Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

This evening I had the pleasure of watching, listening and learning as Treasurer Scott Morrison brought down the economic plan for Australia for the next four years and beyond. It lays the path for an election which will take place on 2 July this year. The choice that Australians have could not now be more in contrast: between a government led by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull—a man who was a visionary in his business life prior to politics, a man who is an outstanding leader as Prime Minister of Australia—and the alternative, a gentleman by the name of Mr Bill Shorten, who in a recent statement said, 'If I gain the prime ministership, if I get to lead this country, I will lead it as I have led the union movement.' Those who are in any doubt as to Mr Shorten's track record in leading his union and the union movement generally need look no further than the recent royal commission into union corruption.

There are three platforms upon which the coalition government will go into the 2016 election. They are growth in the economy; jobs, building on the 300,000 jobs that the coalition has created in the time it has been in government; and investment—growth, jobs and investment. But let me point out, to those who might be interested, the fundamental difference between our two political philosophies. The philosophy of the coalition is that of promoting the individual. The coalition asks, and will continue to ask, the individual what it is they want and what is standing in the road to their own personal improvement and progression. We will continue to develop policies that will allow individuals to reach their maximum potential. As opposed to that, our political opponents, the Labor Party, should they win government, will return to the collectivism which has been the principle of the Labor Party since its inception. In other words, the Labor Party will continue to tell people what is good for them and it will get about the process of socialising to achieve it.

I will return for a moment to the first of those three platforms, that of growth. The best predictor of future performance and future behaviour is always past behaviour. It is the only predictor of future performance or future behaviour. When we look at growth, I would point immediately to the excellence of our recent trade minister, Mr Andrew Robb. His time as minister built on a career of some 40 years—and the absolute zenith of his career was to gift to the Australian people not one, not two but three free trade agreements, with three of our best and longest-standing trading partners, being Japan, South Korea and China. Those three free trade agreements are now in place, are already having an amazing effect and will continue to have an incredible effect on this country's economic wellbeing and its employment opportunities well into the next 30 or 40 years.

Whilst it is possible to reflect on the value of the FTAs in goods and commodities, I want just for one moment to mention the question of the value of services in the free trade agreements, particularly the agreement with China. It is the case at the moment, as Senator McGrath knows only too well, that the services sector only contributes 17 per cent of our net export wealth. China, for reasons best known to itself, values highly Australia's services sector—our prudential regulation and our capacity, for example, with services such as health, aged care, architecture, building, construction and mining. If it is possible for us to increase the component of export income for this country from services from 17 to 34 per cent, the value to this country and to the young people—those now in school, going through university or seeking employment in the professions and in the trades—will be massive.

It is the case that the Labor Party has supported the development and the signing of those free trade agreements, and I congratulate and acknowledge the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Wong, for her consideration in the way in which those negotiations have taken place. But I also say that we are moving to the opportunity of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, in which we can open up our relationships further not only with Asia, with countries such as Vietnam, but also particularly with North, Central and South America, because the TPP gives us access to countries such as Mexico, Chile and Peru. You and I, Mr Acting Deputy President Gallacher, participated in a Senate inquiry last year into the potential for Australia's further relationships with Mexico, this year marking, as it does, the 50th anniversary of our relations with that country. I could talk at length about the value to agriculture, to agricultural exports, from the free trade agreements and the TPP, and the value to our mining services sector, because the excellence with which Australia undertakes its mining—its hard rock mining and its oil and gas activities—is known internationally.

I will turn now to the second of those platforms, employment, and focus on one program that was presented to us tonight by the Treasurer in the budget statement, and that is the Youth Jobs PaTH. This absolutely visionary concept that has been developed by the Treasurer and the Minister for Employment, Minister Cash, is a program that prepares, trials and hires young people. I was very proud this evening to hear that some $840 million is being invested towards opportunities for permanent employment for some 120,000 young people under the age of 25 years. This is a program in which the funding from the Work for the Dole scheme can follow a young person into an apprenticeship or an internship so they can work with an employer. The employer will top up that wage and give them the opportunity to develop those skills that we all know are so necessary for a young person to develop employment opportunities. And then, at the end of the process, hopefully—should they have worked themselves into employment—get it. Again, the employer will receive support financially under this scheme, or, in fact, move to a different form of employment—but it is to get them off that shocking process of long-term unemployment, which we cannot afford to have in our country if we are to achieve the enormous benefits of the economic plan for this country as outlined by Scott Morrison this evening.

I turn to the third of those principles: growth, jobs and investment. I talk about overseas investment in this country. We have seen this evening the actions that will be put into place by this government to ensure that those who earn income in Australia, be they Australian companies or offshore companies, will pay tax. But we need that $200 billion of investment that we currently have in the oil and gas sector—principally offshore from my own state of Western Australia, but also Queensland and elsewhere. I talk also about the need and opportunity for investment by Australians. That is why it is so disappointing that Mr Shorten has indicated with his economic team that he will impact severely on negative gearing. The actions of this Labor Party, should they win government, would not only severely impact those middle and other income earners who use negative gearing on property but they would also impact on negative gearing for shares and for business start-ups. In other words, the exact opposite of what we need in this country.

The coalition wants to encourage investment. It wants to back winners. The Labor Party wants to put shackles around them. Of course, added to that insult of reducing negative gearing on existing properties and on other investment forms, the Labor Party, should it win government, wants to add another shackle to investment in business in this country, and that is to double the capital gains tax.

Six points were outlined this evening by Treasurer Morrison, and I want to finish on them: an innovation and science program for start-up businesses; a Defence plan for high-tech manufacturing and technology; export trade deals to generate new business; tax cuts and incentives for small businesses; a sustainable budget for crackdowns on tax avoidance; and guaranteed funding for health, education and roads. I commend this budget— (Time expired.)