Chris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

After that unedifying contribution from Senator O'Sullivan I cannot leave that diatribe unaddressed. Senator O'Sullivan, it is unfortunate that you are leaving the chamber at this point, but I think it is important for you to understand that when the IMF did a study in 2013 about which were the most wasteful periods for government spending in the 50 years to 2013, it found that it was two periods of the Howard government that were the periods of the most profligate spending in Australia's history in that 50-year period. It was former Prime Minister Howard, when the rivers of gold were running in at the peak of the mining boom, who was spending hand over fist. At the end of former Prime Minister Howard's period of government, when he was again spending hand over fist to overcome the electoral poison that was WorkChoices at the time, the IMF also identified that as a period of government that was profligate in its spending. It was needlessly wasteful spending. So I am not going to sit here and listen to Senator O'Sullivan's contributions, which paint a picture that Labor governments have been economically irresponsible. That is not true. The period of spending post the GFC by the Rudd government was not identified by the IMF as profligate spending. I think that needs to be said to place the economic position of the Labor government on the record. I am grateful that Senator Hanson is in the chamber to hear that. I encourage her to look at that IMF report.

The information provided by Senator Brown in her question to Senator Brandis illustrates the twisted priorities of this government. Senator Brandis claimed that he had explained the need for these cuts and he said that they are essential for budget repair. This is plain wrong. Unlike the government, Labor is committed to budget repair. Unlike the government, Labor is committed to preserving Australia's AAA credit rating.

Budgets are about choices, and this government, time and time again, makes the wrong choices: cuts to pensioners, cuts to single parents and cuts to low-income families. First, if the government was really serious about budget repair, they should abandon their plans for the $50 billion corporate tax cut. Handing out cash to big businesses—like the Commonwealth Bank with its $4.9 billion half-year profit, which was announced yesterday—amounts to corporate welfare. I understand that about $7 billion of that $50 billion corporate tax cut would end up in the pockets of the four major banks.

Labor stands ready to work with the government to repair the budget in other ways, such as looking at reforming negative gearing and reforming capital gains tax concessions. Labor has demonstrated its willingness to work with the government to repair the budget, for example, in the omnibus savings bill last year. But budget repair has to be done in a way that is fair. That is the Labor way. This latest bill, which cuts money for pensioners, single parent families and 1½ million people across the board, is not fair. The government's calls for budget repair are hollow. The recent budget update shows that deficits have blown out by $10 billion over the forward estimates, and, since their first budget, the deficit for 2017-18 has blown out tenfold from $2.8 billion to $28.7 billion.

I noted Senator Hanson's contribution and I am somewhat heartened by the fact that, in her opening comments, she indicated that there was speculation about what the position of One Nation would be. I encourage One Nation to have a look at these cuts more closely and I would ask them to stand with Labor to protect pensioners, to protect young people and to protect the—(Time expired)