn't come up with any of that. We read in the papers that he'd commissioned the Parliamentary Budget Office to undertake modelling of Labor's policies—all of them—in terms of their impact on the budget and how much taxes would increase. We saw in the Daily Telegraph, on page 1, 'The Parliamentary Budget Office and Treasury conducted independent modelling of Labor’s tax plans …' We saw in the Courier Mail: 'The Parliamentary Budget Office and Treasury analysis shows …' We saw in the Herald Sun: Independent Parliamentary Budget Office modelling, out today …' We saw in The Australian: 'Independent Parliamentary Budget Office modelling, out today …'

Then, on the day those newspapers appeared, we saw a release. We did see something come out from the Parliamentary Budget Office—that is true. The Parliamentary Budget Office did release a statement; I do concede that. But it was a little different to how it was reported. It said:

References in the media this morning to modelling being released today by the Parliamentary Budget Office are incorrect … The analysis reported in the media this morning was not conducted by the PBO.

I do not hold the newspapers or the journalists responsible; they acted in good faith, based on advice from the Treasurer of Australia. A journalist, when told something by the Treasurer of Australia, I am old-fashioned enough to think, is entitled to believe it and entitled to write it. The trouble is that the Treasurer forgot that in this building your main asset and attribute is your integrity. There was no Parliamentary Budget Office costing.

Then he went into damage control mode and said, 'Oh, it was the post-election report that the Parliamentary Budget Office did.' Well, included in the modelling was our trusts policy, which couldn't have been in the post-election report because it was announced post-election, and there was the update to our superannuation policy which we have announced since the election. So the Treasurer's alibi actually made it worse.

There is a track record when it comes to this Treasurer. He always goes with the cheap shot. He always goes with the slogan. I hope the House will bear with me, because some of what the Treasurer says is hard to keep up with and understand. There was 'a snake eating itself' yesterday. I really didn't know what was going on. Somehow or other there was a snake eating himself, and there were snakes back today. There was a six-shooter gun. Well, the Treasurer has shot himself in the foot yet again. We've seen that from the Treasurer. But he has a track record that is clear. This is the Treasurer who had a $2 billion black hole in his bank tax costings within a fortnight of the federal budget being brought down, and then he again made up an excuse about it that was inaccurate and misleading. This is the Treasurer who told us he was passionate about bracket creep. He was passionate about tax cuts and giving back to ordinary Australians. He felt so strongly about it that it was going to be the hallmark of his tenure as Treasurer. What has he done? He is trying to increase tax for everybody earning more than $21,000 a year in Australia. So much for those big swinging tax cuts that he was going to introduce. This is a Treasurer who thinks the answer to bracket creep is to increase tax for all Australians earning more than $21,000 a year. By the way, while we're on it, those figures the Treasurer released yesterday included the fact that Labor would keep the deficit levy, but they did not include the fact that Labor would not proceed with the increase in the Medicare levy for those Australians earning more than $21,000—very conveniently.

And, of course, this is a Treasurer who says his biggest challenge now—he's got a lot of challenges, this guy—is wages growth. Just like his answer to bracket creep is to increase taxes, his answer to low wages growth is to cut the wages of those who work on weekends. He's happy to see that happen on his watch.

This is a Treasurer who said there are excesses in negative gearing and then has proceeded to do absolutely nothing about it. He did have a housing affordability package in the budget, and what a damp squib that was. One of those measures was allowing access to voluntary contributions to superannuation for a housing deposit. The Treasurer was out there on 1 July spruiking it, saying, 'This is now in; come and get your superannuation!' The minister at the table says, 'Yes, hear, hear!' They haven't even introduced the legislation to the House. They were boasting about it on 1 July and it has still not even been introduced! The tax office has warned people that they should not access a scheme which has not been passed by the parliament. This is the incompetence of this government and the incompetence of this guy here at the table, the member for Deakin, who said that the package in the budget would be huge, that it would be welcomed. Expectations management isn't your strong suit, sport!

This Treasurer and his sidekick have absolutely squibbed the issue of housing affordability that is so important to the Australian people right across the country. There are parents and grandparents who are wondering how their children will be able to get into the housing market. They'll be wondering how their children and grandchildren can possibly afford property investment—when we have the most generous tax concessions in the world, when we have investor rates at record highs and first home owner rates at record lows. They'll wonder how something can happen for their children and grandchildren to get into the housing market. While this government's in place, the answer is: nothing can happen, because they don't get it. They don't care. And this Treasurer is too incompetent to do anything about it.

There is a cost to be paid for this incompetence while the Treasurer is engaging in these frolics. We're not coming up with a plan to deal with income inequality, because he doesn't believe it exists in Australia; he's an inequality denier. We're not coming up with a plan to keep Australia's 26 years of uninterrupted economic growth going. We're not coming up with a plan for housing affordability. There's a real cost to be paid.

Kerry Packer once said, 'You only get one Alan Bond in your life.' Well, I've had Joe Hockey and Scott Morrison, so I'm luckier than Kerry Packer! But I'll tell you who is not lucky: the Australian people who have been lumbered with these incompetent treasurers, the Australian people who have been lumbered with a government that has no economic plan and a government that doesn't care about them. It has no ideas and no plans and no vision for the future.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What an arrogant contribution by the shadow Treasurer, on leadership. Do we want to see the same leadership that this failed former immigration minister showed when looking after the borders of this country? Is that the sort of leadership we want out of you? Is the sort of leadership that you are talking about the leadership that you subjected this country to when we had an $18 billion black hole for the very short and lamentable period that you were on the treasury bench as Treasurer? Is that the sort of leadership we want? Is the sort of leadership we want you failing to fight the hard Left of your party who have a vision for this country of higher taxes and strangling aspiration?

The shadow Treasurer talks a lot about John Howard. John Howard has a lot to say about you, I can assure you, and none of it is very kind. So don't refer to John Howard at this despatch box.

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

Order! I remind the assistant minister to address his remarks through the chair.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. I can assure the shadow Treasurer that John Howard does not have many kind things to say about his inability to stand up against the hard Left of his party, which has a vision for this country of higher taxes and strangling aspiration. We don't want to see this sort of leadership. We don't want to see the leadership, so-called, that we saw from this failed immigration minister—and the failures have followed you in every portfolio you've ever had. But in the Labor Party, when you fail, you get a promotion, apparently. That's what we've seen out of you.

Let's look at the Australian economy. This MPI refers to leadership and the Australian economy. Well, we now have an unemployment rate of 5.7 per cent. We now have GDP growth that's occurred for 26 years uninterrupted. Of course we don't take the credit for those 26 years, but we are continuing the great work that successive governments have done. But here, we're seeing the shadow Treasurer and his motley crew moving back to a pre-Hawke/Keating-era vision for this country—higher corporate taxes, higher small business taxes, higher personal income taxes. These were arguments that were won by our side of politics in the 1980s, and now we have the shadow Treasurer and his motley crew rehashing these ridiculous arguments from the 1970s. We shouldn't have to argue that lower taxes increases investment, that lower taxes for small businesses encourages them to invest more money, employ more people, expand their business operations and expand the opportunities for Australians. But we do have to make these arguments again, because we've gone back to a pre-Keating, pre-Hawke-era Labor Party.

We have seen an economy transition from a difficult mining investment boom and we've performed exceptionally well. Many pundits, and I suppose many in this House, have had private doubts about the ability of our economy to continue ploughing on, but we have. It doesn't happen by accident, shadow Treasurer. We had the opposition fighting one of the most important export trade deals that we've seen, the China free trade agreement. In that time, we've also seen a free trade agreement with South Korea and a free trade agreement with Japan. These things don't happen by accident. Twenty-six years of uninterrupted growth does not happen by accident. We've chased these opportunities and we've had obstruction from the Labor Party and this shadow Treasurer every step of the way. I had unionists in Melbourne handing out anti-China free trade agreement flyers—xenophobic flyers. It was absolutely disgraceful. We heard nothing out of the Labor Party for those months that that campaign was going on, but they skulked into the House and in the end voted for it, because they had to—after months of not speaking up. I suppose it's very difficult to bite the hand that feeds you. It's very difficult to speak about the union movement, but that xenophobic campaign—forget even the xenophobic aspects to it—was against the economic interests of this country.

So when we talk about 26 years of uninterrupted economic growth, these things don't happen by accident. We've chased these opportunities: the Howard government with the US free trade agreement; now, our government with three of the most significant markets in the Asia-Pacific region: Japan, China, and South Korea. It has provided opportunities to our small businesses as much as it has to our large businesses. It has provided opportunities to service industries, not just bulk commodities or agriculture. This does not happen by accident. It happens because we have a plan and we're working towards it.

It's very interesting. The shadow Treasurer referred to PBO costings. He didn't deny any of the numbers that were in any of those reports. He didn't deny any of the numbers that were in the News Limited reports, of $167 billion of higher taxes. $167 billion of higher taxes, and he claims to be the heir of Keating, the man who reduced corporate taxes. He refers to John Howard as though they're old friends! Corporate tax increases of $65 billion—outrageous! The Labor Party have still said that they will not give these big handouts to corporates and big handouts to small businesses, some of whom have two or three or four employees, some of whom are family businesses. They are apparently the big Apples and Googles of the world, these small cafes, small corner businesses. There is $65 billion there. We have housing taxes, taxes that purport to be housing affordability measures, of some $47 billion between negative gearing and capital gains tax. Why, or how, does increasing taxes on commercial properties increase housing affordability? Why should a teacher be denied the ability to invest in an investment property and negative gear it, but a surgeon who potentially has large amounts of investment income can negatively gear against that?

So the surgeon can negatively gear against their investment income, but the teacher or the nurse cannot negatively gear against their salary or wage. What a disgrace masquerading as housing affordability policies. What an absolute joke.

Now we've got the latest attack on small business, in what has been a succession of attacks on small business, with their family trusts policy. Small businesses don't engage through a structure in a family trust because they're criminal rorters of our tax system, and what a disgraceful thing to claim. The Labor Party claimed that farmers should be removed from their trust changes because farmers have lumpy income. Well, here's a newsflash for the shadow Treasurer and the Labor Party: most small businesses have very lumpy income. So the same rationale for taking farmers out of your changes equally applies to the hundreds of thousands of small businesses and families who will be subjected to a higher tax—another higher tax.

The Labor Party denied our implementation of the changes to the threshold for small business accessibility from $2 million to $10 million. The Labor Party think, if you're a business with a turnover between $2 million to $10 million, you're a massive corporate and not entitled to accelerated depreciation or increased tax cuts or the myriad other benefits in our tax law that apply to small businesses. So bereft are they of any understanding of small business that we just see, time and time again, policies from the Labor Party that smash small business. Small businesses employ millions of Australians. They are the engine room of this economy, and it's not by accident that we are where we are now. It's because of hard-won work and policies of this government.

I find it quite incredible that we've got a very discredited individual in the shadow Treasurer talking about leadership—a man who would be, between him and the member for Watson, one of the two worst immigration ministers this country has ever seen.

A government member: A close-run thing!

It's a very close-run thing—you're right. But I'd say that the member for McMahon probably takes the cake. And the chutzpah of that man to stand at the despatch box, arrogantly talking about how wonderful Labor are, is outrageous—absolutely outrageous! And he keeps getting promoted. This is the extraordinary thing about the Labor Party. I suspect it's because he keeps acquiescing to the hard left of his party. Some of us would like to think that he knows better, but we certainly don't want to see the sort of leadership we've seen from him in every portfolio he's ever had. We'll continue to work for Australians who aspire for better things in their lives.

Luke Gosling (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was pretty hopeless! I rise to support the MPI. Who could forget when the Prime Minister rolled the former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, after the government had lost 30 Newspoll polls in a row? That was because the former Prime Minister was not successful in providing the economic leadership that our country needs. But I don't think we've seen anything like economic leadership from the Prime Minister since he rolled the former Prime Minister, Mr Abbott—no leadership at all. We keep seeing an absolute embarrassment of a national leader roll around every day. It just becomes more and more laughable.

But the economy of this country is not a joke. It's been two years since the Prime Minister rolled the former Prime Minister, and where is the government at now? There have been 17 lost polls. That's only 13 to go. The Prime Minister is on the home stretch, with 13 Newspoll polls to go. The way he's going today, he'll probably slip further. And he would deserve it because we have not seen any leadership on any issues at all from the Prime Minister. A bit of a newsflash: when you have to tell people you're a strong leader, you're not.

Where is the economic leadership that the Prime Minister promised us? All we've seen is blunder after blunder. I will give just one example. Who can remember the absolute shocker around the increases to the GST last year? First the government were increasing it to 15 per cent and then they weren't. Then they were again, and then they said they would not and would never change the GST rate—after all, it had never even been considered! I almost got whiplash from the speed at which they made those changes and the turnarounds on that issue. Then there was a statement by the Treasurer that Australia did not have a revenue problem and that everything was fine. Then he made a range of changes that this side of the House had suggested. It seems strange that, in the absence of a revenue problem, the government chose to increase revenue measures anyway.

If I talk about the Northern Territory, where my electorate is and where people are looking for economic leadership from the federal government, nothing is more telling and a better example of the incompetence of the coalition government, including the 'former Deputy Prime Minister', the 'former member for New England', than the backpacker tax. The Territory is still recovering from that absolute debacle, where there was government policy on the run and a smash-and-grab approach to the backpacker tax. It almost killed a mango season. For starters, no-one in the government could get their lines straight on how the backpacker tax would work. Then we had a government frozen by its inability to set a rate. First, we had 32.5 per cent. Then, after getting a bit of feedback from people that this was madness, they came up with 19 per cent—but, if you don't take 19 per cent, you'll get 32.5 per cent. And the government say that they support small businesses on that side of the House! Do you have any idea of how hard you made it for small businesses in the Northern Territory with that issue? Parliament didn't accept—

Ms Flint interjecting—

Matt Keogh (Burt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She's shaking her head.

Luke Gosling (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She has no idea. Do you remember the backpacker tax? It was probably pretty forgettable. It felt like a bit of a bingo game. It was an utter farce, with 32 per cent, 19 per cent, 15 per cent, 13 per cent—

Mr Keenan interjecting—

That's right, Chuckles. Have a life! Have a laugh. Pick a number.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No-one knows what you're talking about!

Luke Gosling (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The backpacker tax. You remember the backpacker tax, you tool! The backpacker tax hurt the Northern Territory. It was not economic leadership. It was a case study in absolute leadership failure. All we've seen from this mob opposite is absolute failure in economic leadership.

Trevor Evans (Brisbane, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it's fair to say that Labor are a bit flat on this MPI topic today, because, probably after preparing their speaking notes, they have had a text from their Queensland colleagues reminding them that they're not really supposed to be talking about Labor's record on the economy right now, except if it's along populist lines. Any conversation this week on the economy, about our future prosperity, should really start with the fact that Queensland Labor has just walked away from Australia's trade agreements, flagging in a very significant way how Labor continue to crab-walk away from any economic plan whatsoever, away from the centre of politics, and how they're creeping towards populism.

We have the current shadow Treasurer moving this motion. He once said:

… Keating knew that the corporate tax rate needed to be cut to make Australia competitive, that capital and investment would flow to tax-competitive nations and that this was an important job-creation move. Today capital is even more mobile than it was then and it is important that our corporate tax rate is more competitive.

But now he leads the Labor Party's attempt to do the exact opposite—to raise small business taxes and to make Australia even less competitive. It used to be a bipartisan position in Australia's parliament that we all aspired to cut Australia's corporate taxes in order to grow our economy. Rudd, Gillard, Rudd again, Latham, Crean, Beazley, Keating and Hawke—the list goes on—all agreed. Even the member for Lilley once promised to cut the corporate tax rate, although admittedly he promised that at the same time as he promised this country four surpluses that never quite eventuated either.

The current Labor Party is walking away from the centre. They're walking away from trade in Queensland. They're walking away from the reforms that bring growth. They're walking away from policies that bring prosperity. And they're walking towards populism, away from the sensible centre of politics, under the leadership of the most left-wing leader that Labor have had in a very long time. You don't need to take my word for that: when the Labor member for Isaacs was asked by a journalist whether he could name a more left-wing Labor leader, he couldn't. Those opposite are crab-walking away from the centre of politics. They're walking towards populism and the sort of class warfare politics that was supposed to be eradicated when the Labor Party reformed itself in the eighties in order to be fit for office again.

This government has an economic plan. This government has cut taxes for small businesses and for middle-income Australians. That's economic leadership. Labor used to support that, but now they want to put taxes up on every single front they can think of. This government is making meaningful reductions to the debt and deficit, and that's economic leadership: cleaning up Labor's economic mess. This government is delivering the plan and the competence in leadership that was sorely missing in our energy market when Labor was in charge, and this government has delivered new trade agreements with the biggest and fastest-growing trading partners Australia has, so that Aussie businesses can sell to new markets overseas, employ more people and spread that prosperity. That's economic leadership. Meanwhile, Labor in Queensland undermines our trade. The Queensland Labor Premier, in The Courier-Mail the other day, even went so far as to say that trade doesn't make sense to her.

The Reserve Bank released its August statement a few weeks ago. Page 1 of the overview says:

The economy is expected to grow at an annual rate of around 3 per cent over the next couple of years, which is a bit higher than estimates … The unemployment rate is accordingly expected to edge lower.

That's the sort of measured and optimistic outlook that you get from an economic plan under a coalition government. In contrast, the Labor Party don't have an economic plan. They have a populist class war. They have the politics of envy. They want to make it harder for Brisbane families to make investments, for Brisbane businesses to create jobs and for a budding entrepreneur in Brisbane to create something exciting and new.

I will go through a brief hit list of how Labor plans to 'lead', showing how it will only hurt Australians in the future and crush opportunities. They want to increase taxes on small businesses and fail to implement this government's vision to bring corporate tax rates down across the board: $65 billion more in Labor taxes on Australian businesses. They want to scrap negative gearing: $32 billion more in taxes on Aussie families trying to invest in their future.

Anne Stanley (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

After almost four years here, I continue to be amazed by this government's inability to provide any economic leadership. I remember in 2015 they thought they were finally going to get it right. Arriving in the Treasury portfolio with such prospects, the member for Cook was lauded in the press as setting a new agenda and leaving the confusion of the previous two years behind. However, he, like the government, continues to disappoint by ignoring the problems of ordinary Australians and, instead, preoccupying himself with half-baked attacks on the opposition.

This isn't new. We have become accustomed to being disappointed when it comes to this Treasurer and the economy. How can Australians be expected to have any confidence in a government who gets it so wrong and is so out of touch on economic policy? The government steadfastly have not supported a royal commission into the banks, with the member for Cook claiming, in April last year, that ASIC has the powers of a royal commission. This continues to be untrue. In the meantime, those opposite have ignored headline after headline while the banks continue from one scandal to another, seemingly with impunity. There cannot be confidence in this sector when we hear day after day about incidents that point to systemic issues. While those opposite continue to ignore the problems, people like those in my electorate bear the brunt of them.

Another clear example of this government's lack of leadership is its approach to negative gearing. In fact, at one point it appeared the Treasurer wasn't even sure what negative gearing actually was. On 25 November 2016, he said:

… negative gearing … is the ability for you to deduct what is a business expense against a business income.

In fact negative gearing allows someone to deduct a business or investment expense against their wage or salary. The Treasurer was wrong. Given this lack of understanding, it's perhaps unsurprising that the government has been all over the place when it comes to negative gearing. Under this current Prime Minister and the Treasurer, the government was first open to negative gearing reform before ruling it out. Then the Treasurer said the government would only target the 'excesses' of negative gearing and began considering limiting the number of properties that can be negatively geared. Now here we are, 18 months later, wondering if it was all a dream. In April this year the Treasurer ruled out changes to negative gearing in the budget because, 'Regardless of one's opinion of the merits or otherwise of negative gearing, it is an established structural component of the Australian housing markets.' It exists. While the acknowledgment of the existence of negative gearing might cut the mustard for visionary leadership in this government, it certainly falls well short of assisting prospective first home buyers; nor is the mere existence of negative gearing a compelling reason not to act on it.

Then, in the same speech, the Treasurer lamented that there are 'key workers such as nurses, teachers and police officers who can't afford to rent or buy in the communities they serve'. Just yesterday, on The Chris Smith Show, the Treasurer claimed that one in five police officers negatively gear and for that reason Labor's policies are reckless. By the Treasurer's logic, the nurses and teachers and police officers who can't afford to rent or buy are also doing most of the negative gearing. To be fair to the Treasurer, it's been revealed his proposals to reform negative gearing were dumped by cabinet, making it the first time a Prime Minister and a Treasurer have been overruled by cabinet since the 1970s. It serves to show us that, despite the Prime Minister's assurance to the country, this is a government that lacks strong leadership.

Yesterday, the member for Cook came in swinging with what was supposed to be a big attack on Labor, backed by figures ostensibly from the independent Parliamentary Budget Office. The banner headline was that the Parliamentary Budget Office had determined there would be tax hikes of $100 billion, $150 billion or $300 billion under Labor—wrong on all counts. Of course we quickly discovered that the PBO had nothing to do with these costings at all when they very publicly embarrassed the Treasurer by pointing out in a press release that they provided no such advice. The fact that he failed to do his homework or critically research these figures isn't the most disappointing part. To people like those living in my electorate in south-western Sydney, what is most disappointing is that it shows yet again the Treasurer is more interested in political pointscoring than doing his job and taking an interest in problems that are faced by these people and their families everyday—jobs, wages, access to education and housing affordability.

While Labor is actually listening and responding to these problems in its policy, those opposite continue to demonstrate that their priority is simply clinging to government without any commitment to actually helping Australians. In fact, in many cases they're making things worse with measures like slashing penalty rates and reducing support for families in need.

Jason Falinski (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When I first saw this matter of public importance on the Notice Paper, I wondered what Labor was up to. This is the party that hates talking about the economy—they have no economic plans, they have no economic ideas, they think taxing people more is going to somehow get us into greater prosperity. When they talk about the economy, it is usually in the context of what they want to raid next. It's trusts, multinationals, superannuation funds, high-income earners, low-income earners—God help you if you earn an income—small businesses or people who want to own a property. Mr Deputy Speaker, God help you if your children have piggy banks, because these people are out to get them. I well remember the shadow Treasurer's face when the Leader of the Opposition stood up to give his budget reply speech. He looked like a gibbon being shown a magic trick—'Oh, where did that coin come from from behind my ear? How did you put that there?' The absolute perpetual fear on his face, as he realised that somehow he was going to have to come up with an economic policy that held their disparate policies all together, was just extraordinary. Yet he has the gall to come into this House and talk more about what Labor's going to do for the economy.

It may come as a surprise to the ALP, but no country in the history of the world has ever taxed its way to prosperity; it has only ever come down to endeavour and making sure that people invest. If I am to take Labor at face value—always a dangerous thing—inequality is at a 75-year high. Yet this happened under the most redistributive tax system in the OECD. If you are in the top 20 per cent of taxpayers in Australia, for every dollar you pay you get 32c back in government benefits. If you're in the bottom 20 per cent, for every dollar you pay in tax you get $364 back in government benefits. The top 10 per cent of income earners in this country pay almost 50 per cent of personal income tax received by the government. The top one per cent of income earners pay a staggering 17 per cent of all tax received. The top 0.3 per cent of individuals pay 58 per cent of capital gains tax. The rich don't pay their fair share in this country; they pay everyone's share of tax.

I guess you would argue that, if inequality were at a 75-year high under that tax system, you'd want to end it. But, no, the people on the other side here want to double down. I take it, by their own logic, that they want to make inequality worse in this country. The only conclusion you can reach is that Labor do not believe a word of their economic policy. Having watched the shadow Treasurer's face as his leader stood up to reply to the budget speech, I believe that he doesn't believe a single word of their economic policy. Labor, so far, has proposed $150 billion in new taxes—taxes that will reduce economic growth, taxes that will reduce employment and taxes that will reduce the incentives and entrepreneurship in this country that provide jobs and growth. Just look at Labor's record. What do they want to do with all this extra money? The last time they were in government, they spent it on school halls. They spent it on pink batts. They spent it on detention centres, because the now shadow Treasurer was immigration minister then and he couldn't control the borders of this country.

Under this government, taxes have gone down and employment has gone up. Under this government, 240,000 jobs have been created. What thanks do we get from those opposite? Nothing. Yes, that's right. Those opposite cannot name a single policy they have to create a single job in this country. Oh, sorry, I may have got that wrong! The member for Isaacs does want to create a royal commission to investigate banks—another $100 million to his friends at the bar. I reckon the shadow cabinet works like this: they have this great idea, they have no way of knowing how to actually make the idea work, so they just say to themselves, 'We know! We'll just wait until those opposite get elected and they can work it out for us.'

Madeleine King (Brand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was remarkable—to hear that someone could defend one of the banks that have just committed 53,000 money laundering offences in this nation. It's an outrage that you would defend them under those circumstances. But, to return to the topic, I rise today to speak on this government's failure to provide real leadership on the Australian economy. This lacklustre, listless leadership—and perhaps 'Deputy-Prime-Minister-less' Liberal-National government—seems intent on pursuing issues that have long been resolved in the hearts and minds of Australians. Instead of facing the economic challenges that pile higher every day and affect ordinary Australians every day, they bicker. Instead of holding an ordinary parliamentary vote on the Marriage Act, they are subjecting Australia to a ridiculous household survey. Instead of investing in new industries like information technology and renewable energy, instead of focusing on providing Australians with affordable water and power and instead of developing and prosecuting economic policy to redress the acknowledged rising inequality, this government has chosen to pick fights with, of all places, New Zealand.

While I'm on leadership, I observe that it takes some kind of foreign policy leadership to turn the negligent omission and wilful blindness to our Constitution of the maybe member for New England and maybe Deputy Prime Minister into a diplomatic incident with our very good friends and neighbours in New Zealand. It's appalling. I ask: where is the direction and who is running this place? I know it's pretty hard to tell. It would appear the Prime Minister's chair is pretty hotly contested. There are a number of members wheeling around there. There is the member for Warringah, of course; the member for Dickson; and the member for Wentworth himself. It's quite a crowd. I'm sure there'll be some room soon.

In talking about leadership, it's all well and good for the Liberal Party to take the high ground, as always. They call themselves 'better economic managers', that title they gifted themselves that no-one else would. They have howled and screamed and stamped their feet, crying, 'It's Labor! Labor put us in this mess, the debt and deficit nightmares.' I remember those days. I was here. I watched it. The members opposite drove their agenda of fear and despair into the homes of every Australian. Who tripled the deficit, Mr Deputy Speaker? Four years later they are still in government, still looking over their shoulder and spouting the same message. It gets weaker every day in the face of that tripling of the deficit of this nation.

I urge everyone to take a look at every economic speech made by the Treasurer and every answer he has given here in question time. How long does it take before the speech starts to blame Labor for just about everything? It's not long. It's anywhere between 10 and 60 seconds, maybe a couple of minutes. In fact, I'm surprised Labor hasn't been blamed for the Deputy Prime Minister's very recent New Zealand citizenship. That's right—I think they did blame Labor. Not only have the Liberal government blamed the Australian Labor Party but also they've blamed the New Zealand Labour Party. It's a farce. At what point do this Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister stand up and take responsibility for these issues of omission and negligence? At what point does the Treasurer stand up and take responsibility for the economic mess and nonsense he is spreading?

They have gone on and on about their superior skills in economic management. Let's take a look at what's really going on with the deflated proposals they have put before us. We're just over a year into this lacklustre government and there are serious questions that need to be addressed. They affect constituents in Brand as well as constituents across every electorate of this country. Wages growth is stagnant. We've all heard that often. In some places there's a decline. Of course, it's not helped by a cut in penalty rates for over 700,000 Australians, 10,000 of whom are in Brand. Jobs growth is slow and is discouraged by the lack of policy direction and leadership from this limp federal government.

Yesterday many of the nation's papers reported modelling from the Parliamentary Budget Office—that's the thing; it was apparently provided by the Treasurer's office—that showed, depending on where you looked, a number of different figures: $100 billion, $150 billion, $300 billion in tax hikes under Labor. There we go. Get the bogeyman out again. The Treasurer thought he would get away with it. It is the latest in a line of unfounded, unresearched, unbackable and reckless claims they made about the Australian Labor Party. Let's look at the PBO's media release, when they responded to the Treasurer's latest fictional figures. It says:

References in the media this morning to modelling being released today by the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) are incorrect … The analysis reported in the media this morning was not conducted by the PBO.

So who did conduct it? Who made up this nonsense? Where did they get these figures and where do they get off making this stuff up? It's absurd. It's a farce. There is no leadership. We can see the Deputy Prime Minister's about to—well, who knows if he'll be here.

This government is failing on every front, slowing down the chance of economic reform and progress in this nation. Instead, they are focusing on feeding their own factional and ideological ambitions, and their jobs.

Nicolle Flint (Boothby, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There seems to be a lack of conviction from those opposite on this topic today. We know that their record on economic management of this nation is truly appalling, so it's really not surprising that their hearts are not quite in this issue today. During Labor's six terrible years in office they, effectively, destroyed our economy. Under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments, and I note there are a number of MPs in this parliament who served in senior positions in those governments, they left our nation and future generations with debt unlike anything we have seen before in Australia. There was something in the order of $277 billion, although John Howard and Peter Costello left them with $50 billion in the bank in 2007—that is responsible government.

It's impossible to list all of Labor's failed policies, but I will list a few to remind people of the waste of money that occurred under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments. There were the pink batts; the cash for clunkers; the green loans scheme; unfunded policies like the NDIS; the National Broadband Network; and the mining tax, which destroyed jobs and industry confidence but, happily, was repealed by us when we got back into government. There was also the carbon tax, which did more to harm businesses and, again, jobs than many of their other policies, and it also pushed household power prices up. There were the school halls and having to build detention centres, because Labor lost control of our borders and drowned 1,200 people at sea—which is the most disgraceful thing that they did during their time in government. They had to build a number of detention centres. Billions upon billions of taxpayers' dollars were wasted trying to get back the control of our borders.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Will the members on my left stop this constant chatter. This is a general warning. I will be evicting the next person.

Nicolle Flint (Boothby, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the Labor Party ever make it back into government again, we won't just see debt and incompetence from them; we will see a government controlled by union thugs. We will see a raft of policies that will cripple our economy and undo our good work. We know that Labor is planning to introduce $150 billion worth of taxes—that's what a Labor government would deliver to the Australian people. A Shorten Labor government would mean economic destruction for our nation, and this will hurt our businesses. It will hurt hardworking Australians. It will hurt families. Let's take a quick look: increasing taxes on small businesses and failing to implement the remainder of our enterprise tax plan—$65 million; scrapping negative gearing—$32 billion; increasing capital gains tax—$13 billion; family trusts tax—$15 billion; increasing income taxes—$22 billion; and secret superannuation taxes—$20 billion. This is what a Labor government would deliver, and we cannot do that to the Australian people—to hardworking Australians and to our businesses who keep this nation going and growing. It seems that Labor want to prevent Australian businesses from employing Australians. They want to stall economic growth and opportunity. They want to stop hardworking Australians from getting ahead—from providing for their families and from being able to afford to give back to their community, which is the very thing that keeps our nation and our social fabric strong.

In comparison, we are leading the way on economic management, and we have a very proud record. We have a great record on reducing Labor's unprecedented debt, delivering Liberal reforms to help small businesses, and producing good public policy designed to stimulate the economy and to create the jobs that hardworking Australians need. Let's look at how many jobs we've created—700,000 jobs since we came to government. Over 240,000 jobs were created in the 2016-17 financial year, and almost 75 per cent of these were full-time. So not only are we working hard on economic reform, but we are dealing with the underemployment crisis that the Labor Party left us with.

We're doing a number of things for small business tax reform, including cutting taxes for small and medium businesses, increasing the tax discount rate for unincorporated businesses, and increasing the small business annual turnover threshold for both incorporated and unincorporated businesses to $10 million, amongst many other things.

Matt Keogh (Burt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today we debate the idea that the government has failed to provide leadership in the economy. I think we should turn first to the Prime Minister's own words on leadership. He tells us all he is a strong leader. Well, he has forgotten the first rule of the strong leadership club: you don't tell people you're a strong leader; it's a bit of a giveaway that you're not.

Then, of course, when it comes to leadership in the economy, who comes in to defend the government? Is it the Treasurer? No, it's the sooky minister assisting the Treasurer! No leadership—not even the attempt or risk of leadership being shown at the dispatch box there! Let's look at this government's leadership of the Australian economy. It's all about bringing back trickle-down economics. That's the only thing they've got going on their ledger—trickle-down economics. When one looks up trickle-down economics—when you Google it, for example—you find that most economists, and in fact nearly every leading economist in the world, will tell you that it is just complete bunkum. That is exactly what it is. The leadership of this government, when it comes to economics is, apparently, about not investing in education. They don't believe in inequality—despite the Governor of the Reserve Bank just this Friday telling me in a hearing that inequality is a legitimate issue, and people are right to be worried about it. Well, not if you're this government, apparently.

And they won't countenance changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax. Well, actually, the Treasurer does agree with his predecessor, Joe Hockey, on that topic. But he got rolled in cabinet, further evidencing his government's failure to provide economic leadership to this nation. It's a bit like their policy on superannuation—announced, rolled, and then they tried to copy Labor's policy. Such leadership—not! They won't look at the unfair advantage to some that is provided by using trusts for income-splitting purposes, which is not available to others, and they won't support a royal commission into the banks. Instead, the Treasurer, this government, has a cup of tea with the chair of the Commonwealth Bank and gives them a good telling off. It's about as scary as being flogged with a piece of wet lettuce.

If we need a clearer example of why we need a senior executive responsibility regime in Australia for our banks, the Commonwealth Bank case is delivering it in spades. The Reserve Bank Governor only on Friday spoke about the need for good corporate governance and culture in our banks. But the government here gives us nothing. They have said the words but they don't give us action. They are taking up an idea by mentioning those words that actually Labor recommended in the banking inquiry report from 2016. In fact, this Treasurer hasn't come up with an idea of his own on economic leadership at all. At best he is a follower, although he doesn't even follow through with the ideas. At worst, he's just a grumpy old man who, in an effort to fill the gap where a policy idea might go, shouts about how Labor is leading the economic debate in this country.

The most recent example of course is this. He comes out and has a crack at Labor, saying: 'Look at all those economic policies of Labor; they're going to cost taxpayers all this money. And look: the PBO said this is how much it's going to cost.' It turns out that the PBO didn't actually say that at all, Treasurer. You made it up. But you were right about one thing: Labor is the only party with any economic policies for this country. But also—just to show that the government is not all about the economy—they need to understand this. This government come in here—and we had perfect examples on the other side during just this debate—saying 'economy this', and that they're the economic leaders and that it's all about the economy. Well, I don't think they've actually realised that government is not about the economy. A nation is not an economy; the economy is a means to an end. The government doesn't get this, and it's evident in its priorities, because its priorities are rather wrong.

Seriously, who ever thinks it is a better idea to give big business and their foreign investors a massive tax cut when we have underfunded schools? The government sword is constantly hanging over Medicare. We have seen increases in taxes on ordinary Australian workers. They haven't committed any rail funding to Western Australia, let alone provide a modicum of infrastructure funding to Victoria. We have seen cuts to the Australian Public Service, no support for their pay and no support for domestic violence leave, and then the government starts outsourcing the prosecutors from the Commonwealth DPP. We have seen pay cuts for the ADF, we have seen the disaster of an NBN and the mismanagement of the NDIS by those opposite. And apparently this is their leadership in economic management—all while cutting the taxes for the highest-paid Australians and spending $122 million on a marriage equality survey that we wouldn't need if they would just let us get on with the job in this place. This is a Treasurer who goes into the National Press Club to talk about GST reform and delivers nothing especially for WA. (Time expired)

Andrew Gee (Calare, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm absolutely delighted to be able to highlight to this House this afternoon the wonderful economic leadership of the Turnbull-Joyce government. It's leadership that can be contrasted against that of those opposite, who are weak on border protection, weak on national security and, most of all, weak on the economy, because they have no economic plan apart from playing the politics of division. They are anti workers, they are anti mining and they are anti regions, hand in glove with the Greens.

But the public need not fear, because, as the Treasurer foreshadowed in the most recent budget, better days are ahead. Better days are, in fact, here; I think they've arrived. On every indicator, across the key indicators, better days have indeed arrived. I want to have a look at some of those this afternoon, because I think the House is going to be very interested in this. Look at jobs: over 60,000 people went out to get a full-time job in June and got one. That's very good news—better days, better times, as the member for Boothby well knows. Over 240,000 jobs have been created over the past financial year, the strongest jobs growth since the GFC.

Ms Flint interjecting—

The member for Boothby loves this great economic news. Over 175,000 of those jobs, or almost 75 per cent, have been full-time jobs—better days and better futures, as the member for Boothby well knows.

Let's look at business confidence and conditions. Business conditions rose to their highest level in almost a decade in June. The NAB noted that business conditions hit another multiyear high, with most industries performing well. Business confidence also rose to well above its long-term average. The NAB chief economist, Alan Oster, has noted how pleasantly surprised he is by just how upbeat the business sector is. Alan, we appreciate the sentiment, but you shouldn't be surprised, because businesses know—

Ms Flint interjecting—

and the member for Boothby knows that better days have arrived and better days are ahead. That's why business confidence is so high.

Let's have a look at consumer confidence. The latest data from the ANZ-Roy Morgan ratings showed that more and more Australians are confident about the better days ahead for our economy. Consumer confidence recently jumped to be around five per cent above the long-run average, its highest level in five months. Better still, expectations for economic conditions next year are now at the highest level since September 2013. What a great testament to confidence in the leadership of the Turnbull-Joyce government!

Let's have a look at retail, another key indicator.

An opposition member interjecting—

Yes, let's have a look at it. You don't like this, do you? Those opposite can sit there and chirp away, but they can't handle the truth, Mr Deputy Speaker. It was a positive year for the retail sector in 2016-17, with annual sales volumes up around two per cent on the last financial year. Looking at the June quarter, sales volumes increased 1.5 per cent—the strongest quarterly outcome since early 2013. What fantastic economic news that is! Over the past year, volume growth across all retail categories has been positive, with particular strength seen in household goods retailing.

Let's have a look at housing. Dwelling approvals rose 11 per cent in the month of June, and this increase was spread across both apartments and houses. Apartments were up 20 per cent in the month and houses were up over three per cent in the month. That is another key indicator ticked off.

In manufacturing, manufacturers surveyed by Ai Group in July reported steadily rising demand, and this demand is coming from construction, mining and agriculture. Ai Group's performance of manufacturing index, or PMI as it's known to its many admirers, has been indicating growth in the sector for the past 10 consecutive months. That's confidence in the economic leadership of the Turnbull-Joyce government.

And let's have a look at some other key initiatives under the leadership from this government. Let's look at the First Home Super Saver Scheme. From 1 July this year the Turnbull-Joyce government has been helping first home buyers crack into the housing market by using the First Home Super Saver Scheme. It will give first home buyers access to a tax cut that will accelerate their savings by at least 30 per cent.

Better days have arrived, better days are ahead, and it's all because of the economic leadership of the Turnbull-Joyce government. I commend it to this House.

Andrew Hastie (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for the discussion has now concluded.