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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today relating to the 2014-15 Budget.

Once again, today, we see in this chamber those opposite defending their insidious and horrid budget. Some of the questions in respect of what I will touch on today in answers provided by those opposite reflect the position that not only the Prime Minister but also the partners of the coalition have taken with regard to the concerns they have raised about this budget.

It was quite amusing and quite extraordinary to be in the chamber today to hear from the likes of Senator Macdonald when he was, to some degree, probing and questioning the position that the Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann, had taken in respect of the deficit bill that is currently before the chamber.

You only need to reflect, however, on the position that the Prime Minister has taken on this budget. In question time yesterday, in response to a question from the member for Hotham, he said:

We have done precisely what the people of Australia asked us to do …

I am pretty certain, as I go around and talk to constituents and people in general in my state of Queensland, that they did not precisely ask to be lied to, to have their pensions cut, to have their health priorities cut, to have higher education and education cut, and to have a fuel excise put upon them. I would really question why the Prime Minister raised that type of response in question time as of yesterday.

But we do know this is a budget of Liberal-National Party values. It is a budget based on the values where the rich are rewarded, as opposed to the poor being pushed more and more into poverty. We heard, once again, today in questions and in defence by the Nationals here in this chamber of their position on the fuel excise increase. It would pay them to have some intestinal fortitude and to stand up to their partners in this chamber and oppose the fuel excise. You may recall, Mr Deputy President, in this chamber yesterday, my contribution to a debate where I spoke of a constituent of mine, who lives west of Barcaldine. He was complaining to my office about the fuel increase and not being able to afford to go to polo shows anymore. That seems to be a consistent line that rolls out through many emails that I receive in my office. I would also like to refer to an email from a constituent who lives in the Hinkler electorate. He wrote to the member for Hinkler, advising:

… I live in the Hinkler electorate and voted for you at the last election. However since the coalition took office their performance has been less than fair mainly because, of the 2014 budget.

He refers to concerns about other measures and how there are different ways of dealing with the current budget appropriations. He then ends the commentary by saying:

With the skyrocketing costs of energy, water, medical, food, transport, fuel etc. it is becoming increasing difficult for the average family to make ends meet. Give us a break and tax those people, companies and organisations who don't pay tax and who can afford it. The Coalition's voter support may even increase instead of rapidly decreasing since the budget release.

Once again, we find the Prime Minister of this country, saying in a meeting with the US President recently, 'The fuel excise is a carbon tax on steroids.' He actually said to Barack Obama, during the wide-ranging private discussions in Washington that he had, that the fuel excise, which the government announced would increase in the budget, was acting like a carbon price signal.

On one hand, the coalition are wanting to do away with the carbon price but, on the other hand, they are here promoting a fuel excise. I can only imagine that they are claiming it will result in fewer people on the roads and will promote the fact there will be less carbon monoxide rising into the atmosphere. I imagine that is what they are promoting. But it is difficult to get in the heads of a National Party member or a senator and work out what they are really promoting when it comes to these sorts of comments that our Prime Minister made in the US recently.

The last comment I want to make, and I am running out of time, is the effect on the retail sector that has been— (Time expired)