Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I inform the Senate that, at 8.30 am today, 10 proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter has been received from Senator Gallagher:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:

That low and middle income Australians are continuing to lose out under the Turnbull Government.

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

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

I rise to speak on the matter of public importance requested by Senator Gallagher today—that low- and middle-income Australians are continuing to lose out under the Turnbull government—but before I turn to those comments, with the indulgence of the Senate I want to place on record my thoughts and prayers for North Queenslanders, particularly those in Bowen, Airlie Beach and Proserpine who at the moment find themselves with roads cut. I want to express our solidarity with those people. I also note with some gratitude that the last time I checked there had been no reports of injury so far from the Whitsunday Islands. I also note the prospect of major flooding of the major rivers north of Ayr to the New South Wales border. I reiterate the very good advice that the state authorities provide: if it is flooded, forget it.

It is quite disappointing that, in a week in which we are discussing and looking at the issue of penalty rate cuts and the inaction of this government in relation to those penalty cuts, we also a see a government demonstrating its twisted priorities by continuing to pursue as its central economic piece of work the enterprise tax plan, which at its heart is a $50 billion tax cut for big businesses and, as part of that, a $7.4 billion tax cut for the major banks and also a very generous windfall for multinational companies. This displays the treatment that this government is meting out to low- and middle-income Australians. We see this every day: a government that fails to act, fails to lead and fails to secure a prosperous future for everyday Australians. A strong middle class is a source of growth, not just a consequence of it.

The Prime Minister's trickle-down rhetoric of tax cuts for the rich, big business and big banks is an impediment to the growth that we need. The living standards in middle Australia have supported our economy in a period when run-away inequality and wealth concentration has destabilised both the economies and the politics of the US and much of Europe. However, we are not immune to such effects. Under the failed leadership of both Prime Ministers Malcolm Turnbull and Tony Abbott, growth, particularly in the middle class, has shrunk significantly. These are the alarming economic facts facing middle Australia: the economy is growing below trend; the unemployment rate has increased and is now close to six per cent; and underemployment is at record highs. There are fewer full-time jobs than there were a year ago and wages growth is at record lows. What is the government's response to these issues? Backing in penalty rate cuts that impact those on low and middle incomes.

I have already said in this chamber today that I agree with the assessment of the Treasurer that low wages growth is one of the greatest threats to our economy. If one accepts that as a premise then the attacks on the take-home pay of 700,000 low-income workers would have to be a disaster for economic growth for the future, as well as being a disaster for the people affected by those cuts. The 2011 ABS census confirms that workers in the affected industries are amongst the lowest paid in Australia. These cuts to wages severely impact those who are struggling most to make ends meet, particularly students and others who rely sometimes solely on weekend penalty rates. I note that the state Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations in Queensland has issued some figures as to the number of employees in parts of Queensland who are award-reliant retail and hospitality workers who work on a Sunday. We can see that in Cairns there are something like 2,300 workers; in Townsville, 2,000 workers; in Mackay, 2,000 workers; in Fitzroy, 2,100; in the outback of Queensland, 787; in Wide Bay, 2,500; in the Darling Downs-Maranoa, 1,270; in Toowoomba, around 1,200; on the Gold Coast, 7,400; and on the Sunshine Coast 4,230. These are the people who are behind the statistics on the impact of these penalty rate cuts.

In April 2015, the McKell Institute conducted a study as to the economic impact of penalty rate cuts in Australia's retail and hospitality industries. The findings of that report were not surprising and predicted the harmful effects of the Fair Work Commission's decision. They found that the cuts to penalty rates in these industries would:

… result in a commensurate reduction in the disposable income of those workers, leaving less money available for spending on local goods and services.

The McKell Institute conducted studies following the decision and found that the lowest income earners who rely heavily on penalty rates would be most adversely affected. In their February 2017 report, the institute found full-time and part-time employees in the retail industry not covered by an enterprise agreement would lose at least $72.90 per eight-hour Sunday shift. Casual retail workers would face losing a minimum of $45.56 per Sunday shift. In 2016, a report entitled Choosing opportunity identified one of the many challenges associated with being a low-income worker, such as owning a home and being able to afford basic services and amenities in the near stagnant wage growth of recent years. The Prime Minister suggested that penalty rates could be offset by normal wage increases over time. The Australia Institute calculates that, at current wage growth rates, it would take 17 years until higher wages for retail workers would offset the damaging consequences of this decision.

Another issue where the Turnbull government has failed low- and middle-income workers is in relation to housing affordability, which is a key factor when it comes to inequality. But before I touch on that point, I would also like to quote from a recent article that goes behind the statistics to talk about the people who are affected by these penalty rate cuts. I note a recent news.com.au article, which states:

A Brisbane woman, who did not want to be named, is “stressed” knowing her pay packet is dwindling.

“I work for a fine dining restaurant in the Brisbane CBD (and) it’s stressful knowing that you’re going to be doing the same amount of work, but taking home less pay,” she said.

There are also other workers mentioned in that article. These workers are entitled to feel that this government has forgotten all about them, that they are collateral damage when it comes to this government's twisted priorities.

With respect to housing affordability, while finance to housing investors has rocketed up by more than 27 per cent over the last 12 months, low- and middle-income Australians are increasingly being locked out of the Australian dream of owning their own home. First home buyers in the market are still at near record lows. While the government continues to talk about housing affordability, there has been little or no real action over the last 12 months. All the while, house price growth in Sydney has been running at 19.2 per cent and in Melbourne at 14.2 per cent. Demographia's 13th annual International Housing Affordability Survey also showed that Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Brisbane and Perth are in the top 20 least affordable housing markets.

While ordinary Australians are being locked out, the government seems to be using this issue as a way to wage factional wars, with one side considering capital gains tax reform and the other being ideologically opposed to tax increases. One side embraces the silly idea of accessing superannuation to make a deposit and the other side, wisely, tries to rule it out. It is hard to know what the government's housing affordability policy actually is, as it seems to change with every passing day.

The Turnbull government has turned a blind eye to the issues of inequality facing our nation. Whether it is cuts to penalty rates or housing affordability, the Turnbull government has failed low- and middle-income Australians.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the matter of public importance. It is always good to come in here and clear the sinuses, to get a lecture from the Australian Labor Party on how to manage the economy of this country. These are people, almost to the last person—these shop stewards and trade union delegates—who made their way into this place not on merit, not on demonstrating their knowledge of how to run a business or how to make a contribution to an economy but, rather, they were just like marbles with numbers on them coming out the end of a garden hose. 'Who's next?' they say when a vacancy comes up.

Honestly, if you put your hand in your pocket and found a 10-pound note you would have someone else's pants on because you have devoted your life, you have created a skills base, where you wait for real people to develop economies and businesses. You stand there, almost at the gate of the factory, waiting to prey upon them. You do not want the employers to have any advantage. You represent a trade union movement that, quite corruptly, goes and gets commissions, most of it for the benefit of the trade union.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O'Neill, on a point of order.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, I am not sure whether the senator was referring to you. I doubt he would have been referring to any particular person sitting on this side; nonetheless, he should refer his remarks through the chair.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O'Sullivan, I would remind you to make all your comments through the chair.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me clear it up for the senator. It is a very communistic approach. My remarks can be shared, equally, amongst you all. If one of you wants to take a bigger load than the others you just put your hand up and let me know. The fact of the matter is, it offends me when I come in here and hear members of the Australian Labor Party talk about the economy.

If only the arrow were black and went up instead of red and going down. You would be heroes. You took a balanced budget left by Prime Minister Howard that had $60 billion in reserve and zero debt. That is a statement you will never hear again in your lifetime, Senator Katter—through you, Madam Acting Deputy President—even if you live to be 115. You left a debt of $300 billion behind. You borrowed three hundred thousand million dollars and frittered it away. You want to talk about middle-income Australians losing out, but all they got out of your government—some of them, not all of them—was some pink batts up in the ceiling. They got nothing else whatsoever.

For you to come in here and tell us how to run an economy—you wouldn't have a clue! None of you have ever employed anyone, except when you got the payroll out of some consolidated revenue of someone else's money, like a trade union movement. That is the only time you have ever employed anyone. You have never lain awake—

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O'Neill, do you have a point of order?

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. The honourable senator continues to ignore the reality that he should be making his comments to the chair. I would like to make it a debating point but I will not.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank you for that, Senator O'Neill. Senator O'Sullivan, I would remind you to make your remarks through the chair.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, you know when you're on the money when every minute or so one of them bobs up with some nonsense sort of an interjection to stop you getting your flow on. Through you, Madam Acting Deputy President, there is not one of these people here who has ever lain at home at night worrying about their business mortgage, worrying about how they are going to employ someone. This is reflected in their economic management skills.

They have not even had the basic experience of small business to know things like tax cuts. Those tax cuts that will go to these businesses—I think it is under $10 million—are going to be reinvested. Every cent of that will be reinvested by employing more people or giving better employment services to those who are already employed, giving them confidence that their jobs are going to continue because their bosses are productive. The only way governments can create revenue is to borrow more money, increase taxes and charges or reduce services. There is no other pathway. The only way out of this Labor quagmire that you left us, this $300 billion debt, is for business men and women out there to hit their straps and generate incomes, creating good profits on which to pay their fair share of taxation. That is the only way out of this quagmire—creating businesses that will employ more people.

Let me talk about some of the imposts on businesses. Let me tell you about the impact the Labor Party still has today. They send out these gorillas, knuckles dragging on the floor, to corruptly stand over businesses to take money. Some of them spend it on prostitutes and boats for themselves, others put extensions on their own homes. These are trade union delegates, these are the mates of the Australian Labor Party, these are the people who fund this political franchise, over here, of nearly $200 million. You know that, don't you, Senator Williams? You only mentioned it a bit earlier. It was $198 million, I think. You were a student of it.

You have taken $198 million off these corrupt individuals in this organised crime unit so that you can continue to come here and protect them—not only to protect them but to create an environment where they can continue to attack—

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O'Neill, do you have another point of order?

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It will not surprise you, Madam Acting Deputy President, that I need to make the same point of order. I do draw your attention to the rather outrageous claims that the senator is now making and attributing to people here.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are two issues there. The second issue is a debating point. I have been listening very carefully to Senator O'Sullivan. You were a bit slow to your feet, and I did let it go, because I took it as a rhetorical question to another senator, rather than a direct issue. So there is no point of order.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me be more specific. The CFMEU, which I think is accepted by everybody to be an organised criminal outfit, with 114 of them before the courts for serious criminal offences in relation to—

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O'Neill, another point of order?

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is an outrageous accusation to make to an entire organisation. It is one thing to correctly describe people who have broken the law and are before the law, but that is just way too far.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take that again as a debating point.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The senator should take care with—

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O'Sullivan, I will just remind you to take care with your language, but that was a debating point, not a point of order.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I compliment Senator O'Neill. She is definitely earning her donations from the trade union movement today. Where does that money come from? You have to understand that a large part of that, as disclosed by the commission, has come from industry. It has come from businesses. It has been corruptly obtained. We have heard of these secret commissions. This is money that would otherwise be spent by that company in the operation of its enterprise, in the employment of people and in the provision of services. But no. So what happens? Do you on the other side understand what trickle-down economics is? I doubt that you do, but here is what happens. Those are cost outlays that those companies have to meet, despite the fact that it is a corrupt payment. Where does it go? You want to talk about housing affordability? I will tell you what it does. It trickles down onto the job site. It trickles all the way down onto the job site, because these enterprises still want to make a profit for themselves. They still want to remain viable.

So you have got this trade union movement up one end, ripping the heart out of industry—some estimates suggest that the productivity losses are in double digits, that the additional costs, particularly in commercial construction, are in double digits. That is money that would remain in the cycle. When you make a profit in business—and fortunately I know a thing or two about that—you reinvest it in yourself. You start off with five employees. When you are more profitable, you grow your business. Most people, at least, grow their business; they are ambitious to grow their business. You employ 10 people. You employ 15, 20, 30, 40, 50, 100 people. Every cost that you have impacts on the viability of your business and impacts on your ability to employ people. So every red cent stolen or corruptly taken by the trade union movement, particularly in the construction industry, particularly the CFMEU—one of your biggest donors and a donor of our friends over there; they are sitting quietly but perhaps that might knock them out of their slumber and they might have something to say—is money that comes directly out of industry and commerce in this country. That is why, to the extent that there is any impact on low- and middle-income Australians, it is because it has been ripped out by these inefficiencies created by the trade union movement.

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

What a joke!

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. Through you, Madam Acting Deputy President: I saw you get up, Senator Ketter, trying to name places. You did not even pronounce some of them properly, because—let us get down to the facts now—every Labor senator in Queensland is based in Brisbane or the Gold Coast. That is where they are. They have never seen a kangaroo. They have never dodged a kangaroo. They are nowhere to be seen in the bush. There is a reason for that: there are no votes for them up in the bush. I can tell you that now. What we have got is—

Senator McAllister interjecting—

No. These are the impacts. What you are trying to do is impact on businesses—in my case, out in provincial Queensland, in the bush. We saw you last week. I have got to tell you I found it incredible to sit over here and look at the Australian Labor Party sit over there and vote with their coalition partner, the Greens, to try and bring jobs in the black coal industry to an end. These are your workers. These are the people that you built the Australian Labor Party on—coalminers. There are 14,000 jobs already gone in Central Queensland, in the Bowen and Surat basins, and you sat over there to bring that to an end. There are thousands of businesses, Senator Ketter, that will not remember you for your kind words today as you talked about the impacts in those communities and tried to blame them on the government. They will remember you for your vote a week ago, when you voted to get rid of their remaining jobs in the black coal industry. That is what they will remember you for. And, just in case they nod off and forget, I will be there to remind them at every single opportunity. The Australian Labor Party as we currently know it is no longer the Labor Party of the sixties and the seventies or indeed before that, since their formation. You are no longer the party of the workers. To come in here and talk about the economy in the form that you have demonstrates to them that you are ignorant of economic issues. You made this problem. You created this problem that we have in the current environment.

My story is the NDIS. I think that all governments should be ashamed of themselves for not having introduced a national disability insurance scheme 40, 50 or 60 years ago. It should have been enshrined in the Constitution almost. And I give full credit to the Australian Labor Party for leading the way in relation to the introduction of that. That is something that you can be very proud of. But you know what? You forgot to leave any money in the piggy bank. You forgot to leave one cent in there to fund it in the forward estimates, and you have done that before. Keating did that. He took us to 19 per cent. Gough Whitlam spent like a drunken sailor. This is your history. This is your legacy on the question of the economy.

So, if I seem a bit testy, it is because for you to get up and start to lecture us on what low- and middle-income Australians have, because of some economic decision of this government, is a little bit rich. These people have been better off under coalition governments forever. They rely on us to come in and fix the debt. Well, we are having to struggle this time, because you did not just leave a debt. You left the piggy banks, and, when we lined them up and gave them a rattle, what did we hear, Senator Williams? We heard nothing, because they were empty. I got excited at first; I thought they might have been full of banknotes and so not make any noise. But no. We pulled the plug out, put the old looking glass up there under the belly of the pig, and it was fully empty—just like your ability to conduct and manage an economy. You are an empty vessel. I will not be lectured by you in this place. I will not be lectured by you about what we need to do to the economy. I will not have you tell us that low- and middle-income Australians are worse off under this government, after you left a massive, massive Bankcard debt that we cannot crawl over.

Senator McAllister interjecting—

No, it is good to see you come alive. I will bet you this: in every contribution that the Labor Party makes today, I bet they will not acknowledge the fact that they left a $300 billion debt, Senator Williams. I will bet you a carton of anything you drink, and there will be a carton for you too if you get up and tell the truth—through you, Madam Acting Deputy President—and let Australians know what they already know: what a terrible state you left the financial affairs of this country in. I will give you a carton of beer, or a carton of something else; you might be a soft drinker.

Senator Williams interjecting—

Sorry?

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mine is Guinness.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There we go—Guinness. We will get you some Guinness.

I want to close simply by saying it is a bit rich and hypocritical. You people: if you have a couple of minutes, pop round to my office, and I will give you some 101 on economic management.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, God help those on low and middle incomes in Australia if they are relying on the coalition to look after them. That is all I can say, Senator O'Sullivan—through you, Madam Acting Deputy President—because there is absolutely no doubt that low- and middle-income Australians are continuing to lose out under the Turnbull government.

Let's look at the social security amendment legislation that went through this place last week, where they froze indexation on family tax benefit payment. Low- and middle-income families will clearly lose out on payments. Let's look at the freezing of the income-free area on Newstart, which means low-income Australians will have less money in their pockets over the next couple of years as that freeze starts to take effect. Let's look at what the government has been doing with the Centrelink autodebt process, where low- and middle-income Australians, but particularly low-income Australians, have been hit so hard with this incorrect, flawed process. The government could care less, quite frankly, about the impact of the incorrect debt notices that have been going out so heartlessly to Australians—20,000 Australians at a time through that process. What does the government say? 'It's working. We're going to pursue this.' Very wealthy Australians get to negotiate their million-dollar debts with the tax office. What do the government do to low- and middle-income Australians? They send around the debt collectors. In some instances, when it first started, the first thing some people knew about it was when they had the debt collectors knock at the door, because apparently the government could not find their address to send them the debt notices.

Then, of course, we go back to when the coalition first came in, to that horror budget. Who can forget Tony Abbott's first horror budget, where they clearly purposely, cruelly, unfairly targeted low-income Australians? Who can forget that cruel attempt to kick young people off income support for six months? Then they clearly saw that Australians did not support that and overwhelmingly rejected it. But so intent are they on still trying to save money on young people that they are now still attempting to do so, because there is still a bill on the books to kick young people off income support for an extra four weeks—in other words, kicking them off for five weeks. This ignores all the evidence that shows that living in poverty is a barrier to finding employment but, more importantly, that the jobs just are not there.

They keep having a bash. They keep trying to demonise those on Newstart or income support, saying they cannot find employment. They cannot find employment because the jobs are not there, but the value of Newstart is going down when we know that the value of youth allowance is going down, and we will make young people live on thin air for four weeks. But do not worry. They actually know that that is going to have an impact, because they are going to put a little bit of extra money, $8 million, into emergency relief. So people have to then go to emergency relief and ask for enough money to be able to eat that night. That is not good for low- and middle-income Australians, and it is not a good start for young people trying to find jobs. What do you think it does to their mental health and their self-esteem, let alone their physical health?

Inequality in this country is rising—wealth inequality and income inequality. The government clearly, in every budget, tries every time to take money off the most vulnerable members of our community. Let's look at the omnibus bill. That still has some horror measures in it. The government will still keep pursuing those cuts, we are told.

Then, of course, there are issues around penalty rates. Who do you think that is going to hit? Young people, the same people that they are telling to go and get a job. Once they get a job, we are actually going to make sure you have less money in your pocket, because we are going to cut penalty rates. That is, of course, assuming that people have been able to find housing and are not homeless. This government fails low- and middle-income Australians.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In rising to speak to Senator Gallagher's matter of public importance, I certainly agree with the matter of public importance that is before us. The way the government is attacking low- and middle-income Australians is a disgrace, and it is especially being felt in my home state of WA, which now has the highest rate of unemployment in the nation. What that means is that there are more people being forced to survive on the government's measly Newstart payments and many more young people struggling under the waiting periods that Senator Siewert, for example, outlined.

We have now seen for a long time this government, and its previous iteration under Tony Abbott, sell out low- and middle-income Australians. We have seen the government taking away the rights of workers, cutting education funding, trying to undermine Medicare and cutting family assistance payments. We have seen this systematic attack. Time and time again, we have seen the government sell out the people who need their support the most—not the big end of town. They still have $50 billion worth of tax cuts on the table. This is a government that does not care about low- and middle-income workers, that does not care about the ordinary mums and dads across the country who are trying to make ends meet. Those on the other side are fighting for the interests of their friends in big business by promising them big tax cuts and supporting pay cuts for the lowest paid workers in our nation.

I implore those on the other side and on the crossbench to support Labor's legislation to protect penalty rates from being cut by the Fair Work Commission. However, those opposite have said they support the Fair Work Commission's decision. That can mean only one thing: they are directly supporting the pay cuts for retail and hospitality workers. This decision will mean not only that low- and middle-income Australians will lose out but also that women will disproportionately lose out too. Women are already the most affected by marginal work arrangements, shiftwork and multiple employers. That is the working arrangement of many women in Australia, and attacks on penalty rates will affect them disproportionately.

A good example is a woman named Tanya, who, in the Save our penalty rates campaign, said: 'If my pay is cut I'll struggle to survive, even eat. I won't be able to buy clothes, shoes, toothpaste and hair spray. I won't be able to treat the grandkids on birthdays or at Christmas. If something happens to the car, I won't be able to afford it.' What we have is a government that is standing by and letting it happen. It means there are more and more workers at risk of similar decisions in other industries. Other workers, not just retail and hospitality workers, are now at risk of having their rates cut with this dangerous precedent.

Last year we saw the government pass its notorious ABCC legislation. That legislation is a part of this government's ongoing agenda to attack the union movement to undermine the capacity of ordinary working Australians to protect their pay and conditions. That legislation sought to create criminal penalties for actions that are not criminal—a direct attack on working people in this country and their right to defend their wages and conditions.

We saw that just last week for vulnerable children, with the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs for Families Child Care Package) Bill, which disproportionately impacts lower income earners, who are losing out under the government's package. That package made low-income families have limited access to early childhood education. It is an absolute disgrace, and, I think, immoral to turn our focus away from the children who we need to stand up for and fight for the most. It is just more evidence for the families that Malcom Turnbull is leaving behind. A good way of illustrating this is that the government's new 12-hour safety net for single-income families is not equal to the two days support and care that the minister claimed. That is an attack on our nation's most vulnerable children. We saw within that legislation a complicated activity test that removes the entitlement of all children to that two days care. That, in my view, is appalling. The legislation, as a whole, demonstrates how little regard the coalition has for the sector and for the vulnerable families that are affected by these cuts.

I want to comment briefly on the other cuts that the government has made recently to 204,000 Australians on the lowest incomes with cuts to Newstart and parenting payment. We have seen waiting periods for access to parenting payment introduced, which is an appalling thing to do to a family in crisis. We have seen cuts to the family tax benefit parts A and B. These cuts are to people who are already on very low incomes. Freezing the threshold makes their incomes completely unsustainable in terms of keeping up with the rest of the economy. It is already very difficult to survive on these very low incomes.

We have also seen an attack on Medicare. We have seen low- and middle-income families deal with higher medical costs through the six-year Medicare fees. It is forcing bulk-billing to disappear and forcing up the healthcare costs of Australians. In the period July to September, bulk-billing rates for non-referred GP attendances tumbled by some 0.2 per cent in my home state of WA and by up to 2.4 per cent nationally. This is burdensome for Australian families. Zero point two per cent might seem small, but that is the equivalent of 6,000 GP visits in the state of WA that were not bulk-billed last quarter that would have been previously bulk-billed and 167,000 GP visits nationally.

We have seen a government that does not want to reveal that if low- and middle- income families go to visit the GP they will get a nasty surprise. This is coming from a Prime Minister who promised that no Australian would pay more to visit the doctor. That was utterly false. With the robo-debt we have also seen a farce, with false debt notices going out to people who have done all their due diligence in telling Centrelink their income over time. False debt notices have gone out to people who have declared every bit of their income to Centrelink and were absolutely entitled to that money, but have been put through the wringer by the government's robo-debt process. It really reeks, to my mind, of the government systematically trying to rip money out of the poorest households in our country.

One thing I do know for sure is that Australians will see through the government's attacks. Less than three weeks ago, voters in my home state of WA voted out a Liberal government that was arrogant and out of touch, that was not in touch with the needs of low- and middle-income Western Australians. They voted for jobs, for solutions to unemployment, for investment in better public health, for investment in schools and transport and for policies that focus on the needs of real people. The government of this nation must stand up and do what is right for ordinary Australians but, sadly, I do not think it will. I can tell you, though, the Australian Labor Party certainly will.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am also pleased to make a contribution to this matter of public importance debate this afternoon in the Senate. What Labor senators, and I suspect Australian Greens senators, are trying to do is to: undermine the public and community confidence in the government's plan for families, whether they be low- or middle-income families; undermine the community's confidence in the government's commitment to budget repair; undermine the community's confidence in the government's very, very clear plan to put the country on a more sustainable footing, not just over the next few months but also into future years.

It has to be recognised that there is a very real tension in our country at the moment, and that tension exists fundamentally around the issue of budget repair. There can be no denying that in this country the issue of budget repair has to be our most important priority. If it is not our priority then we are doing a disservice not just to ourselves and not just to the next generation, we are doing a disservice to all future generations of Australians. Tardy budget management, budgets that deliver debt and deficit do not just diminish the capacity of this generation, they also diminish the capacity of every future generation. You cannot have a discussion about the future of Australian children without also having a discussion about the importance of budget repair.

Of course the tension arises because in order to fix the budget there are two very clear choices for governments. One of those choices is to increase taxes. For some people in the Senate, indeed, for some people in the broader community, the idea of taxing people more has huge attractions. But I would argue that addressing budget repair by increasing taxes undermines the opportunity for low- and middle-income families to get ahead. Increasing taxes will slow economic growth and it will make job opportunities diminish in the economy. That cannot be a good outcome for any family, whether they be a low-income family, a middle-income family or, indeed, a wealthier Australian family.

The other option, and I happily put myself on the austerity side of the ledger, is to tackle the issue of government spending. The simple fact of the matter for me, and I am sure for other coalition senators, and I hope for others on this side of the chamber, is that the government cannot continue to spend at the rate it is spending. That brings us to the issue of the social services budget. It accounts for such a large part of our budget outlay, and, importantly, many of those measures—I think the figure might be in excess of 80 per cent—are legislated, which means that the parliament must cast a judgement over the suitability of those social service arrangements.

In recent days, indeed over the recent week, much of that tension has focused itself on two issues: the issue of penalty rates reform—I have supported and I continue to support penalty rate reform—and the issue of childcare reform. I will come to those two issues in a brief moment. Of course what we know about inequality in the Australian community, inequality between Australian families, is that at its heart it is joblessness that drives that inequality. That is why the government's focus is clearly on the issue of job creation and economic growth. So to suggest that we are not doing anything around the issue of supporting low- and middle-income families is blatantly wrong. We have a clear commitment to addressing inequality in our community, because we believe that at the heart of inequality is the issue of joblessness. So when you look at what is the government doing, how is the government attempting to tackle the issue of joblessness, then the record is strong and it is clear. The government is seeking to support higher wages and the creation of new jobs by lowering the tax rate for all businesses over the next 10 years, starting with small business.

The government's childcare packages, happily passed by this Senate last week, will support around one million families who rely on child care to go out and work, providing the highest rate of subsidy to those with the lowest incomes. It is interesting that in the childcare debate, which I will come to in a moment, a key point that has been missing is what it does for female participation in the workforce. In order to drive greater economic growth, higher levels of productivity in the Australian economy, the government, the community, must address the issue of female workplace participation. That is an important element, and often an element much neglected in the government's childcare package.

Further than that, the government is investing almost $840 million in a youth employment package that would deliberately seek to increase the employment of vulnerable young people under 25 years of age. None of us in this place would find the level of youth unemployment in our country acceptable. The government is investing in education, providing $73.6 billion over the next four years, hoping to set our children up for future prosperity. In addition, the government is committed to ensuring that we get taxpayer support to those who need it most, and encouraging those who can work to work, and to use their own means to support themselves where possible.

I will come briefly to the issue of the childcare package, and then move to the issue of the penalty rate debate. It is important to recognise that the childcare reforms that were passed by this Senate do a number of things. They put downward pressure on incessant childcare fee increases through an hourly rate cap. They abolish the $7½ thousand childcare rebate cap to ensure that low- and middle-income families are not limited by a cap on the amount of child care they can access. Importantly, they introduce new compliance powers to further strengthen the government's efforts to clamp down on fraud, and they provide a billion-dollar childcare safety net for the most vulnerable children and slash red tape so that services can be more flexible in the hours that they are available to families. Importantly—to those senators who represent states with large rural and regional communities—the package provides rural, regional and remote childcare services with the support of funding streams like the childcare subsidy, the additional childcare subsidy and the community childcare fund. Together, these have the potential to provide much more funding for important childcare services across rural and regional communities.

It is important to see the government's reform efforts, whether they be penalty rate reform or in the area of childcare reform, as supporting increased participation in the workforce by allowing people and giving people the opportunity to find jobs, because it is in finding jobs that people can have the best way of addressing inequality in our community but also the best opportunity to support their own families. Let me just demonstrate how important the childcare reforms are by drawing out a number of cameos that the Minister for Education and Training, in this case the minister responsible for the childcare package, Simon Birmingham, talked about in his contribution to the Senate last week. I will use three cameos. I will use a cameo of a family on $50,000, a cameo of a family on $80,000 and finally a cameo of a family on $94,000.

In the case of a family on $50,000 with both parents working, with two children under the age of six in long day care for two days a week at $100 a day, that family will be $2,197 better off as a result of the government's childcare package. There is no way you can argue that the government is hurting low- and middle-income families when a family on $50,000 will have a benefit of $2,197 as a result of the government's childcare package.

Look at another modest family income of $80,000 with both parents working, with two children under the age of six, again, in long day care for three days a week at $100 a day. They will be $3,424 better off. Again, you just cannot argue with a straight face that the government's childcare reforms are not benefiting low- and middle-income families.

Finally, before I move to the issue of penalty rate reform, a family on $94,000 with both parents working, with two children under the age of six in long day care for three days a week at $100 a day, will be $2,657 better off a year. So it does not withstand scrutiny that the government's efforts to support female participation in the workforce and to support Australian families with its childcare reforms are somehow dudding low-income and middle-income families in our country.

I just want to turn to the issue of penalty rate reform. This, I think, is a classic example of where the rhetoric and the sound and fury of the Labor Party and some other senators on this issue just do not stack up to reason. What we have in our country without penalty rate reform, what we have in our country without the decision of a few weeks ago of the independent Fair Work Commission, is a very unlevel playing field between small businesses and big business. We know small businesses are run predominantly by families, and we know that many women are managing those small businesses and taking those small businesses' risks. We have an unlevel playing field between that group in the community and big business.

One of the things that motivated me to join the Liberal Party over 30 years ago—30 years ago last month—was the realisation when I watched the Western Australian Labor Party in the 1980s that, for some people, having big unions and big business in bed with big government is how they want to run our country. I reject the idea that big unions in bed with big business in bed with big government help ordinary families. I saw it for myself. I saw my own family not being looked after by the interests of the organised labour movement. In fact, they were dudding low-income families like our own and not supporting middle-income families but supporting the big end of town, and that is shameful.

The comparison between what is available to big business at the expense of small business in the absence of penalty rate reform is illuminating. I will give you a couple of examples. For example, a permanent full-time or part-time staff member working on Sundays at a bed-and-breakfast must be paid $10 an hour more than at a five-star hotel. A family chicken shop must pay $8 an hour more than KFC. A family-owned takeaway must pay $8 an hour more than McDonald's. A family greengrocer must pay $5 an hour more than Woolworths. (Time expired)

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, it gives me great delight to share some really wonderful news for the people of Queensland and Australia and indeed for all low- and middle-income families. President Trump has declared that 'the war on coal' is over. This goes on to say:

President Trump on Tuesday signed a far-reaching executive order that dismantles many of the pillars—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Roberts, resume your seat. Senator Polley, on a point of order?

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. I would just ask you to draw the senator back to the issue that we are debating. We are not talking about US politics or about Donald Trump.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Roberts has only just started his contribution, and I think he has made a link at the moment. We will wait and see.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. Your perceptiveness is admired and appreciated. You have it correct. President Trump said that he is:

… ending the theft of American prosperity, and rebuilding our beloved country.

We actually agree with the Labor Party that low- and middle-income Australians are continuing to lose out under the Turnbull government. The Turnbull government is pushing a 28 per cent renewable energy target, and that has helped destroy South Australia. The Labor Party is pushing a 50 per cent renewable energy target countrywide, and that will destroy Australia. But the Greens, the people who think that money comes out of the sky, want a 90 per cent renewable energy target, and that is going to cost every low- and middle-income earner amazing amounts of money. It will destroy this country and destroy jobs. What is more, energy prices are rising, and rising rapidly, and energy is now important in every family's life. Every family's cost of living is affected directly and indirectly as rising energy costs cascade through the economy. It is a highly regressive tax on low- and middle-income earners.

Labor actually wants to apply a carbon dioxide tax, an emissions trading scheme, which is yet another highly regressive impost on low- and middle-income earners. What is more, it is an open-ended, upward-ratcheting tax that is designed to give money to the United Nations. We have a double taxation agreement that was signed by the Liberal Party in 1953. I calculate that we have had—three, 13, six—22 years of Labor government since then, and not one of those Labor governments has even mentioned the double taxation agreement that is ripping off Australians. Only our party have done that, and we are making moves to end that double taxation— (Time expired)

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Dastyari, on a point of order?

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want check for future reference: if the Senate were to choose to do so—I am not saying we would—by leave we can give Senator Roberts 20 more minutes whenever we want, can't we!

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not a point of order.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak about all the ways that this government has undermined low- and middle-income Australians. This government only looks after the big end of town. We heard it from Senator Smith in his contribution. He does not like big unions, big business and big government being in bed with one another. But it is all right for those on that side to give big business $50 billion worth of tax cuts. That is all right!

Let me put on the record just a few facts about what the Turnbull government have done to Australian families. They have been slicing and dicing household budgets with cuts to family payments, Medicare, health and education. They have supported cutting the take-home pay of hundreds of thousands of hardworking Australians who already live from pay cheque to pay cheque. That is the reality. When people who work in hospitality and retail come to you, if they ring your office or they talk to you in the street, they are in tears because they do not know how they are going to be able to support their children at school to give them the same opportunities as their classmates. But that is all right, according to those on the other side—because that is what they believe in. We know that they have consistently undermined and cut the education system in this country.

We had another contribution from Senator Smith, who actually surprised me when he talked about the new childcare package, because one in three families are going to be worse off. I also would have thought that as a Western Australian senator he might have had a bit of interest in what is happening to people who live in regional Australia. Because Western Australia is so vast, there are regional and rural areas, and there are also remote areas. The cuts the government have made in regional Australia have been to services that were there providing early education for the children of our Aboriginal brothers and sisters. But, no, that is all right! As long as no-one else is in bed with the big end of town, then that is all right!

Senator Smith also touched on penalty rates. Now, we know that the cut to penalty rates is going to have an enormous impact on those who depend on penalty rates to make their budget stretch as far as it can. They do not use their penalty rates for luxury items; that is just not the way real people live. People depend on those penalty rates. We know that families rely on them to pay their electricity bill and take care of the kids' excursions so they can go with their classmates. All of these things that this government has done have been about one thing, and that is making sure that people who are low-income workers, people who rely on benefits, are kept down where they belong, because that is in their DNA. That is how reckless this government is. Imagine if you suddenly got a pay cut and you knew it would take you 17 years to get back to your current wage. How would you feel? Well, 700,000 Australians, 40,000 of them from my home state of Tasmania, are facing those very cuts to penalty rates.

That is without the extension that we know is going to incorporate other sectors—and what are they? They are predominantly industries in which low-paid women are working. And why are they doing that? They are working to try and get ahead to give their kids opportunities and to support their families so that they can make a contribution to the economy. And what they do because they have such low wages? They expend all their money. They do not have huge bank accounts. They do not have investment properties. They do not have shares. What they have is some self-respect. They have self-respect because they can send their children on school excursions and they are able to meet their bills. They do not go away on holiday. They do not go out to luxurious restaurants. They do not go on overseas trips. All they are trying to do is get by, each and every day. That is the reality.

If you have never, ever been in those circumstances, then it is very hard to understand—and I give you that. So I can understand why the Prime Minister does not have any empathy for these people. It is because he has never had to do it. But when you have to do it day in, day out, it is really hard, and it is very hard as a parent to say to your children, 'No, you cannot go to the cinema, because I just cannot afford it,' or, 'No, we cannot go to the Gold Coast, because we cannot afford it.' That is very difficult for parents. It is very, very difficult. (Time expired)

David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It takes a lot of gall for Labor to propose this debate about low- and middle-income Australians continuing to lose out under the Turnbull government, because last Thursday Labor voted against reducing childcare subsidies for family with incomes between $200,000 and $350,000. Labor was even reluctant to support the removal of childcare subsidies for families with incomes over $350,000. It was Senator Hinch and me who backed the Turnbull government into a corner to support the removal of high-income subsidies.

While Labor says it cares about low- and middle-income Australians, on Thursday it demonstrated that it cares more about high-income Australians continuing to get subsidies funded by low- and middle-income Australians. By fighting for minimum wages and mandatory penalty rates, Labor is keeping our unemployment queues long and the very poorest Australians poor. That the foremost expert in Australia on the job destroying effects of minimum wages is none other than the shadow Assistant Treasurer, Professor Andrew Leigh, does not seem to dissuade Labor one iota.

Finally, Labor is the defender in chief of the renewable energy target and wants to make 50 per cent of our energy renewable. This results in the poorest Australians being asked to decide whether they want air conditioning in summer, heating in winter or food. They will never be able to afford all three. While Labor pretends to care about everyday Australians, it continually panders to those high-income voters who pretend to be middle class. The light on the hill is out.