Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is with great enthusiasm that I rise today to speak on this matter of public importance introduced to this place by our parliamentary colleague from the Australian Labor Party Senator O'Neill. Thank you very much to the opposition for the opportunity to respond to this matter of public importance.

I feel quit bad for the opposition here. I almost feel like I should give you an opportunity to withdraw this matter of public importance or at least rephrase it. Forgive my impertinence, but did you submit it yesterday before the budget was brought down? I can't believe that you could possibly have read the budget or heard it or listened to it. Did the papers not land on your desk last night? Did you not read them? Did you not listen to the Treasurer when he outlined the details of budget repair and a return to surplus a year earlier than anticipated and improved economic conditions, which I might remind you are certainly no accident. They are the result of prudent economic management. Did you not listen to the Treasurer when he detailed lower, simpler and fairer personal taxes, short-term relief and long-term vision for the removal of the disincentives of bracket creep? Did you not listen to the Treasurer last night when he detailed a laser focus on the important essential services of aged care, life-transforming medicines, medical research and mental health? Did you not listen to the Treasurer last night when he spoke of the details of congestion-busting infrastructure projects that our cities so desperately need?

I can't understand how you could possibly bring a matter of public importance to this chamber that suggested that you didn't, in fact, listen to the budget, that you didn't read the budget papers. Or did you not read the newspapers or the commentators today? I realise that as of today, because of that pesky section 44 of the Constitution, your ranks and resources are severely depleted, but surely that is no excuse for not understanding the budget or for deliberately misrepresenting it. In this case, if it's simply an oversight, I can assume it is only an oversight and not the opposition being deliberately obtuse. You have certainly given the government a terrific opportunity to enlighten the Senate about the true nature of the coalition's budget for 2018.

Senator O'Neill interjecting—

If Senator O'Neill believes this budget is unfair, what on earth would she consider the higher and higher taxes, year after year, promised by Labor to be? I think it was $220 billion at last count. The clock keeps ticking. Taxes on wage earners, on retirees, on investors, on savers—are they fair? Are taxes on homeowners, on wage earners, on retirees and non-investors fair?

Senator O'Neill interjecting—