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 failures of this Budget.

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

The Australian people know a desperate con job when they see it, and certainly they saw one last night, and certainly they saw more desperation at question time today—a desperate attempt to distract from the failings of this awful government. I've got a tip for the government. I've got a tip for the Prime Minister and the Treasurer: if you want people to forget that you're making them work until they're 70 before they can get the aged pension, drop the policy. If you want people to forget that you're going to take $14 a fortnight off pensioners and recipients of Newstart, drop the policy. But, of course, both of those policies are at the centrepiece of their budget delivered last night. They remain government policy.

I will tell you what else remains government policy: they've got to find the money from somewhere to pay for their corporate tax cuts. That's why those measures and other measures remain in the budget, and I dare say we may hear more about this from the honourable member for Jagajaga. If you want people to forget that you're giving billions of dollars away to big business in Australia, maybe the way to do it is not to hide how much it's costing. That's what they're attempting to do: hide from pensioners and people across Australia how much they're giving away in corporate tax cuts. We know they know. Of course they know. The Treasurer is pretty incompetent, but I grant him this: he knows how much his corporate tax cuts cost, but he just won't tell the Australian people. Remember when they first introduced the corporate tax cuts and we asked them how much it costs over 10 years? It took a few goes. Eventually we found out it was $50 billion. Then, a year later, we had to ask again, and it was a bit easier. We found out it was $65 billion. We asked today, and it's back to being very hard to find out, because it's an embarrassing figure.

The other part of their plan to try to get the Australian people to forget all their policies which impact on workers, on pensioners and on recipients of government payments is to offer them a tax cut. They say, 'Look at this: we've got a tax cut for the Australian people.' When will the big tax cut take effect? In 2024. This is a Treasurer who last year stood at the dispatch box at the budget and, in all seriousness, very earnestly argued that Australians had to pay more tax. He told us that we had to pay more tax to fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme. He told us that it was absolutely essential for every Australian who earns more than $21,000 to pay more income tax. Anybody who dared oppose the tax was told that they were being unreasonable, obstructionist, cynical and opportunistic. We were even told we were being un-Australian, just 12 months ago. Of course, this year the Treasurer pops up and says: 'You know all that stuff I said last year about a personal income tax rise? Scrub it. It's not necessary. We don't need it any more. Oops—got that wrong.'

This is the guy who tells us he knows what's going to happen in seven years time. He has a plan to give us a tax cut in seven years time, when he hasn't kept one policy from one budget to the other. Mr Deputy Speaker, I dare say that you don't know what you'll be doing in seven years time. I don't know exactly what I'll be doing in seven years time. I hope to be standing there! I've got a daughter who has just started high school. She'll hopefully be at uni in seven years time. I've got a son in primary school. He might be doing the HSC in seven years time. What we don't know is exactly what the budget or the economy will be doing in seven years time.

I must say that long-term planning and consistency from this government in economic policy isn't their strong point. The guys who want to bring in a tax cut in 2024 are the same guys who brought you state income taxes. That lasted not seven years but two days as government policy. They brought us the GST to pay for personal income tax cuts. That was a long-lived policy by this government's standards. That lasted six months. Now we're told they've got a plan which lasts for seven years, all on the basis of the Prime Minister being re-elected twice over that seven-year period. I'm not sure the member for Wentworth will be the leader of the Liberal Party in seven weeks, let alone seven years. But he's told us to trust him: they've got a seven-year plan.

But what does that seven-year plan cost? What do the different elements of that seven-year plan cost? Is anybody in the House any the wiser after an hour of question time as to what the seven-year plan costs? Talk about budget responsibility! How dare this parliament ask what the cost is of a plan that we were told, even as early as this morning, we should vote upon immediately? We should vote upon it; no questions asked. They've got a deal for us, they've got a deal for the Australian people, down at Malcolm and Scott's car yard: a tax cut in seven years. But don't ask for any details. Don't ask any tricky questions that involve numbers or dollar signs, because they don't want to tell us. Again, I give the Treasurer this much credit: he knows the answer. He just doesn't want to tell us, because the answer is not particularly convenient.

Of course, there are also tax cuts on 1 July this year. Somebody earning under $37,000 a year will receive $4 a week. Somebody earning between $48,000 and $90,000 a year will receive $10 a week. With wages growth at record lows, penalty rates being cut and somebody working on the weekend losing $77 a week and with private health insurance premiums going up and electricity costs going up, of course these tax cuts are warranted and of course they will be supported by this parliament. They'll be supported on that side of the House and on this side of the House. But I say this, Mr Deputy Speaker, through you: how about you put it to a vote? We want to see those tax cuts implemented and we put to you: why don't you let us vote on those tax cuts? We want to see those tax cuts delivered to the Australian people on 1 July. It would be an act of outrageous cynicism if you held those tax cuts hostage to your hoax of a tax cut in 2024. If you said, 'We won't give you a tax cut in 2018 because we can't get our plans for a tax cut in 2024 through the parliament, because the opposition, that terrible pesky opposition, dares to ask questions about the tax cuts.'

I note they are doing it through a rebate—the low- and middle-income earners tax rebate. I note in passing that, in the budget, that rebate is non-refundable. A non-refundable rebate is being introduced into the tax system. You can get your tax bill down to zero, but you can't get tax refunds after that. It is a principle which is consistent through the tax act, with one exception: dividend imputation. It's good enough for low-income earners and good enough for middle-income earners to have a non-refundable rebate, but for those people on a high incomes, who don't pay income tax, they must get a refundable tax concession. They must get cheques, even if they haven't paid income tax. That says it all about the priorities of this government.

The bravado of the government, which says that they will provide tax cuts in 2024 as their big economic answer, is that they talk of implementing those tax cuts when they won't tell the Australian people the cost and while proceeding with the plan to make Australians work until they're 70. I gave the Treasurer a bit of credit before, saying he would know the answer in relation to the cost of the tax cuts. But that's where my generosity ends, I have to say, because an important part of this debate is the government's plan to make Australians work until they're 70—

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

Rubbish!

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

The Treasurer didn't say it was rubbish last night when he was asked about the plan to make Australians work until they're 70—which has been in the budget papers since 2014 and is still in the budget. The Treasurer was asked last night about the plan to make Australians work until they're 70, and he said—wait for it—'But that doesn't happen for 35 years. That plan doesn't get implemented for the next 35 years.' But it starts in 2025. That's not 35 years away. The Treasurer doesn't know the impact of his own policies. He thinks they're not going to make this policy work for 35 years when, in fact, it is working in 2025 and will be fully implemented a few years after that. The pension age is going up on your watch, and not in 35 years time. It starts going up in 2025. That is not 35 years away. I tell you what, Mr Deputy Speaker: there are a lot of inconsistencies, a lot that is illogical, and a lot of unfairness in this budget. That's been the hallmark of all the budgets since 2014; since that famous Joe Hockey budget in 2014—

An opposition member: That's the one!

That's the one! And it's still alive in 2018. It lives, it lives, Mr Deputy Speaker! And just as we defeated that budget, we will defeat you at the next election. (Time expired)

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

This MPI from the shadow Treasurer refers to the failures of this budget. If he wants to talk about failures, he doesn't need to look any further than the member for Lilley behind him, ably assisted by the member for Rankin. Indeed, he only has to look at his own short and lamentable period as Treasurer to talk about failures. We all recall the well-coined phrase, 'Bowen's black hole'—$16 billion which just disappeared. If the shadow Treasurer wants to talk about failures, he just has to look behind him. Look at his mentor, the member for Lilley, and the six deficits we had when we were promised four surpluses.

Moving on from this pretty shabby MPI, let's look at the budget last night. As someone who worked with the Treasurer on this, I was very pleased to see the reaction to our personal income tax plan. The shadow Treasurer scoffs and laughs at people who will save $10 a week, the 4.4 million Australians who will save about $10 a week—or perhaps at the other 5.5 million Australians who will save some tax starting from 1 July; he might scoff at them—but that is real money in people's pockets. That is real money that's going to help them with their budgets today. But to deal with the longer-term issues and our over-reliance on personal income tax, step two and step three of our personal income tax plan are crucially important. The shadow Treasurer has been squirming all question time, trying to find a way of getting out of supporting these personal income tax cuts. Just fess up: you don't want to support personal income tax cuts. You don't want to support the way we are dealing with bracket creep in step two of the tax plan. You don't want to stop millions of Australians from moving into a higher tax bracket of 37 per cent. After the personal income tax plan is legislated, we know that 94 per cent of Australians will never move above the 32.5 per cent tax bracket—32.5 per cent. For millions of Australians, they won't have to worry about taking on those extra hours, or getting that happy and unexpected promotion that leads to a pay rise pushing them into a higher tax bracket.

The thing that separates our two parties—and the Treasurer spoke a bit about it in question time—is the view of the shadow Treasurer and the Labor Party that, somehow, money that you earn as an individual belongs to the government first and what they generously bestow upon you is something you should be very grateful for, as opposed to the view of the coalition: we believe it's your money and we've got to have a very good reason for taking it off you.

Let's take it to the next election. The shadow Treasurer spoke about the next election. At the next election we will be speaking about personal income tax cuts for middle-income Australians. He is trying to find a reason to squirm out of it. You don't need a reason, shadow Treasurer. You don't need an excuse to squirm out of it. Just be proud and say you don't want to support personal income tax reductions. Just be proud. Don't try and find those faux excuses to squirm your way out of it because you are too ashamed to talk about it. Just be proud that you believe in higher taxes because you've lost the argument, sadly, with your leader. You have lost the argument with the left wing of your party who have basically said, 'No, we want higher taxes and higher spending.'

The other thing we did in the budget wasn't just about backing individuals and backing those who want to aspire for more and to work hard; we are also backing businesses. The shadow Treasurer's questions in question time are very interesting, because his questions in question time indicated that they are planning on reversing our small business tax cuts. Apparently, if you are a small cafe with half a dozen employees, a retail shop with half a dozen employees or a small manufacturer with only a couple of employees, you're somehow going to be treated as an Apple or a Google—a big, bad corporate, as the Labor Party would refer to them. Shadow Treasurer, you can go to the next election promising to wind back those tax cuts for small businesses, because we know small family enterprises reinvest everything that they save in their businesses. They grow their businesses and invest in their staff. Often they treat their staff more like family members than employees. The shadow Treasurer should be very loud and proud that he is going to go to the election saying: 'No, we don't want personal income tax cuts for middle income earners. We want to reverse the tax cuts that have already been legislated in relation to small businesses.' Don't try and find these shabby excuses to vote against them or to reverse these tax cuts; just be proud about what you're doing. The Australian people will punish you for it, no doubt.

The other aspect of this year's budget is our early return to budget balance. The significance of this is the contrast to the Labor Party. It's the contrast to the four years of surpluses that the former Treasurer announced. I think we know who might have written that line: it was the member for Rankin. The member for Rankin must have written that line, because we know he was the key man. The member for Rankin was the member for Lilley's key man in his office. He must have had a hand in that line: 'The four years of surpluses that I announce tonight'. If that happened anywhere else, you'd get turfed out of the party, but the Labor Party put them on the front bench. To go around saying you were Wayne Swan's key advisor in those outstanding glory years of the Swan treasurership gets you a seat on the front bench. That's a pretty good deal.

A different approach was outlined last night: underpromising and overdelivering. That's very important. The Labor Party overpromised. We all remember the $16 billion that was going to be raised by the resource super profit tax. Was that another idea from the member for Rankin? The resource super profit tax then morphed into the MRRT, which didn't raise anywhere near the $16 billion that it was supposed to raise and was going to be spent. This is the credibility of the party that we're dealing with here. A different approach was outlined last night—a different approach where we return to surplus a year early, where we have sober predictions of growth and where we have a sober approach to all projections in the budget. That's enabled us, for the last six budget MYEFO updates to meet or exceed our targets or to meet or exceed our projections. That's how you do it, shadow Treasurer. Last night, I know it was very, very difficult for you because the scene has been set for a very high tax approach, an anti-small-business approach, an anti-medium-income-earner approach—

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Urban Infrastructure and Cities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A very grim view.

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

It is a very grim view of our country. But another aspect of last night's budget was infrastructure. I must say as a Melburnian that $5 billion for the airport rail link—long overdue, I think most Melburnians would say—is a key investment from this government, with $3 billion recommitted for the East West Link, which the Labor Party so shamelessly spent $1.3 billion cancelling, and $1.75 billion for the North East Link. I am being parochial, but there are investments in infrastructure throughout the country: $24½ billion of infrastructure projects the length and breadth of this country.

What we are seeing is a Treasurer and a government that are literally watching every dollar and every cent and reinvesting those into good things. A big portion of it's being reinvested into allowing people to keep more of their own money—low- and middle-income earners will take the lion's share of tax expenditures—and getting back to surplus earlier than expected, again underpromising and overdelivering, which is the hallmark of Treasurer Morrison; making key investments into infrastructure; and so many other important things. A strong economy isn't an end to itself; it enables us to do the things that the Australian people expect. That's what this government's doing, and that's what this budget does in spades. (Time expired)

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

That was the most extraordinary performance, but absolutely nothing will beat the way in which we saw the Treasurer in question time today completely refuse to tell us the total 10-year cost of the company tax cut. Now, why would that be? Why would every single Australian want to know the total cost of the company tax cut? Of course, they don't want to be photographed in here giving a massive number that might be $80 billion, might be $90 billion, might be $100 billion—we don't know how much it is.

Well, I can tell you: the pensioners of Australia want to know. They want to know the number because not only do they know that this budget contains an $80 billion tax cut for the biggest companies in this country; they know that this budget contains the abolition of the energy supplement, which each and every one of these people, National Party members and Liberal Party members, have voted for. They've actually already voted for it twice. You've all voted for it twice—to say that a pensioner couple would be $550 a year worse off. That's what's inside this budget, and that, of course, is helping fund this massive cut to company tax—a cut to pensioners so that a pensioner couple will lose $550 a year. That's what these people are doing. That's what's inside this budget. And that's why this budget can only be described as a cruel hoax to older Australians.

Of course, the shadow Treasurer also highlighted the one big zombie from 2014-15 that still lives—it's still alive; it's still in this year's budget—and that is that the age pension age is going to go up to 70. This lot over here are ashamed of it—a bit like they're ashamed of telling us the total value of their company tax cuts. They're so ashamed of it that, since the last election, they haven't brought this legislation back into the parliament. They actually know they won't get it through the parliament. They might get it through here because all these lemmings will vote for it, but it won't get through the parliament because Australians know it is unfair.

This lot don't have the courage to bring it in here, but they keep it in the budget, so the level of the surplus they hope to get to is actually a fairytale. You count a huge change—the increase to the age pension age—that actually isn't going to get through the parliament, that you haven't even had the courage to bring in here. How on earth is it fair? And I'd say particularly to those of you who represent farmers: I know there are members of the National Party who don't agree with this policy, and they should have the courage to actually stand up and say so. They know that there are farmers who cannot possibly work until they're 70. There are tradespeople who can't work until they're 70. There are nurses who can't work until they're 70. That is why this is an unfair policy. This lot are only keeping it in the budget because they need it to help pay for an outrageously unfair cut to company tax. That is why they're keeping it in the budget. They've got an $80 billion cut to company tax, and Australians are going to have to work longer to help pay for this huge largesse to the top end of town.

Australians have worked all of you out, particularly older Australians. They do not agree with working until you're 70. They know it's unfair. They do not agree with a cut to the energy supplement, which is just a straight cut to the pension. That is what is in this budget: a cut to the pension. You are cutting the pension by $14 a fortnight. That is what is in this budget.

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

When does it start?

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

When does it start? We have no idea. Of course, it's not just the pension they're cutting; they're also cutting Newstart. The people who are on the lowest incomes in Australia— (Time expired)

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

It's 20 to four, it's a Wednesday afternoon in May and it's a post-budget MPI. I've got that strange feeling we've seen it all before. To top it off, the member for Jagajaga is scaring the heck out of older Australians. She's talking about cutting taxes and removing supplements that were to pay for a carbon tax that no longer exists. She's working in that murky, grey area of half-truths. The irony of her statement about older Australians working until they're 70 is that older Australians now have a job, younger Australians now have a job and middle-aged Australians now have a job because of the policies of the coalition government. We have the lowest rate of unemployment for some time. While the members of the Labor Party are trying to create anxiety and chaos and while there is gnashing of teeth and slashing of wrists in this place, out in the wider realms of Australia, there's a degree of calmness because they know that they have a government that is in control. They know that we've just seen a budget that will provide a platform for Australians, as individuals, as small businesses and as companies, to do the best that they can. The Labor Party like to find someone who can achieve, so they can shut them down or tax them. This budget is enabling people to take charge of their own lives and get on with things.

In this budget we've touched on things that are important to the people of Australia, and I'll go through some of the budget measures for my part of the world. We've recognised the tax relief, and 57,185 of the taxpayers in the electorate of Parkes will get some relief from paying tax in the 2018-19 financial year. We're going to see more high-level aged-care packages because of the importance of giving our most valued citizens, our older Australians, the care, the nurture and the support they need to stay in their own homes. We are encouraging young people in rural areas to participate in tertiary education by reducing the guidelines around parental income so that more people can access youth allowance because they will not be put out because of their parents' income.

We're looking after rural health with $550 million through the Stronger Rural Health Strategy, which will mean the Murray Darling Medical School. In the city of Dubbo, Sydney university will have a facility where you can do end-to-end degrees in medicine and go on to do specialisation in medicine. Coupled with the $25 million that was in the last budget for the cancer centre, we will see doctors being trained as oncologists in Dubbo in the near future with the facilities that are there. These are important things in the day-to-day lives of people in rural Australia.

Roads of Strategic Importance will provide $3.5 billion so that we can tackle some of the pinch points. Sometimes the first mile is the most difficult mile in getting produce to market, tourists to a destination or kids to school. With Roads of Strategic Importance, several councils will be able to work together, come up with a project and combine to do something that will grow the economy and be of benefit. The return of the Stronger Communities Program will provide small grants for sporting organisations and community groups so they can put some money into their facilities. A couple of thousand dollars can mean that the community doesn't have to spend days selling sausage sandwiches to make money.

There is the Building Better Regions Fund. We're just about to see, from a previous round, the Bourke small animal abattoir. There will be over 200 jobs in the country town of Bourke, with many of those in the Indigenous community, to process feral goats for the international market, partly funded by the federal government. That program can continue. This government is focusing on what matters to the people of Australia. We're not getting caught up in the campaign— (Time expired)

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

As we learned again in question time today, the Treasurer is not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed, but I think that even this Treasurer would have regretted beginning his speech last night about the budget by asking the Australian people: 'What have we achieved; what are we going to do next; and what's in it for the Australian people?' I'm happy to inform the Treasurer. What has he achieved so far? He's doubled the debt in this country from $175 billion to $350 billion on his watch. What is happening next? They're going to give at least $80 billion to big multinational corporations and $17 billion to the big banks. And what's in it for the Australian people? Cuts to their hospitals, cuts to their schools, cuts to their pensioner energy supplement and cuts to their TAFE. The list goes on and on and on.

You'd have to be pretty spectacularly out of touch to expect a big pat on the back for a budget which cuts the pensioner energy supplement at the same time as it gives a $17 billion tax cut to the big four banks. You'd have to be spectacularly and stupendously out of touch to expect a round of applause for a budget which takes money from a pensioner in the suburbs and gives it to one of the big banks in the dock at the royal commission right now, where we're seeing all the rorts and rip-offs being uncovered. It says it all about those opposite.

The budget last night had two main political objectives for those opposite on the eve of an election. The first one was to try to make the Australian people forget all of the pain that has been inflicted on them over the last five years and over the last four budgets—all the damage that has been done to our social fabric and to our hospitals and schools over the last four budgets. Last night was all about trying to make people forget about all of that. We saw an unedifying spectacle from the Treasurer, who wants to claim all of the credit for the fact that the global economy is in the best condition it's been in for a decade. He wants to claim credit for the economies of the world improving so substantially that they have delivered to him $40 billion in extra taxes and charges in this budget.

Despite that $40 billion in extra money—free money that the Treasurer got courtesy of the upswing in the global economy—we've still got the old cuts of $17 billion from schools, $700 million from hospitals, and the pensioner energy supplement. Remarkably, despite $40 billion just showing up, rolling through the door and landing at the Treasurer's feet, we've now got new cuts: $270 million pulled out of TAFE, and we know how much damage that will do; and $127 million pulled out of the ABC, the public broadcaster, to satisfy some kind of petty, vindictive political vendetta on that side of the House. The list of cuts goes on and on and on.

Despite this $40 billion which has shown up at the Treasurer's feet in this budget, we still have record debt in this country. Net debt is twice what they inherited from us. Gross debt has only ever crashed through half a trillion dollars under one government ever in the history of Australia: this government. It is at half a trillion dollars every year for the next 10 years. It will be higher in 10 years than it is today, and they want a round of applause for this rubbish that they delivered last night, despite all this new revenue.

The surplus for 2019-20 is $2.2 billion, and that includes $3½ billion for an accounting trick which brings tobacco tax forward a year into 2019-20. Without changing tobacco tax, there wouldn't be a surplus in 2019-20. It's also based on the zombie measures that the member for Jagajaga mentioned, which won't pass the parliament. It's based on some very optimistic assumptions about wages. The list goes on and on and on. The whole budget is built on an assumption that the global upswing is permanent, which is a very dangerous assumption. We've seen Liberal governments give permanent tax cuts on the back of temporary spikes in revenue. We know how that movie ends, and it doesn't end well.

Despite all of this, they want us to sign up now to a set of income tax cuts when they won't tell us how much those income tax cuts cost. They want the centrepiece of this budget to be an enterprise tax plan where they won't even mention how much it costs over 10 years—the enterprise tax plan which dare not speak its name. They want us to sign up to all this despite record debt on their watch. We support tax cuts for 1 July, and everyone understands that beyond that we'll be fairer across the board. We'll be more responsible as well. We'll provide relief to those we represent and those who need it most.

Lucy Wicks (Robertson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to rise to address this MPI on the 2018 budget, because it's a budget which shows how this government is delivering on our plan for a stronger economy to create jobs and guarantee essential services that we all rely on. There's already been a very positive response to the Treasurer's speech last night. Our local paper, the Central Coast Express Advocate, has the headline 'Oldies, low-mid income earners winners in federal budget' for our region. This is true, but it's only part of the story.

In summary and for the benefit of those members opposite, here's how our plan is building a stronger economy. First, we're delivering lower, fairer and simpler taxes. Second, we're backing businesses to invest and create more jobs, especially small and medium businesses. Third, the budget is guaranteeing the essential services that we all rely on, like schools, hospitals and Medicare, and supporting older Australians. Fourth, we're keeping Australians safe, including safeguarding our borders. And, fifth, we're ensuring that the government lives within its means, with a forecast return to a modest budget surplus in 2019-20 and a projected surplus of $11 billion in 2020-21. This is something that members opposite did not achieve during their time in government. These are signs of a strong budget—a surplus, something that members opposite did not achieve during their time in government. These are signs of a strong budget, which I've already been talking about with my community across the Central Coast. Importantly, almost 60,000 taxpayers in the Robertson electorate will receive a new offset of up to $530 a year to help reduce cost pressures on household budgets.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Members will be quiet.

Lucy Wicks (Robertson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What this means, for example, for a shop assistant on $45,000 working at a local store is that they will have an extra $440 in their pocket from the budget year onwards, with an extra $3,380 in their pocket over the first seven years of the tax plan as the tax relief increases.

Local residents across the coast are already starting to respond to the budget news. Selwyn from North Gosford said to me, 'It took a while, but it was worth the result.' Trish from Umina Beach and Fred from Woy Woy both wrote to thank the government for our support for older Australians.

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

Did they?

Lucy Wicks (Robertson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They did, and many others besides. As well as guaranteed record funding for Medicare and hospitals, the government will boost financial security for older people on the Central Coast and across Australia, helping those who want to be able to work longer and giving them more choice in their care. We'll also protect people from Labor's unfair retirement tax. Elizabeth at Gosford welcomed the tax changes and said it gave flexibility to individuals and families. But it was Patricia who said it pretty well. She said: 'I appreciate a government which is focused on a good healthy growing economy by not putting us in more debt and working towards reducing our debt.' Patricia said, quite rightly: 'People seem to forget when we have a Labor government—they enjoy all the things offered but with no thought to the consequences of overspending. One can't run a successful household or business budget by spending more than one has and not planning for the future.'

Finally, we've heard from businesses and their representatives, such as Rod Dever, President of the Gosford/Erina and Coastal Chamber of Commerce. Rod said today that the chamber is supportive of the budget and many of the financial opportunities it presents for the taxpayers and businesses alike in our region. One of the opportunities presented is the $20,000 instant asset write-off, which is continuing for another year to help small business invest in new equipment. Well over 1,000 local businesses in my electorate of Robertson have already benefited from this popular measure.

The budget also builds on our significant previous infrastructure investment on the Central Coast, which includes $10 million to help deliver Gosford's long-awaited world-class Regional Performing Arts and Conference Centre. The council has recently confirmed that the former Broadwater Hotel on Mann Street is the preferred site. This is great news. Together with funding from the New South Wales government and council and the support of our arts community, it will be a fantastic cultural venue, of which we can all be proud. We're also delivering $7 million towards a new regional library and learning and development centre in Gosford, and a landmark Central Coast Medical School and Health and Medical Research Institute—an $85 million project with the New South Wales government and the University of Newcastle.

The Somersby industrial estate, Banjo's Skate Park and the Terrigal Trojans clubhouse were all confirmed in the budget, along with roads funding for the Central Coast Council through the Roads to Recovery program and our election commitments, including the upgrade of Oceano Street at Copacabana. We are on track with our commitment to continuous mobile coverage on trains and a New South Wales business case to investigate faster rail for commuters, and I will have more to say about this exciting project soon. (Time expired)

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing and Mental Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It appeared from question time today that the government wants to hide so many figures from its budget. It didn't seem very proud of it today. Clearly, when it comes to aged care, it shouldn't be proud, because there's not one new cent for aged care in this budget. Despite what the government said in the speech last night and despite what the government continued to say in question time today, there is not one new extra dollar for aged care in Australia from yesterday to today. We have the government come in here and talk about $80 billion in tax cuts for big business. Even though they won't tell us what the number is, they want us to vote for it. But they're happy to come in here and pretend that they're giving new money to aged care, particularly to home care packages.

I and my colleagues on this side have been calling for the government to do something about the wait for aged care home care packages for over a year. We could see the waitlist growing and growing and growing and, quite frankly, an additional 14,000 packages over four years does not cut it when there are 105,000 older Australians sitting on that waiting list today. They are not going to get these packages any earlier because of this budget, and the government should stop pretending that they will. They should stop pretending that this is going to provide the packages any earlier. The wait time for these packages at the moment is over 12 months. I've got examples of people contacting me who have been waiting longer than that. This budget is not going to help that waiting list.

In six months last year that list grew by 20,000. There were 20,000 people added to the waitlist. After pressure from us, the government said: 'We'd better do something about it. We'll put on 6,000 new packages.' The waitlist is still 105,000. What does the government think is going to happen in the next four years when it adds only 14,000 new packages? How long does the government want this waitlist to grow? When it claims it has got $40 billion in new revenue and when it can afford to give $80 billion in tax cuts to big business, you would think it could do something about the home care waiting lists that it talks about and pretends that it's going to help older Australians with. It's not okay to play this cruel hoax on older Australians and pretend that they're going to get home care packages sooner and pretend that you've spent more money in aged care when you have not. It is absolutely not okay.

They seem to want to hide a few figures, as I said earlier. In the Senate in question time today we asked some questions about these home care packages. In particular, we asked the government about the waitlist. We had Senator Bridget McKenzie deny that 105,000 people are waiting on the waitlist, despite Treasurer Morrison saying on radio today that there are indeed 105,000 people on the waitlist. Never mind, I'm sure they'll work it out. That interview today was really interesting because Sabra Lane, on AM, actually took the Treasurer to task about the waitlist, and quite rightly, because it is a hoax. She asked him about the waitlist and how this is actually going to help. He had to admit that there's more work to be done. Of course there's more work to be done, Treasurer. There seems to be plenty of money for big business but no new money for aged care.

I'm just astounded that they continue to come into this House and the other place and pretend that there's new money for aged care, and pretend to older Australians, their families and their carers that somehow the aged-care package they're waiting for is going to turn up sooner, because it's not. It's not. It is just unbelievable. Today, when we asked a question about how many residential aged-care places they are going to cut to fund this, they wouldn't answer it. They wouldn't answer it. They don't want people to know how many residential aged-care places they are going to cut to juggle the deckchairs on the ship. People are not going to get services any sooner, because 14,000 over four years is not going to be enough. Now they want to cut residential aged-care places to pay for it. That's what they are doing in this budget. Older Australians will not be conned by this government's cruel hoax of a budget. I will continue to lobby every day for the older Australians on that waitlist.

Llew O'Brien (Wide Bay, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to speak on the magnificent 2018 coalition budget. What a great budget it is. Doesn't it just continue the great work of creating jobs and growth that we have achieved so far—a million jobs. I listen to the other side say how lucky we are. Isn't it a coincidence that the better the decisions we make, the luckier we get? Labor wouldn't understand about good economic decisions.

When I came to this place and made my first speech, I said that one of the greatest responsibilities that this generation of members of parliament will have will be caring for our older Australians. That is what this budget does. It absolutely cares for our older Australians. We are looking after that group of baby boomers who are starting to hit the aged-care sector.

Since the last budget, on top of the 14,000 home care packages that were announced last night, we also had 6,000 home care packages announced in the MYEFO. I really want to recognise the amazing work that Minister Ken Wyatt is doing in this place. He has come to Wide Bay on a number of occasions. He has sat down with the aged-care providers, and it's from his coalface experience and inquiries that he's managed to bring together this fantastic news for aged care. The $82 million extra for mental health for older Australians in care is incredibly important. As the minister stated previously, we have the highest rate of suicide in men over 85 and we are doing something to prevent this. We should be proud of these measures. We should also be proud of the 13,000 extra residential places that we have created in the budget. All of this comes from good economic management, which is what we do in the coalition. The centrepiece of the budget for Wide Bay—and Wide Bay has an amazingly good story to tell about this budget—is an $800 million upgrade to the Bruce Highway, which continues on from the fantastic work that my predecessor, Warren Truss, did in delivering section C of the Bruce Highway.

I have had many years of experience with this road. Unfortunately, they haven't been pleasant ones. As a former traffic accident investigator, I was the person who received those phone calls in the late hours of the evening and had to go out and deal with what were awful tragedies. When I came to this place, one of my strongest desires was to see this section of road—and the detailed design and acquisition of the corridor had almost been completed—fast-tracked to be constructed. Because of the wonderful economic management by the Turnbull-McCormack government, we're seeing that brought forward some five years. That means lives will be saved. People who would have been terribly and tragically killed on that road will be walking around and living because we managed the economy well.

The other fantastic news about this budget is that, as always, the coalition is looking after the workers. We are the party of the workers.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Llew O'Brien (Wide Bay, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is never more evident than in us ensuring that we provide tax relief for those hardworking Australians. Whilst the pretend working class on the other side there interjects—and I'm sure they've all done a hard day's work in their life. All of them over there have been hatched out of the union incubator. The party of the workers—what a laugh that is! It's the coalition looking after the workers. It's our $530 tax offset for workers. We like workers. And let's not forget bringing the budget back into surplus. When was the last time the Labor Party did that? It will be 30 years ago next year, which will be the year we actually bring the budget back into surplus. So I'm very proud to be a part of a coalition government— (Time expired)

Andrew Leigh (Fenner, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We've seen many Malcolm Turnbulls over the years. We've seen the Republican Malcolm Turnbull and the Malcolm Turnbull who says that it's 'not the time' to become a republic. We've seen the multicultural member for Wentworth and the member for Wentworth who appoints Peter Dutton. We've seen the member for Wentworth who wanted a Labor Senate spot and we've seen the member for Wentworth who would spend a million dollars of his own money to win an election. We've seen the Q&A member for Wentworth and the member for Wentworth who cuts the ABC. We've seen the member for Wentworth who was in here in 2016 wanting to raise income taxes and the member for Wentworth who was in here saying he was going to cut income taxes. We've seen the member for Wentworth who crossed the floor to support an emissions trading scheme and the member for Wentworth who is presiding over an increase in Australian emissions. We've seen the member for Wentworth who said that there was never a more exciting time to be Prime Minister and the member for Wentworth who struggled to stay awake last night! Now we're seeing the street-spruiker member for Wentworth saying, 'It is time for the closing-down sale—grab a bargain.'

Australia deserves better than this grab bag of a budget. A good budget, a better budget, would invest in Australia's productivity, ensuring we had a good National Broadband Network, increasing infrastructure investments as a share of national income—not falling, as we've had under this government—and making productivity investments, such as properly-funded schools and universities. Today the vice-chancellor of the Australian National University, Brian Schmidt, wrote a letter to the university in which he said:

In the long-term, capped places will mean fewer of our citizens will be able to become the skilled graduates that our nation needs to retain and increase its productivity. As my fellow Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman said, "Productivity isn't everything, but, in the long run, it is almost everything … "

He goes on to talk about how essential education is and how important it is to invest in skills for the future.

A good budget would also tackle the challenge of inequality. It is now at a 75-year high after a generation in which the top one per cent's share has doubled and the top 0.1 per cent's share has tripled, after a generation in which we have seen wages grow three times as fast for the top 10 per cent as for the bottom 10 per cent. But we have seen wages growth stagnating in Australia. From when the ABS began collecting comparable wages data in December 1998 through to September 2013, when the Abbott-Turnbull government took office, wage growth was running at 3.6 per cent a year on average. Since September 2013, wage growth has run at 2.2 per cent on average—that is, a full 1.4 per cent slower. So when a worker on $53,000 a year is looking at their $530 tax cut, they will be saying to themselves: 'This might make up for one per cent slower wages, but I've had 1.4 per cent slower wages ever since the Liberal-National government got into office.'

A good budget would tackle the challenges of risk: the household debt to income ratio at an all-time high, the geopolitical risks that we know our nation faces. Yet we don't have anything in this budget that de-risks the economy, that builds up the social insurance that Australians need. We have in this budget a company tax cut costing $80 billion. Independent economist Saul Eslake talks about the evidence that the government has given to support the impact of company tax rates on wages, and he says:

They've certainly not been able to point to any contemporary or recent examples where cuts in company tax have produced the results suggested by economic theory.

He goes on to say:

It's not at all clear that Australia needs to lower its company tax rate in order to attract more foreign investment—or indeed that if we do lower our company tax rate, we necessarily will attract more foreign investment.

The thing about street spruikers is they are never as good as promised. A 0.1 per cent surplus in 2019-20 could be blown over by a light breeze. As Saul Eslake says, the idea that wages growth will be running at 3½ per cent per annum stretches credulity. The fact is, this is yet another Liberal budget, brought down not by Santa Claus but by the Grinch. And, as always from the coalition: they cut, you pay.

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

I'm very pleased to rise and talk about last night's federal budget. Last night's federal budget was a fantastic budget for people right around Australia. Last night, for those hardworking people in Petrie and right around Australia, we saw tax cuts and lower taxes delivered. We are very proud of that. For those people that are working hard, those couples that are trying to get ahead to pay off their mortgage, to raise their kids, we saw reward for effort—where we will hand back their money. We're looking after the environment. We're guaranteeing essential services. We are able to do all this because of a strong plan that the Liberal-National Party took to the last election, and that was a plan for jobs and growth in the economy.

The Labor Party would have you think these things happen by accident. If you listen to the member for Rankin: 'It's a global upturn; it's all an accident. That's why you have another $40 billion in income this year.' The member for Rankin misses the point that the coalition had a dedicated plan around free trade agreements, around business tax reductions, around defence manufacturing, around innovation and bringing manufacturing back. All of these things we took to the election, and we have seen 400,000 jobs created in the last 12 months—75 per cent are full-time—and one million jobs since 2013. These things don't happen by accident, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Last night's budget was a great budget, because we are rewarding those Australians. We want to see them keep their own money. In Petrie, 66,223 people will receive a tax cut starting in two months time—that is, in the 2018-19 financial year, 66,223 people in Petrie will receive a tax cut. That's a high school teacher earning $75,000 a year who will have an extra $530 in their pocket. A shop assistant in Petrie, someone on a minimum wage of $45,000, will have an extra $440 in their pocket. Yet the shadow Treasurer of this country, the member for McMahon, kicks off this MPI today, and it takes him seven minutes and 30 seconds to acknowledge that tax cuts start in two months. This same shadow Treasurer, the member for McMahon, and the member for Jagajaga don't even know the difference between the retirement age and the pension age, yet they're the ones that voted to put the pension age up to 67. They really are clueless when it comes to that.

Despite the fact that the costs of essential services like education and health go up every year and are increasing this year, the member for Rankin says that they're actually going down. No, they're not, Member for Rankin. Australians remember that 690 days ago, at the last election, the Labor Party said that the government would sell Medicare, yet bulk-billing rates and health investment are up right around the country. We saw massive investments last night in mental health services, which is fantastic. It's really good news. None of this stuff happens by accident. I say to people in my electorate: we're able to do that because of the plan we took for jobs and growth.

Let's look at tax cuts. We know that we want to reduce tax. In the next seven years, starting next year, we want everyone in this country who earns under $200,000—we believe that it's fair for the government to take one-third of your earnings in tax. We want to limit it to one-third. Ninety-four per cent of Australians will pay one-third, 32½ per cent, of what they earn in tax up to $200,000. We think that's fair, and we budgeted for that last night. Why are we reducing business tax for small and family businesses and company tax? They would have you believe that we just give this away. Do you think we like to give tax away for the fun of it? Do you think we come up with a policy in relation to business taxes just to go, 'Let's just give it away.' They use this figure of $80 billion. Why do we give it away? Because we know, and we have evidence from the last 12 months, that jobs are being created. It's all about the people of our electorates. It's all about Australians, and last night's budget delivered in spades.

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

The discussion is now concluded.