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 prioritising big business over 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—

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

There are actually only five sitting days left before the Treasurer will deliver the 2018 federal budget—and that's if the budget date doesn't change without the Treasurer knowing it again, but, working on the published schedule, that is the case. Australians would hope and expect that their government brings down a budget which helps them with their concerns. In my experience, Australians are very understanding. They don't expect miracles from government. Australians don't expect the government to fix all their problems. Australians don't expect the government to wave a magic wand and improve their lives overnight. But Australians expect a government which understands their problems and tries to help them deal with the challenges in their lives, not make things harder for them. Australians want a government that's dealing with low wages growth and with concerns about job insecurity, casualisation and rising inequality in Australia. They want a government that actually gets these things and knows that there are policies that can be put in place which make a contribution to helping.

This government has got answers and it's got policies which no doubt we'll see again in the federal budget. They've got an answer on low wages growth: that is, to stand aside and let people who work on the weekend have a wages cut. That's the policy of this government. That's their answer to low wages growth: to actually reduce people's wages. And it gets worse. Their other answer to people on low- and middle-incomes who are worrying about where the wages growth is going to come from and how they're going to make ends meet to match their cost-of-living increases is that they want a tax rise for them. Anybody who earns more than $21,000 and less than $87,000 will get a tax rise if the Treasurer gets his way. That's what the Treasurer thinks: they don't pay enough. He wants more.

But the government has more answers for the Australian people about these challenges. They say they've got a plan. It's a great plan! What they're going to do is give a $65 billion tax cut to big business, and don't worry: it's going to trickle down to you. It's going to trickle down to people on low wages. They say that's their answer to wages growth, and they talk about the United States, because they say it's a good idea because President Trump's done it. That's the government opposite. They say it'll lead to increased wages because it has in America. That's what they say. The Treasurer says it and the finance minister says it.

Well, let's just take a few moments of the House's time to look at that argument. They talk about Walmart—not famous as a best-practice employer. They've increased their minimum wage from $9 to $11. The government will tell you it is because of United States tax cuts. I wonder if the government also therefore says the tax cuts are responsible for Walmart laying off 10,000 workers at the same time. That's what is happening in America as we speak. Target had already increased their minimum wage to $11 before the tax cut had come into place, and many analysts say that Walmart would have struggled to get people to come and work for them with Target paying more. Kimberly-Clark, at the same time in the United States, is in the process of sacking 13 per cent of its workforce. Those tax cuts are working great for jobs and growth, aren't they?

That's the best that this government can come up with: an attempt to see it trickle down through osmosis, hope and prayer that somehow this will create jobs and growth. There is no requirement on businesses to increase wages and no requirement on businesses to invest. There is no obligation on businesses for them to get the tax cut—no, just a straight blank cheque and, 'Please, it would be great if you invested some of this; we don't want you to give it to share buybacks, but you can if you want to.' 'That's what's happening in the United States: more and more share buybacks as a result of the tax cuts.

The Treasurer's great myth, which he was perpetuating a few moments ago at the dispatch box, is that he tells us it's all paid for because it's in the budget. It's a great revelation the Treasurer gave us at question time—that it's in the budget! Of course it's in the budget; it's his budget and his policy. But just because you write something in the budget doesn't mean it's paid for. He argues that the NDIS wasn't funded. It was in the budget. He argues that the Gonski funding package wasn't funded. It was in the budget too. If the Treasurer applies his own logic, his argument collapses on other matters. The fact of the matter is that the corporate tax cut is unfunded and the budget would be $65 billion better off if they didn't proceed. That's the fact of the matter.

Then, of course, as I said before, we have personal income tax. Personal income tax is, of course, something we hear about a lot. The Treasurer said just late last year that it was their intention to provide income tax relief wherever and whenever possible. Well, they are providing income tax relief—I give them that—wherever and whenever possible for people who earn more than $180,000. That's all they're doing. If you earn $21,000, this government doesn't believe in personal income tax relief; they believe in a personal income tax rise of $300 a year for a moderate-income earner. Seven million Australians will pay more tax under this government compared to the policies of the Labor Party.

We saw some modelling, some analysis —and I use that term extremely lightly—that the government was referring to about Labor policies which was conducted not by the PBO but by the PMO, the Prime Minister's Office. It was conducted not even by the Treasurer's office but by the Prime Minister's Office. This so-called analysis conveniently ignored the fact that the Labor Party believes in lower taxes for people on low and middle incomes.

This is a government that does not believe in lower tax; they believe in different tax. They don't believe in shrinking tax; they believe in changing tax. They make a big point about increasing the tax threshold from $80,000 to $87,000. They say that was their 'great big tax cut'. Well, the fact of the matter is that if you earn $85,000, when you take into account that tax cut and the Medicare levy increase, you are worse off by $200 a year. Those people will say to the government: 'Next time, please don't bother helping. Thanks very much for the tax cut: we're $200 a year worse-off because of the two successive budgets! Next time you have a bright idea, please keep it to yourself.'

This is a Treasurer for whom consistency is not a strong point. He has argued for an increase in the GST. He has argued for state income taxes—that was a doozy! He's argued for swingeing income tax cuts at the same time as arguing for an income tax rise if you earn between $21,000 and $87,000. But the one thing he is consistent on is that people in the top tax bracket deserve a tax cut, that big business should get a tax cut, but people on low incomes should get a tax rise.

We do not agree and we will oppose the government on all those measures—because we have a different set of values. As I said at the outset, the Australian people expect their government to understand their concerns—not to conduct miracles, not to wave a magic wand, but to understand their concerns and try and deal with them. Under this government, the Australian people know that the real value of their pay packet is going backwards. The cost of things like electricity and private health insurance is skyrocketing. We have a housing affordability crisis and plummeting home ownership, particularly for young people. We have household debt at record levels—the highest in the OECD—and we have record unemployment and job insecurity. 'Weighing up all the policy options, what could we do to deal these things?' the cabinet say as they sit around thinking of new policies. They say, 'We will give big business $65 billion and we hope and pray that they will invest it and increase wages'—when all the evidence and experience from overseas suggests that may very well be a forlorn hope.

We need to ensure that our 26 years of uninterrupted economic growth continues—that is the responsibility of this House. But it needs to continue fairly. We need to see that growth shared across our community and shared across the country. We need to see the people in the regions benefiting from that growth. As my friend the member for Rankin pointed out last week, the people of Townsville believe in economic growth, they deserve economic growth, and our plan is to deliver a much bigger dividend for them than any $65 billion corporate tax cut ever will. People in the regions deserve a youth unemployment rate that is not above 20 per cent. The people of Australia's regions deserve to know that their children can get jobs. I'll tell you what, a $65 billion tax cut isn't going to do that, a $65 billion tax cut isn't going to deliver on those hopes and aspirations. What a $65 billion tax cut for big business will do is see shareholders, many of whom are overseas, better off, with no obligation for them to invest in this country, no obligation for them to make a decision to create jobs or increase wages, just a cheque from Malcolm Turnbull.

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

Order! The member for McMahon will refer to members by their correct title.

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

A cheque from the Prime Minister. I'll tell you damn straight, we have a different idea, we have different plans. We won't go along with their $65 billion tax cuts for big business, we won't go along with their tax rise for low- and middle-income earners and we won't go along with seeing penalty rates cut. We will stand against them at every opportunity.

Craig Laundy (Reid, Liberal Party, Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, there you have the current baton carrier for the New South Wales Liberal Party—Labor Party.

Honourable members interjecting—

Jump sides! Jump sides! Only on the weekend we read of the inspiration for the member for McMahon's economic career, Paul Keating. Can you imagine—it's what, half past three?—Paul Keating listening to that, sitting in his Eames chair at Potts Point in his Louis Vuitton robe and his Gucci loafers, and, as it's 3.30, with a glass of sherry—that battler for the westie out there in Bankstown—listening to that? I know the member for McMahon's heart's not in it. I know his agenda. I know his heart's not in it, because, when it is, he rallies to the cry. You can't hear yourself over the top of his cheering for what he actually believes in. The reason you can't hear it now is that he doesn't believe in what he is saying. To argue that the $65 billion tax cuts are for the big end of town, when half of them go to small and family businesses, is just lunacy in the extreme. It is economic vandalism writ large.

The reality of business in this country—I said it the other day—is it doesn't exist in a vacuum. Businesses interact with businesses, irrespective of size. We caught up with Qantas's Alan Joyce last Friday. There are 3,000 small and family businesses in their supply chain. This is how it works, and when you reduce tax—and the member for McMahon believes this in his heart of hearts. He has written it in books, time and time again. The quotes get regurgitated back at him at this dispatch box time and time again, and, in saying it, he was right. He was right. When you stand up—

Dr Chalmers interjecting—

I wasn't here, Member for Rankin! When you stand up and you say that you don't want to give tax cuts to big businesses but then argue that they won't interact with small businesses, you're just ignoring the reality. It's not trickle-down economics; it's the truth. It's how the economy functions. Those on the other side have written book after book, book after book, about this being the case.

The first and last great reforming Treasurer, who the member for McMahon is so keen on, got it. He not only got it; he did it. And what happened? The economy was reformed. It works. Those on the other side are looking at big business in isolation. You are completely ignoring the fact that the economy is a dynamic and vibrant thing, and ignoring interactions between companies.

As I said, many small and family businesses are in supply chains. At that Qantas hangar last week, I heard of a Toowoomba family that Qantas have given a go to. They used to get their planes painted offshore. A Toowoomba family has been given the chance of a contract to paint Qantas's planes—a small contract to start, but, if they can deliver consistently and on time, they will get a bigger bite of the cherry. I heard from Qantas that Cape Grim beef from Tasmania is served on their planes, along with wineries from around Australia. They are actually the third biggest consumer of Australian wines, after Coles and Woolworths. The majority of those wineries are small, family owned businesses up to medium sized businesses. There is this lunacy that happens in this place too often of defining the size of a business by turnover.

I had a guy come up to me in my electorate a couple of weeks ago. He is a luxury car wholesaler. He works from his kitchen table at home, with a mobile phone as his instrument of trade. He sells, in a good week, three to four prestige cars; in a bad week, a couple, and makes between 55 and 155 to 200 grand a year. He turns over $15 million to $20 million a year. He does not have one employee. He works on wafer-thin margins. Turnover to define business size in this country is absurd. If you turn over $10 million and run at two or three per cent—you can't argue that turnover is a part of this equation, along with arguing that businesses don't interact. I know the member for McMahon is being dragged there kicking and screaming, but then you get loony left policy being dictated by Sally McManus, being repeated within 48 hours by the member for Gorton and then wending its way into official Labor Party policy at the National Press Club.

There have been these figures of 20 per cent as the increase in company taxes and two per cent as the increase in wages in the last 12 months. Of that 20 per cent, the overwhelming majority—more than two-thirds of it—came in the December quarter of 2016 when commodity prices, especially for iron ore and coal, nearly doubled. In fact, the last two quarters of company tax profits in this country have actually gone backwards. If the system of minimum wage increases proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, which is purportedly supported only lukewarmly—and the member for Rankin and the member for McMahon, in their defence, have back away from these comments—is not decided by the independent umpire but by lunatic 28 per cent increases mandated in the minimum wage, you will have businesses across the board going out of business, and employees will be the losers, along with those business owners.

You are talking about irresponsible economic policy being made up because the Leader of the Opposition has become so weak internally that he has had to embrace the left wing of the Labor unions. That's the reality of it. The Leader of the Opposition, when he was the assistant Treasurer in this country, the minister responsible, espoused time and time again exactly what the member for McMahon has espoused in his career, along with what the former member for Blaxland did and delivered when he was in government in the late eighties to early nineties. This is the problem, and the problem is simple: there is a misunderstanding on that side. Some of them get it, but they've been hamstrung by those above them to fall into line with policy.

This policy and the platform that they are talking about is dangerous to the economic wellbeing of this country. If you attack business in this country, irrespective of size, you are by default attacking its employees. Any attempt to pit workers against employers is another frustration. It is the politics of envy. The reality, especially in small and family business land, is that the most valuable asset small and family business owners have at their disposal is their staff. They get it. They operate side by side with them on the front line. They go to their weddings, their christenings, their birthdays and their funerals. The staff on the front line of small and family businesses become a quasi part of the family. That is exactly what we are talking about. That is how business operates in the real world.

The proposed policies of those opposite, should they be elected, will go from minimum wage increases to completely tearing up and rewriting the industrial relations laws in this country to give their union mates unfettered access to labour markets across the board. Why? It is because the union model is broken. Unions now represent less than 10 per cent of the workforce in the private sector in this country. Unions are telling the Leader of the Opposition loud and clear that they need a new business model. The problem is that the policy platform that this team is describing will not only give them a new business model; it will, at the same time, unleash industrial wars the like of which we have not seen in this country since the 1970s. The result of that will be that businesses will close, irrespective of size. The real losers will be the workers—the people that those opposite purport to represent.

This is the reality of what goes on. The sad part is that I know the sensible economic minds on that side absolutely agree with what I'm saying, because they've said it time and time again until they've now been hamstrung by positions where they have to fall back and tow the company line. The real economic plan, as I keep saying, lies with lowering tax—both company and personal, irrespective of size—across the board so that this economy can be unleashed and its productive capacity harnessed. Wage increases will follow, and those employees across the country will be far better off.

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Special Minister of State (House)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't know about you or the colleagues, but my favourite part of an otherwise pretty disappointing question time from those opposite was when the Prime Minister came to the dispatch box. He had all of that preening self-regard which explains the last 27 consecutive Newspolls. He had the tea pot, the sugar bowl, he had the glasses off held with the thumb, all of the explaining about how he was suddenly the king of consistency. This is the guy that's turned his back on the republic, turned his back on climate change and turned his back on all the things he said on Q&A that he once believed in, lecturing the Australian parliament about consistency.

As the member for McMahon rightly pointed out, to give the Prime Minister his due there is one that he has always been consistent about. Since he's been in this place and before that, he has had one objective alone, and that is to favour the top end of town at the expense of middle Australia. This has been his agenda for as long as he's been in here. He will always go for the top end of town because he doesn't understand the people in this country who work and struggle for a living to provide for their families. They camouflage their company tax cut and their tax cuts for millionaires with all this flowery language that what they actually want is increases in wages and for blue collar jobs to be created. But we know from those 27 consecutive Newspolls that the Australian people know better.

I was up in Townsville with the outstanding member for Herbert on Thursday and Friday. The Leader of the Opposition was up there earlier in the week. The member for Blaxland was up there last week. We go a lot to Townsville, in the member for Herbert's electorate. When I was up there with the member for Herbert, speaking with businesses and the local community, I was wondering why the Prime Minister or Treasurer don't go to Townsville. They are hardly ever up there. We're up there all the time, as you know. I think the reason is that if they tried to go to Townsville and say, 'Guess what? We think that the big business tax cuts will flow through to your wages, people of Townsville', they would get laughed out of town. That's why they don't go to Townsville. The people of North Queensland can spot a fraud a mile away and they know this argument is fraudulent.

This is a con job about company tax cuts trickling down to people who work and struggle. This government wants us to believe—they look around and see record low wage growth, record high household debt, no consumption in the economy, rising inequality. They look around and see that, and they say that the main challenge that we need to deal with in this country is that currently multinational corporations from overseas pay too much tax in Australia. That's their conclusion when they see what's going on. They look around and they want us to believe that if they shower largesse on the top end of town, it will miraculously trickle down to everybody else. That hasn't worked overseas and it hasn't worked here. We have 20 per cent growth in profits at the moment and 2 per cent growth in wages. That shows that a tax cut of this nature will not necessarily flow through. After all the lectures about budget emergency they also want us to believe that all of a sudden there's a spare $65 billion lying around. They've used that budget emergency to justify hacking at the social safety net for people who need a bit of government support.

We don't support this $65 billion ram-raid on the budget for three reasons. It's unfair: it preferences the top end of town at the expense of middle Australia. It's unwise, because even the Treasury modelling says the benefits will be negligible and way down the track and we can't direct this money towards investing in the productive side of the economy. And it's unaffordable because it does even more structural damage to the budget, when we already have record debt which is growing faster per month than it was under Labor, which had to deal with the global financial crisis.

We welcome a debate about these choices in the economy. It's all about getting the best value for money and growing the economy the right way. On this side of the House we choose to invest in people and their productivity and their infrastructure. We choose not to smash peoples' disposable incomes, their living standards, the demand in the economy, by jacking up tax on seven million workers or taking away penalty rates. Those opposite make a different choice. They choose a tax cut for big foreign multinational companies. Their approach sows the seeds of division in this country by favouring one small group at the expense of everyone else, when we should be coming together and recognising that the only growth worth a cracker in this country is inclusive growth which doesn't leave people behind. We should be realising that a first-rate, first-world economy like ours needs growth to be inclusive. It needs work to be rewarded and it needs a decent social safety net as well.

David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We stand in the House today in an environment where we have just seen a year of the greatest job creation in Australian history—the biggest year ever for the creation of Australian jobs. In this House all of us should be praising the efforts of industry, the efforts of government and the efforts of everyone who has contributed to this extraordinary result. What we have seen in the past 12 months is that every single day, on average, more than 1,000 new jobs were created, and three-quarters of them are full-time. This is a phenomenal outcome, and it's something of which this government is justifiably proud, because those opposite had a very poor record on job creation when they were in office.

We are creating jobs at a rampant speed. Part of the reason that's occurring is this government's very strong policies in relation to economic growth. Among them, most importantly, is business tax reductions. It's already happening, no thanks to those opposite. What happened last year, you'll recall, is that the government said, 'Let's reduce company tax rates for businesses with a turnover of between $2 million and $50 million.' You know what those opposite said? They said no. They said those businesses were too large. They described them as multinationals and as businesses that were undeserving of any tax support. It's very important that people understand the impact that these tax cuts are already having, because we already have a situation where there are literally millions of businesses in Australia with between $2 million and $25 million of turnover that have had—

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

Will the member for Lindsay take that conversation outside. She is disorderly where she is at the moment.

David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We're already seeing the benefits of these tax cuts, because smaller businesses are already paying only 27½ per cent. But those opposite voted against that. They said that for a business with $2.1 million of revenue—which probably has, on average, a profit margin of maybe 5 per cent, which means it makes $100,000, which is about the same as the average household income across Australia—that should not be allowed. They voted against it, and it's very important that people understand that. They said small and medium sized businesses shouldn't be provided with tax relief. Presumably, they are therefore going to increase taxes on those millions of businesses that are already benefitting from tax reductions.

We are seeing that the proof is in the pudding with the massive job creation that's occurring in this economy today, which is an objective fact. It's important that that tax relief is extended to more businesses, because larger businesses also employ millions of people. Those opposite might not understand that, they might not want to acknowledge that, they might not appreciate that, but it happens to be true. Larger businesses employ millions of people. The argument of those opposite appears to be that tax reductions make no difference to the level of investment. Think about that logically, because that's what they're saying. They're saying that if you reduce the level of corporate tax it does not flow through to increased investment and more jobs. That's what they're saying. The logical conclusion is that those opposite would say, 'The tax rate doesn't matter at all.' They're basically saying that, regardless of the level of tax, corporations will invest the same amount of money. That is plainly absurd.

We've seen the US cutting their corporate tax rate down recently to 21 per cent, the UK is at 17 per cent and even France is going down to 25 per cent. But those opposite say that every business with $2 million or more of turnover should pay 30 per cent tax. That is a bad strategy for the Australian economy. This government understands how to create economic growth. There was 19 per cent growth last year in exports of rural products, because of those blockbuster free trade agreements that this government has got into. There was $75 billion worth of infrastructure investment, putting to shame the appalling record of those opposite with delay and delay and delay in those critical infrastructure projects, like Western Sydney Airport, which will create thousands of jobs and is so important for my home state of New South Wales.

We know that those opposite used to support company tax cuts, because the shadow Treasurer said reducing company taxes 'promotes investment, creates jobs and drives growth'. He's 100 per cent right. He should be true to his convictions and get the opposition to support these important reforms.

Anne Aly (Cowan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very proud of my community of Cowan. They're a strong community, a resilient community and a community that truly embodies the heart of this great nation. When I go out and speak to the people of Cowan and talk to businesses, individuals, families and working parents, what do you think it is that they say to me? Do you think they say to me that what they want from this government is big tax cuts for foreign multinational businesses and millionaires? Do you think that the people of Cowan tell me that they want to pay more personal income tax in order to fund tax cuts for millionaires? Do the people of Cowan, and indeed the people of Western Australia, say that they want their wages to continue stagnating while watching this out-of-touch government back cuts to weekend penalty rates and give a $65 billion bonus to big business? No, that's not what they're saying. That's not what they want.

This government keeps crowing on about how great it is at financial management. I say to it: tell that to the people of Western Australia, where the former WA Liberal-National government's financial recklessness has just been exposed in a recent report. That report, the Langoulant report, exposes the worst case of financial risk in the granting of billions of dollars of contracts with no business case. Guess who that report implicates? None other than the current federal Attorney-General, who as WA Treasurer in the Barnett government failed to heed warnings of falling GST share, spent at a rate higher than WA's economic growth and increased spending by 10.8 per cent while revenue grew only by six per cent.

It doesn't stop there, because it seems that this federal Treasurer is working from the same playbook when it comes to economic mismanagement. For a start, he can't make up his mind on tax, revenue or spending. He fails to heed the advice of the RBA governor about the danger of funding company tax cuts through higher budget deficits and government debt. He continues to spruik the myth of trickle-down economics, as did the minister in his previous contribution today.

Trickle-down economics has actually never been tested in its purest form, so there is actually no real evidence to support it as an effective way to stimulate growth and jobs—or 'jobs and growth', as those on the other side would say. Former US Presidents Reagan and Bush were renowned for their belief in trickle-down economics, but what happened there? In both cases, the exact opposite occurred. In fact, income inequality worsened, and between 1979 and 2005 after-tax household income rose by just six per cent for the bottom fifth. It sounds okay—the bottom fifth got a six per cent rise in their income—until you see what happened for the top fifth. The top fifth's income increased by 80 per cent. The top one per cent actually saw their income triple. So, instead of trickling down, the prosperity trickled up.

This is the road that this government wants us to go down. We have the Prime Minister going and rubbing shoulders with the President of the United States and coming here and saying that this is an economic model for Australia. Well, I don't think Australians want to be Americans. I can only wonder how this government is just so out of touch with everyday Australians that it continues its sole focus on these tax cuts for big business and millionaires.

Australians aren't stupid. They certainly aren't stupid enough to fall for the snake oil con that somehow, just somehow, they're going to be better off when big business gets tax cuts and when millionaires get a tax break. They're smart enough to know that under this government they've seen the real value of their pay packets go backwards, as the cost of living continues to increase while their incomes stagnate and they face job insecurity and underemployment. Australians are smart enough not to trust this government and this Treasurer to deliver a real policy agenda that prioritises their needs for lower energy costs, affordable health insurance, affordable housing and some relief on housing debts.

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

It's interesting that those opposite come in here today and try to rubbish our economic plan. The reality is that we have record jobs growth. You can't argue with the facts: 403,100 jobs have been created over the last 12 months. That's a little over 1,100 jobs each and every day over the last 12 months. I know that's an inconvenient truth for those opposite, but the facts remain the same. You don't like hearing about that—1,100 jobs. This government places great importance on everyday average Australians, and everyday average Australians are the beneficiaries of those 1,100-plus jobs every day.

Let's contrast that with what those opposite are doing under the Leader of the Opposition. They will be introducing $150 billion of extra taxes. There's no doubt that those opposite subscribe to the Jeremy Corbyn and the Bernie Sanders school of economics. We stand for mums and dads. We stand for small business. We stand for jobs. Those opposite have absolutely no clue. They lead with their chins. They come in here and they bring butter knives to gun fights. It's quite amazing. Let's look at what those opposite stand for. Those opposite stand for a protection racket for you know who—a protection racket for the CFMEU. I notice that some of those opposite here today were proudly sitting in the Federation Chamber just a couple of days ago with their CFMEU badges on. They're not wearing them now. In his address to CFMEU workers at the Oaky mine, Mr Shorten said:

You should also say to your families that Bill and Brendan—

sounds like some sort of a movie—

have the highest respect for the mining and engineering division of the CFMEU. These people will be with you the whole way, always have been and always are, always will be. If we form a government, yeah, we'll do the right thing, we won't let you down.

For some of us who are a little bit more suspicious of the Leader of the Opposition, I'd say that he's up to no good, he's offering them all sorts of skulduggery.

Let's look at recent case about the CFMEU. The CFMEU is the gift that keeps on giving, and yet those opposite still continue to come in here and support them—and not only wear their badges and but also take their money for Labor Party donations. In a recent matter, just a couple of days ago, Federal Court Judge Richard Tracey reiterated previous court findings that the CFMEU showed a repeated disregard for the law, spending millions of dollars of union funds on penalties when the money could have been used to benefit their workers. I've got some interesting figures here. Those opposite might be interested to know this. The ABCC told the court in that same matter that the construction and general divisions of the CFMEU's Victorian and Tasmanian branch received revenue of $30.9 million in 2016. There would be many businesses in Australia that don't receive that sort of money. It had a net surplus of $226,000 and net assets valued at $58 million. Is it any wonder that the CFMEU treats fines imposed by the courts as the cost of doing business—as the cost of running a protection racket for the continued thuggery of its officers. (Time expired)

Emma Husar (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to remind the good member for Fisher that nowhere in this MPI did it talk about the CFMEU or unions; it actually talked about defending the government's own $65 billion cuts. But not one of the government's speakers has been able to get up there and speak in defence of these cuts and why they are good for this country.

When it comes to being out of touch with the needs and realities of everyday Australians, this Prime Minister could win a Golden Globe award, a Logie—you name it; he could take the cake for it—when he swans in here from his digs in Point Piper, his very modest accommodation, and his high-fibre NBN connection that gets him the most reliable speeds of anybody in this country. I've lived in Lindsay my whole life, and we're often subject to unfavourable stereotypes. Well, for the benefit of those opposite, including the member for Fisher, let me run through some of the ways in which the people in my community are more hardworking, more real and more deserving of some of this out-of-touch Prime Minister's investment.

The cost of living in Lindsay is three per cent higher than that in the Prime Minister's electorate. Why? It is because we have so few local jobs that local residents can work in. Every household and every family needs two cars—one for each adult. When you travel to work you also get to pay the M4 toll, which is a bonus, because that road had been paid for many years ago. We like the freeway. The member for Macquarie likes the freeway. We like the extension. But what we don't like is having to pay for a road that has already been paid for—and we don't want to pay for it for another 43 years!

This was an abject failure of the Abbott government. When Labor supported the project, when we were in government, we did so with a caveat that we would not hand out any Commonwealth money if the New South Wales Liberals insisted on a toll. In walked Tony Abbott and, voila, just like that, the caveat was ripped up in favour of the toll operator, and we got the toll back. Of course you don't need to own a car to go to work. You could squish yourself onto one of the Western Sydney overpacked trains—very reliable, hardly ever air-conditioned in 47 degree heat; that's fine—but only after you drive to the train station! There's no equity in public transport.

If you go to work, you'll have your penalty rates cut after this government take an axe to the industrial relations system—day after day after day. They hate unions and they hate workers. They'll cut your penalty rates. They expect you to work more hours for the same amount of money or less. They also don't want you to have a secure job, with casualisation taking over every industry that's out there. If you do have a job, you'd better hope your company isn't too reliant on energy, because your job will be even less secure.

The cost of electricity has skyrocketed under these Liberals, and households and businesses are paying through the nose, especially in Sydney where we've seen increases of close to $1,000 in four years. We were hoodwinked by this government. We were told it was all because of the carbon tax. Well, the carbon tax has gone, but the prices are still rising every day. There is no energy policy for businesses, which is creating uncertainty, and you certainly don't hire people when you do not know what the future holds.

For households, another thing chewing through their declining pay packets is the real cost of health insurance, which seems to favour the shareholders rather than the policyholders. The costs rise, value for money decreases and ordinary mums and dads can't afford to keep paying. We have plummeting home ownership—the lowest levels we have seen in decades—rentals that are priced out of ordinary pay packets and no real plan to tackle any of this. There is no investment and no idea about how the other half lives.

With so much opportunity to help people, particularly those in Western Sydney who are already facing a high cost of living and reduced opportunity, why is this government focused on cutting Western Sydney University to the tune of $98 million, which is the highest cut to any university, cutting $21 million to every public school in our community and not investing in the most under pressure hospital in New South Wales? Well, it's no surprise, because it's too busy supporting a $65 billion tax cut to those who least need it, expecting it to trickle down the line and result in some kind of support in the take-home pay packets of people in my community.

This government has no policy agenda to prioritise the everyday Australians who need support. At a time when this government has seen the budget deficit grow to $23 billion under its watch—which is quite ironic, given it is forever passing itself off as the best friend to Australia's economic bottom line—its $65 billion tax cut is unaffordable, and we will fight it. We will fight it for people in places like Herbert, Macquarie, Lindsay, Chifley, Cowan, for ordinary Australians.

What a shame our Prime Minister is so inspired by the Trump Administration and wants to follow his lead. What will inspire him next? Will it be a US-style medical system where the rich get cured, an education system where the wealthy and those born to privilege are educated, or even, heaven help us, a US-style industrial system where there is no minimum wage? While this merchant banker looks after his mates—multinationals and millionaires like his banker mate Mike Baird—with tax cuts, he's happy to fleece ordinary taxpayers. We on this side of the House will not stand for it. We will fight every day for the people who elected us to be here.

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

I'm not going to try to deal with the nonsensical contribution from the member for Lindsay. She talked about us trying to crash the industrial relations system in this country and yet, as the Leader of the Opposition has made clear, that is his absolute intention. What's quite confusing about this MPI—the government prioritising big business over ordinary Australians—I don't think members opposite realise this, but big business employs half of all ordinary Australians. Big business employs millions of Australians. In deserting big business, in saying to businesses across Australia, whether they be small, medium, family or large, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, 'We are going to create a war on business. Business is going to get nothing from us.' In saying that, Labor is sending a very strong message. It's sending a message to the workers in the steel manufacturing companies, the mines, Bunnings and Qantas that they don't matter. That is the bottom line with this opposition. Half of all Australians work for large Australian companies. Ninety per cent of workers in this country work for private companies. This opposition is so dangerous in its loony left policies that it is willing and advocating to drive up the minimum wage by 30 per cent, which even it knows will destroy thousands of jobs across this country. Frankly, it is an embarrassment. The member for Rankin is sitting there, after promising and writing all the member for Lilley's speech notes, promising four surpluses that never actually occurred, and he's sniggering. We have committed, as confirmed by the Parliamentary Budget Office, that we will be in surplus by 2021. We are on track to deliver that. We are actually going to have our company tax cuts paid as part of our budget forecasts. Frankly, the member for Rankin sitting there sniggering really just shows the embarrassment of what his contribution has been when the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government was in power.

I do feel for the shadow Treasurer, the member for McMahon, who has been completely rolled by the left of the Labor Party, by the Jeremy-Bernie-loony-left economics of Labor. The great economic messiah of the Labor Party, who talked about company tax cuts, who talked about the importance of what that would do for jobs and investment and growth and business confidence, that was backed by the Leader of the Opposition, has been rolled by the member for Sydney. The loony left of the Labor Party is coming at him in force and the member for McMahon is slinking around the boardrooms of Australia saying, 'Don't worry, fellas, we will deliver the company tax cuts. Just stay quiet. I know and you know that we need these company tax cuts for Australia, but we just have to run our agenda to get into power, then everything will change.' It is absolute hypocrisy. As the member for Reid has said in this debate, it's quite clear that the shadow Treasurer, here in the House, does not believe a word he has spoken.

We need company tax cuts to make us internationally competitive. The Treasury modelling has shown this will add $30 billion in additional revenue and increase our GDP by 1 per cent. As the Governor of the Reserve Bank said in the public hearing before the House Economics Committee that I proudly chair, 'The worst thing we can possibly do is rack up more debt and deficit.' That's what the Labor Party's agenda is: more debt and deficit. They went to the last election with $16 billion more deficit to contribute to the economy. As the Governor of the Reserve Bank also said, 'The best way to combat inequality is to deliver jobs.'

We are delivering jobs in spades: 403,000 more jobs in the last year, the best jobs growth on record. That is 1,100 jobs a day. Already we are seeing in some sectors of the economy a tightening of the labour market, which the Governor of the Reserve Bank has identified quite clearly and objectively. In contrast to the loony left policies of Labor, we are delivering for jobs and for the economy.

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

Before I call the member for Herbert, I will remind the member for Chifley and the member for Rankin that a friendly reminder from the chair should be taken notice of, because there are other mechanisms to make sure that there is order in this House.

Cathy O'Toole (Herbert, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me be very clear: there is absolutely nothing confusing about this MPI. There is absolutely no doubt that the Turnbull government is a government for the top end of town. You only need to look at the coalition's track record in Townsville to know that this is a government that does not care about regional Queenslanders, as identified by the member for Rankin. This government does not care about families, it does not care about pensioners and it certainly does not care about workers.

Let's just look at the evidence regarding the Abbott-Turnbull government's record in Townsville. Townsville's unemployment rate when Labor left federal government in 2013 was lower than both the state and national averages. Now Townsville's unemployment rate is higher than the state average and almost double the national average. Townsville's unemployment rate has almost doubled under the Abbott-Turnbull governments.

Under the previous Labor government, manufacturing in Townsville soared. When Labor left federal government in 2013, more than 8,400 people were employed in the manufacturing industry. But, under the Abbott-Turnbull governments, manufacturing has nosedived and we have seen job losses of more than 3,000. The manufacturing industry made up eight per cent of our local employment, but under the disastrous coalition governments manufacturing jobs and industry have spiralled down to 4.9 per cent. These were good-quality jobs, and now they are gone under the Abbott-Turnbull governments.

Then there has been the complete and utter decimation of our construction industry. Just yesterday, the Townsville workforce report commissioned by TP Human Capital showed that Townsville had 442 fewer construction industry business registrations last year than in 2012. That's a drop of 15.7 per cent. That's more jobs gone from Townsville under the Abbott-Turnbull governments.

Then let's look at the retail industry. The retail industry can often be a good yardstick to measure whether an economy is thriving. However, in Townsville, the workforce report clearly indicates that Townsville is not thriving, because we have lost 153 retail business registrations between 2012 and 2017. That's a fall of 17 per cent. That's more jobs gone. Let's not forget the coalition government's job cuts to the public sector: 110 ATO jobs gone, 50 Defence jobs gone and 40 aviation jobs at 38 Squadron gone. The coalition is a government of job cuts.

Whilst this government is killing industries and jobs in Townsville, it is giving big business a $65 billion tax cut. That shows the absolute nerve of the Turnbull government—giving big business a $65 billion tax cut and increasing taxes to low-income workers. Under this government, anyone earning between $21,000 and $87,000 a year will pay more income tax. Under the Turnbull government's plans to increase the Medicare levy, millionaires get a tax cut of $16,400 while someone earning $60,000 gets a tax hike of $300. This is a government for the top end of town, and regional Queenslanders have had enough. I will fight tooth and nail in this place every single day against the Turnbull government's job cuts and big business tax cuts.

Labor is committed to Townsville, and only Labor will deliver jobs for Townsville. Labor has committed $200 million to hydro power on the Burdekin Falls Dam. Labor has committed $100 million to address our long-term water security infrastructure. Just last week, Labor committed $75 million for the port expansion project, a commitment that will deliver more than $580 million in benefits to our regional economy. Labor has a jobs plan for Townsville.

The Turnbull government is out of touch and, frankly, doesn't appear to give a damn about pensioners, workers or families. It is completely unacceptable for a government to think that it's okay to give a $65 billion tax cut to big business while workers are struggling, penalty rates are being cut, people are flat out putting food on their table and pensioners in my community can't turn their air conditioners on because they simply can't afford the electricity bill. This government is beyond out of touch when it comes to regional Queensland.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've got to say the very tone and tenor of this motion is patronising. It's patronising from the very get-go, saying that the government is prioritising big business over 'ordinary Australians'. It's patronising because those opposite clearly don't have the most basic understanding of economics—that people pay taxes. So when you say, 'Reduce tax rates on businesses that are held and owned by people,' what you're actually saying is that people who have shares in publicly listed companies are not ordinary. I think that's a pretty spectacular proposition to put forward. When it comes down to it, we have hundreds of thousands of Australians who are self-funded superannuants, who stand on their own two feet and don't draw from the taxpayer for their basic livelihood. They are apparently, according to the modern Labor Party, not ordinary. I note everybody on the other side has basically left the chamber now. They are saying to pensioners who support their incomes with savings or shares that they also are not ordinary.

But perhaps the greatest hypocrisy in this motion comes from its mover, the shadow Treasurer, Chris Bowen. He got up and moved this motion, so I thought, 'I wonder if he owns any shares and whether he, according to this motion, is not ordinary.' It's funny. If you go through his history, he was one of the people elected in 2004. You may recall that any member of parliament elected after 2004 no longer gets the defined benefit scheme for their superannuation. They have to hold an account with an industry fund, a retail fund or a self-managed superannuation fund to take care of their security. And, yes, Mr Bowen does have a superannuation fund. He does. So, if you and go check the register of interests, by his own standard he apparently is not ordinary, just like every other Australian he has slurred as part of this motion. In the end, it comes back to a basic principle of economics, which is that only people can pay taxes. There can be legal structures where people facilitate and organise economic activity, but only people pay taxes. By moving this motion, the shadow Treasurer has said that millions, if not all, Australians are not ordinary.

Now let's look at the simplistic lack of understanding from the shadow Treasurer and others in comparison to what this government is actually trying to do. It's actually trying to create jobs and opportunities to build this nation's future. It is actively working to try to make sure the investment necessary to build the economy is there in an increasingly globally competitive environment. It's actually delivering. It's actually creating the economic environment for the private sector to create hundreds of thousands of jobs. In fact, at the moment, we're talking about 1,100 jobs per day throughout the entire year of 2017. We had an annualised growth rate of 2.8 per cent, something that delivered enormous benefit to actual ordinary Australians. I say that without any sense of criticism, because ordinary Australians are the people who build this country. Ordinary Australians are the people who work, who save and who build their own future. Ordinary Australians are people, through their savings, who invest in this country, buy shares and find opportunities to create wealth for their families and their own security. Ordinary Australians are the people who actually benefit from the measures that are being implemented by this government. Ordinary Australians are the people who the Turnbull government is explicitly focusing on to make sure that people have those opportunities that those on the other side would rather deny. Instead, they're focusing not on ordinary Australians. What they're focusing on—and they always have and they always will—is the interests of the people who pay the salaries to stack their membership in the trade union movement. Ordinary Australians stand up against them and defy their interests.

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

Order! The time for this discussion has concluded.