Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a debate that we wanted to have during the course of question time so that the Australian public could see this tricky Prime Minister on full display. They pulled a stunt, as you saw, Mr Speaker, and they sought to delay it until we got passed the broadcasting hour. It's a very tricky move by a tricky government. We get that. But the trickiest move is that the Prime Minister has left the chamber and has refused to take part in this debate.

When this Prime Minister went into the last election he said to the Australian people that he wanted greater transparency, that he wanted a brighter parliament and that he would let the sunlight in. None of that has happened. This Prime Minister said to the Australian public, before the election, many things, and the Australian public put faith in him, thinking that, if he was elected, he would undertake what he had promised to do. The fact is that since then the complete opposite has taken place. Is it any wonder that many of the Australian people who have watched the debate over the course of the last almost 10 months have been amazed at the way this Prime Minister has danced away from every commitment that he gave?

When the Prime Minister went into the election, he looked the Australian public in the eye and said that they were working on a plan. The problem is it wasn't the plan the Australian public thought he was working on. They thought he was working on a plan to reduce power prices by $275, because he promised that on 97 occasions. They thought that this Prime Minister, when he was opposition leader, went to the campaign, giving a commitment to reduce their mortgage bill. But, of course, since then, mortgages have gone up on eight occasions, with many more, sadly, likely in the pipeline. They didn't think it was a plan of a hit list of some $150 billion worth of taxes, including, as the Treasurer pointed out the other day, on the family home capital gains tax.

The Treasurer must have commissioned that work when he came into office in May or June just after the election. That's the reality. It doesn't take five minutes to work up the level of detail that we saw last week. If you want to see the true Treasurer of this country, the true member for Rankin, look at his train wreck interview with David Koch on Sunrise and Karl Stefanovic on the Today show. That's when we got an insight into what he was really thinking. Is it the case that the Labor Party support a policy of taxes on people's homes? Would they see the abolition of different tax concessions, including negative gearing? Would they support that in a heartbeat if they thought that they could get away with it? They would do it in a heartbeat. So you saw a little light into the true Jim Chalmers on the Sunrise program, on the Today program. You saw the manufactured Treasurer when he was pushed back out by the Prime Minister to do media within an hour or so.

The reality is that, in this short time, I can't go through all the broken promises of this Prime Minister, but we do have a top 10: no changes to superannuation; franking credits won't be touched; a $275 cut to power prices every year; Australian families would be better off; cheaper mortgages; an increase in real wages; no increase in the tax burden; no industry-wide bargaining; cutting the cost of consultants in the public sector; wage rises for aged-care workers. If you look at what the Prime Minister, both as the opposition leader and now in office, has had to say in a number of interviews, you see that his words condemn his now actions. He said, for example, in this House: 'Let me tell you: you have to earn the trust of the Australian people. If you make a promise and a commitment, you do have to stick to it or you'll be punished."

In relation to superannuation, on ABC's Insiders, Mr Speers asked: 'What about superannuation? Will there be changes to the superannuation rules?' Mr Chalmers: 'Look, we've said about superannuation that we would maintain the system.' He goes on to say, 'Australians shouldn't expect major changes to superannuation if the government changes hands.' That's what the Australian people were led to believe. The Australian public knew that, under the Labor Party, tough times would be ahead—they didn't realise how tough. And it is getting tougher over the course of this calendar year. The Australian government, led by Mr Albanese, is making it harder for families.

What did the Australian Prime Minister say about these matters in a press conference in May of 2022? He was asked: 'Does Labor commit to the current super arrangements for self-funded retirees and other superannuants?' The Prime Minister: 'We've said we have no intention to make any super changes.' Now, that is tricky at best, because we know, as I pointed out before, that the now Treasurer was drawing up the hit list before they came into government in May of last year and commissioned the work from Treasury immediately. So he was either making that statement knowing about the work that the Treasurer was undertaking, or somehow the Treasurer was off on a frolic of his own. I don't think that is the case.

Neil Mitchell said to Anthony Albanese on 31 January 2022: 'Okay, superannuation—any changes?' It couldn't have been a clearer question. Mr Albanese: 'We've not planned for any changes on superannuation.' Tricky at best. You've had Stephen Jones, the Assistant Treasurer, out there talking about seeing people's money that they've worked hard for and put into a superannuation fund as a 'big honeypot'.

The difficulty here is that the Australian public heard their Prime Minister and they trusted this Prime Minister in the run-up to an election, and every day since, this Prime Minister has ducked and weaved the truth. This Prime Minister has never once repeated the 97-occasions-repeated promise to the Australian public that he would reduce power prices by $275. A 37-year-old today is making investment decisions on their retirement in 30 years time; they're taking financial advice today about the settings around superannuation. There will be projections on adequacy into their retirement. Do you think the Treasurer got that today in question time? Absolutely he did not.

So, when a prime minister and a treasurer of this country break trust with the Australian public, it's very hard to regain it. If it happens on one occasion, maybe the Australian public could cut some slack—if it were inadvertent, if the circumstances had changed. But, when you look at the weasel words used by the now Prime Minister and the Treasurer in the run-up to the election, you know it was constructed in such a way that it could be broken when they got into government.

So now we have the list of the top 10, with many more to come. Because what we know about Labor is that they always tax. They always spend. And, when they run out of money, they always come after yours. This Labor government is no different to any of its predecessors. We will hold this bad government to account, because this Prime Minister has broken every promise with the Australian public.

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

Is there a seconder for the motion?

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion. They have left the chamber. They are not here. They can't face the music. When you stuff up, you still get marks for showing up, and they will not show up. This is a dishonest prime minister who deceives the Australian people day in, day out. The Prime Minister is breaking promises he made hundreds of times before the election and ramming policies through this parliament that he didn't even mention once.

Let's go through those promises: a $275 cut to power bills, promise broken; cheaper mortgages, promise broken; lower inflation, promise broken; a plan to bring down the cost of living, promise broken; no changes to super, promise broken; franking credits won't be touched, promise broken. This is a prime minister who could not name the cash rate in April but thought he could promise Australians cheaper mortgages in May. This is a prime minister who promised to bring down your power bills 97 times before the election but has been allergic to the number 275 ever since. Deceitful, deceptive, dishonest—this is a prime minister who is allergic to the truth. He is slippery, he is sneaky, he dodges and weaves his way through the commitments he made to the Australian people and he refuses to be straight with them about the broken promises that he cannot deliver.

This is not the leadership the Prime Minister promised. He said he would leave no-one behind, but he is leaving everyone behind: small businesses, left behind; workers, left behind; mortgage holders, left behind; renters, left behind; retirees, left behind; any single Australian who has been to the supermarket this week, left behind.

In the Liberal and National parties, we're here for the small businesses of this great country, we're here for the workers across Australia, we're here for the renters in our capital cities, we're here for the retirees who just want the money they have saved over decades to be left alone, we're here for the Australians who are hurting badly when they go to the shops and when they fill up their cars.

This is a prime minister who spends his Sundays campaigning for state Labor instead of campaigning for the Australian people. Day in, day out all this Prime Minister can offer is arrogance. He is utterly incapable of delivering on the promises he made. Yesterday, while the Prime Minister was cracking lame jokes at the New South Wales Labor launch, I visited his electorate of Grayndler. I saw a great second-generation family business, Paesanella cheese—a household name. They produce ricotta, bocconcini and mozzarella. Like many small business owners, Joe's success was based on a passion for making high-quality products. Joe's father arrived as a migrant to this country and brought with him this passion for making cheese, which endures to this day. Joe doesn't need lame jokes about trains and ferries; he needs action from this Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister is fond of using the expression, 'I'll give you the big tip.' Well, Prime Minster, I will give you the big tip—if you were here, where you should be. Stop being a partisan political warrior and start delivering on the promises you made to the Australian people. This is a Prime Minister and a Labor government that are completely detached from reality.

Over the weekend, we heard the member for Sydney and her inspiring daughter bravely articulate their stories. As a woman and a mother, I was incredibly touched by the member for Sydney's story, and I particularly want to praise her daughter. This is a reminder that politicians are humans, too. We're normal people with normal problems. I think the women across Australia would be pretty disappointed that Labor MPs so brutally backgrounded against the member for Sydney's leadership aspirations when she and her family were going through such tough times. When the Prime Minister was asked to reflect on this inspiring story, what was his response? 'I was elected leader unopposed.' There was not an ounce of empathy for his colleague, not a single comment in support of her and her daughter. And what about his foot soldiers on the back bench? One MP said, anonymously, 'I don't understand why she would come out with this today, when we know it's wrong.' How tone deaf. How outrageous. I'll give the Prime Minister another hot tip: this wasn't about whether he was elected unopposed or not; this was about the member for Sydney and her daughter sharing an incredibly brave story. Shame on this Prime Minister.

There's no doubt in the member Sydney's mind that she would've won the Labor leadership in 2019, and looking at the first nine months under this Prime Minister there's probably not that much doubt on anyone else's mind either. This is a shambles of a government. The Treasurer is at war with the Prime Minister over taxing the family home. The stunned mullet of a Deputy Prime Minister is unable to explain Labor's new tax on super— (Time expired)

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the chance for us to be able to have this riveting conversation. Even the seconder couldn't stay on the motion—for the five minutes it was there. When someone becomes Leader of the Opposition—

Honourable Member:

An honourable member interjecting—

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I were them I wouldn't be staying for this debate either to be honest. You have the build-up as to what will be the first policy that a Leader of the Opposition is going to stand for? What's going to be the career defining thing that as leader you say, 'That's the hill that I'm prepared to die on'? Normally we get those in budget reply speeches. We thought that maybe last year we'd get something in budget reply—but nothing, not a single policy. The reason, clearly, that we weren't getting a single policy was that the Leader of the Opposition, to his credit, likes a bit of suspense. He likes a build-up. And the build-up has come all the way to the parliament. Until today when we discover the first policy, the first commitment—if there were ever a Dutton government what would be the first thing that it would do? What would be the legislation that it would implement? What's the first inkling he has given the Australian people as to what he would stand for? The first tax policy that he decides to deal with is people who have more than $3 million in their superannuation account.

Two things happened in the year 2006. First of all, the Leader of the Opposition, in 2006, became the Assistant Treasurer of Australia. The other thing that happened in 2006 was there was a movie called TheOne Percent. The One Percent was a movie from the United States about the one per cent who were the wealthiest in the economy—good on them—and it had interviews with a whole lot of them. It opened up a whole economic debate about whether you're only looking after the one per cent. What we didn't realise was that for the Leader of the Opposition looking after the one per cent was too broad based and he has now gone for the half of one per cent as the hill that he's prepared to die on. The half of one per cent is the big tax policy that he is willing to say he will repeal should there be a change of government at the next election. So for all the sense of wanting to appeal to a broad base of the population, for all the different ways that the Leader of the Opposition might want to say he wants to broaden the base of support that the Liberal Party received the last election, he's decided he has found a pathway, and the pathway is the half of one per cent. It's a funny way to get to a majority but that's the pathway that the Leader of the Opposition has started on.

Let's make clear we have to deal with a trillion dollars of Liberal Party debt. We have to deal with a trillion dollars of Liberal Party debt and it's extraordinary to hear those opposite just think you don't have to deal with it, as though that were not the fastest-growing section of the budget. The interest payments on the trillion dollars of Liberal Party debt are now the fastest growing part of the Commonwealth's budget. And if you're not going to deal with it this way exactly how you going to deal with it? They say they they'll stop various funds but the funds that they're arguing against are largely off budget funds, all of which go to growing the economy in terms of getting manufacturing going in Australia, growing the economy in terms of increasing the stock of housing in this country, growing the economy in terms of having proper investment in clean energy in this country.

All of these things are issues that will grow the economy and give us a greater capacity to pay down the trillion dollars of Liberal Party debt. But make no mistake—the mere fact of this revenue measure is of course not going to do this on its own. Of course there are other areas of restraint that we have to deal with as a government. But this is part of it, and this is something where the Leader of the Opposition is saying he would repeal it. He is promising to take to the next election to deliver money back to half of one per cent of the Australian population, with every dollar of it borrowed. All of it would be borrowed money and would add to the debt that has to be paid back. All of it would add to the interest burden that falls on the Australian taxpayer, and he's willing to do this because people he has to make sure he defends are the half of one per cent of the Australian population.

There are cost-of-living challenges, but when you start with the cost-of-living challenges in Australia you probably don't start with that half of one per cent. You do start with ordinary wage-earners who have needed to get their wages moving. This government brought forward legislation to get wages moving, and those opposite voted no. This government took forward a submission to the annual wage review which resulted in a 5.2 per cent increase for the lowest-wage earners in Australia, and those opposite were opposed to that approach. This government took a submission arguing that people working in aged care deserve a decent pay rise, which has resulted in a 15 per cent pay rise for those workers, helped with the cost of living and helped with what is happening in aged care, and those opposite were opposed to that approach. Their alternative was to say that low wages were a deliberate design feature of the economy. They oppose something as simple as a dollar an hour for the people who are on the lowest wages in this country.

We haven't just dealt with wages but prices as well. But look at the two different approaches. Our approach in the area of health means that now, with cheaper medicines, we've had the first reduction for the average Australian in the cost of the PBS in its history, with PBS medicines coming down from $42.50 to $30. What was their approach? Their approach was they wanted to have a $7 GP tax. And who do you reckon was the health minister when they had the $7 GP tax? Who do you reckon that was? Their approach on wages—make them lower! Their approach on health—make it cost more! Their approach on child care—make it cost more. Starting on 1 July we have cheaper child care, helping around 96 per cent of Australian families, who will be better off. Childcare out-of-pocket costs rose 47 per cent under the last government. In terms of energy price relief, we had a special day of sittings last year to be able to put limits on what could happen with energy prices. And what was their response? Which way did they vote? They voted no.

If those opposite want a debate on the cost of living, bring it on! But I'm really not sure why they're the ones calling for it. The cost of living is about the difference between your wages and the prices. You have a government trying to get prices down and wages up, and you have an opposition with the exact opposite philosophy, who decide the hill they're willing to die on is to fix revenue by opposing a measure—a really modest measure that's still a concessional tax rate, just not as concessional as it is at the moment—for half of one per cent of the population.

But it would be wrong of me to claim that those opposite don't want to do anything about debt and the debt-servicing cost. We've seen their form and we know what their approach was. We all saw robodebt. We know their approach on how to try to get budget numbers down. We saw budget after budget that was been backed in by two things—consistent underspending on the NDIS and robodebt. They went after the people who needed assistance from government the most, and decided they were the ones to target. They went after the people who needed assistance from government the most and decided they were the ones to target. They went after them in a way that was unlawful, and that wasn't enough—that was unfair, and that wasn't enough; that was indecent in the way it was treating people, and their response was to just put out threats of, 'We'll send you to jail.'

The trillion dollars of Liberal Party debt is a challenge for this nation. It needs to be dealt with. But why on earth would an opposition that is doing the exact opposite of what needs to be done on every cost-of-living issue decide to bring this motion forward and when it comes to the budget decide their key issue is, 'Do what you want to people who might otherwise need help,' but defend as the last bastion and the hill to die on the half of one per cent? This suspension is a joke and should be voted down.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion be disagreed to.