Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy President. Once again, we demonstrated our commitment in terms of education, and part of this bill is to withdraw education funding from the schoolkids bonus. I was saying how we had committed $16 billion to the BER program, Building the Education Revolution, updating facilities in our schools. In schools in my seat of duty, I opened around 135, and we saw science labs, language centres, libraries and classrooms rejuvenated as a result of that funding. I have also spoken many times on this topic. I am very passionate about investing in our next generation, and that is why I am disappointed that this government is scrapping the schoolkids bonus through this bill.

There are 1.3 million Australian families who receive the schoolkids bonus; and, of those, 481,588 children are from my state of Queensland. This bonus is worth $410 a year for primary school students and $820 for high school students. Being a father of three I know how expensive it is to send our children to school. Certainly, many of the parents I spoke to when we launched this bonus were very thankful to the Labor government for assisting them in providing the cost of the bare necessities to send children to school. Mr Deputy President Sterle, you yourself would know the cost of sending children to school. It is a costly exercise but well worthwhile to make sure that children are taken care of in their early years and get a great education.

The schoolkids bonus went towards books, uniforms, shoes, music lessons, excursions, school camps, stationery and school fees. It all adds up, as you would know, Mr Deputy President Sterle. It is always great to receive some sort of benefit from a government that is committed not only to children but also to education. While the schoolkids bonus does not cover all educational costs, it is definitely a helping hand, especially over 12 years of schooling—nearly $7,000 per child in assistance that will now be eliminated as a result of this Liberal-National Party government stripping away the schoolkids bonus. Over four years, this equates to $4.5 billion being ripped away from our families. Does that really seem fair to you, Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle? I would not think so. The government provide a tax break to big mining companies but take money out of the pockets of those who need it the most. That is the flip side of this bill.

Turning to small businesses, this repeal bill also leaves 2.7 million small-business owners worse off, taking away a tax break and ripping away $2.9 billion from small businesses over the forward estimates—hardly a helping hand from the party that says it is the party that supports businesses. We increased the instant asset write-off threshold to $6,500, but this repeal bill drops it back to $1,000. I remember speaking to a copious number of small businesses when we introduced that initiative, and they took advantage of it, as it made sure that they could go out and purchase maybe an additional car. Close friends of mine, Nabil and Awatef Karam, with a florist business in the seat of Lilley, on Sandgate Road in Virginia, went out and purchased some additional refrigeration to keep their flowers viable. They keep them in coolrooms to make sure they do not wither and die in a matter of days. So small businesses like that took advantage of that threshold increase, but now it is going to be dropped back to $1,000. In effect, 110,000 businesses will be affected by this threshold reduction from $6,500 to $1,000.

On 5 November 2013, in The Australian Financial Review, the article 'Business challenges tax changes in MRRT repeal' stated that the Australian Industry Group said the small business asset write-off threshold should not be reduced from $6,500 to $1,000 because it would add an extra administrative burden. On 27 November 2013, Dr Peter Burn from the Ai Group told the Senate Economics Legislation Committee during its inquiry into the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013:

Everyone who has been a small business person knows what a hassle it is to trace, over the life of an asset, the deductions that have been made in previous years and the statutory accelerated depreciation rates and to make small deductions over a number of years. Making a single big deduction in the year that it is purchased is simple. It relieves business of all the paperwork, it reduces the costs they have to pay to their accountants and it gives them more time in their businesses—less money to the accountants and more money for reinvestment.

This is another example of not a union but an employer organisation saying to the government: 'Don't do this. This is a silly thing to do in terms of stripping away and reducing conditions for small businesses.'

But there are other commentators as well who are indicating that this government is on the wrong path when it comes to small businesses. On the same day the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry's Peter Anderson told the committee:

What it does do is provide the essential lubricant for small and medium business people in particular to be able to grow and expand their businesses, and that is access to a greater degree of cash than they otherwise would. And we should not underestimate that, because if they are not getting cash through a measure like this then most of them are having to go out there and borrow on the markets and pay the relevant interest rates and the like on cash and put up further assets as security et cetera. So, it has a beneficial impact not just in providing a mechanism by which they can fund business growth and expansion; it also avoids those businesses having to further mortgage or further put up security in order to access the cash they need for those purposes.

This bill also proposes to delay the superannuation guarantee. You and I know from our backgrounds, Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle, how important the superannuation guarantee is for workers in many of our workplaces. Dating back to the 1987, when it first came into place, the SGC provided three per cent and over the term of a Labor government that increased from three per cent up to nine per cent. We were at a point where we were proposing an increase to 12 per cent, but we know that is going to be put on hold by this government.

So in order for Australians to have adequate retirement benefits the Labor government passed legislation to allow the superannuation guarantee to increase progressively from nine to 12 per cent. As Senator Wong mentioned earlier in this debate, the current guarantee of 9.25 per cent was supposed to increase to 9.5 per cent in July this year. This bill pushes back that increase by two years—or who knows when? It may even be further. Pushing back this increase saves the government almost $1.6 billion, but what does this mean for our young Australians and our working mums and dads? This might seem like a small amount of money to those opposite, but over the working life of young Australians it can mean a lot to their retirement benefit.

Also, low-income superannuation contributions are going to be targeted. If withholding an increase to the superannuation guarantee was not enough, the government is also getting rid of the low-income superannuation contribution. This will affect 3.6 million low-income workers, who will lose a yearly tax refund of up to $500. This will hit the retail and hospitality sectors the most, those that are most vulnerable in our communities and in their working careers and who need this benefit the most. The removal of the low-income superannuation contribution will also have a detrimental effect on 2.1 million women. Already we know that women retire with less in their retirement benefit than men, usually because they take time off from work to raise children. Taking away the super contribution is taking away $500 from a woman's benefit when a significant number of these women are part-time workers with young children. What makes it worse is that once again Mr Abbott is taking from those who need it the most to provide a boost to others who are not struggling financially: 16,000 of the wealthiest people in Australia who have $2 million in retirement savings will receive a tax break on their superannuation earnings. How is this fair?

On the income support bonus, as part of this bill the government is also taking away the income support bonus which provides $250 a year to eligible singles and $350 for eligible couples receiving assistance through the Abstudy living allowance, Austudy exceptional circumstances payment, Newstart allowance, parenting payments, sickness allowance, special benefit, transitional family payment and youth allowance. This cut will save the government $1.1 billion over the forward estimates, but what about the recipients of this bonus who use it for unexpected bills? What happens to them? Once again, we see an example of the Liberal-National coalition taking away from those who need it the most.

In conclusion, I think we have heard enough reasons to sum up why these Labor initiatives should be sustained. They will assist those in our communities who are worse off and need that assistance in harsh times when struggling with circumstances in their lives. Labor's measures assist them throughout their careers and in raising their families. Using the example of the schoolkids bonus, our initiatives help people to raise their children, get a better education and have a better lot in life in the future as they move towards a career.

The Abbott government have all their priorities around the wrong way. They want to take from those who are struggling the most and give to their rich mates. They want to take away taxes on big businesses and make small businesses and low-income workers pay more. They want to take away school assistance from hundreds of thousands of Australian families but give women earning more than $150,000 a year $75,000 to have a baby. How is it that you can tell a woman who earns $60,000 a year that her baby is worth less than someone else's just because the other earns more money? At least our paid parental leave scheme is fair. It provides the same payment to every eligible woman no matter their salary.

The Labor Party has always believed in a fair playing field. Those who work hard deserve a fair wage. Those who study hard deserve the best education. That is why we oppose this bill here today.