Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The President has received the following letter from Senator Collins:

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

'The need for policies that address cost of living pressures, climate change, the undermining of wages and conditions, and the importance of ensuring children from any postcode in Australia, city or country, can get a quality education.'

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.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is opportune that this is the matter that we are discussing today, in light of the events of the weekend and, particularly, the Batman by-election. I want to put on the record my congratulations to Ged Kearney, the new Labor member for Batman, and the federal Labor leader, Bill Shorten, who really threw himself into the campaign. There has been a real consistency about what Labor have been talking about since Bill Shorten became the Labor leader, and I think that bore fruit in the Batman by-election. When you look at the issues in this matter of public importance, they are issues on which Labor has been campaigning strongly and has put significant positions on the public record.

But there is a real contrast between what Labor took to the Batman by-election and what we saw from the Greens. The repercussions have already started on the Greens side. We have seen Senator Di Natale having to deal with them over the last 48 hours. But, if the Greens had learnt anything out of the Batman by-election, in the Senate chamber today they would have withdrawn that stunt of a bill that they had, the Coal-Fired Power Funding Prohibition Bill 2017. If they'd really learnt the lessons from what happened on Saturday in the Batman by-election, they would have pulled that stunt of a bill—because that's all it was, an absolute stunt.

Contrast the stunts that the Greens have been pursuing around important issues with the behaviour of someone like Ged Kearney, who has a history of standing up for people, standing up for organisations and fighting for things for matter. She is a person of substance, a woman of substance, not someone who is going to fall for stunts or the latest tricks but someone who's been standing up and advocating for workers, advocating for social services, for decades. This was the contrast in Batman.

But in the Senate today the Greens came in and pursued, as always, a stunt—something that was going to have no consequence but something that the Greens were happy to pursue because they have learnt nothing out of what happened on Saturday. We have seen this time and time again, where basically they seek purely political advantage out of substantial issues. Nothing for them can be boiled down unless they can seek some political advantage out of it. Then they are happy to pursue it. We absolutely are going to hold them to account for that. They've learnt nothing out of the Batman by-election, and they showed again in the Senate today that they have learnt nothing in that regard.

The reality is that the current-day Greens are nothing, not even a patch, on the Bob Brown Greens from a decade ago. They are leaderless, they are visionless, they are divided and they have basically become inconsequential. Once upon a time, the people around Australia would listen to Bob Brown; they'd at least hear what he had to say. But, when it comes to Senator Di Natale, no-one hears what his contribution is. No-one wants to hear what his contribution is, because it's inconsequential. It's full of stunts. There's no substance behind it, and what we saw on Saturday, and what we've seen in other elections around the country in recent times, is that the Australian people are waking up to him.

They're not a patch on the Bob Brown Greens that we were used to a decade ago—people who even the other side would have to listen to. They've got more and more desperate. And the more desperate they've become, the worse they go. Unfortunately, I think that we're going to see a pattern from them where they increasingly pursue stunts and cynical politics, all to seek a little bit of political advantage for themselves—not trying to tackle some of the big challenges that this country faces but all for seeking some little political advantage. But they were held up in Batman, and full credit to the Labor campaign for doing it.

When it comes to the issues raised in this matter of public importance, they're about addressing cost-of-living issues; tackling climate change; the undermining of wages and conditions; and ensuring that children from any postcode in Australia get a quality education. And, when it comes to these issues, the federal government have dithered, or delayed or done nothing. They really aren't listening to the concerns of the Australian people in regard to these issues.

When it comes to the cost of living, they have dithered on energy policy now for over 12 months. The uncertainty that they have caused is causing prices to rise, and still we have not seen the National Energy Guarantee go through their party room. We come in here, and Senator Birmingham likes to try to lecture us about what our position is. We've said that we're happy to work with the government on the National Energy Guarantee, but they can't even get it through their own party room. They won't even present it to get it through their party room. How can we negotiate with a party that can't even get their own caucus to agree—let alone all the states—and put a position to the opposition that we can come to an agreement on?

Their dithering is having a real consequence for Australian families, through higher prices, and also for Australian workers. This dithering is inconsequential for those who rely on gas as feed stock for their business, whether it be the Gibson Island fertiliser plant or the smelters in Gladstone or around the country. The government are more focused on their internal squabbles than they are on the Australian people—Australian workers or Australian families, it is no matter to them who it is.

When it comes to tackling climate change, they've actually achieved a rare feat. They've seen energy prices increase whilst they've also seen a rise in pollution—quite remarkable! That's what we've seen from the other side. This has been a double whammy to the Australian people but also to future generations. So we're still no closer to hearing where they stand on the National Energy Guarantee. Once again, I re-emphasise that this has not gone through their party room. Those same Neanderthals on the backbench who always want to play up around tackling this issue are causing ongoing grief that they have still not been able to resolve, and it leaves us here, who are willing to work across the aisle to resolve this issue, none the wiser about what their final policy is.

The next one is around undermining of wages and conditions. This has been a really significant one across Australia but also one that I've seen firsthand in Queensland, with the devastating impact that this is having. We know that the LNP supports the cuts to penalty rates. We know that they've argued against a decent increase to the minimum wage. We know that they voted against Labor's proposals to make big business liable for underpayment of workers along the supply chain and also by subcontractors. They've got their heads in the sand around the changing nature of the labour market, and they've gone missing in action completely when it comes to the discussion about the future of work.

This is their record when it comes to wages and conditions. Is it any wonder that the workers of Australia don't trust this mob? They don't trust them when it comes to wages and conditions, and we know that the government loves nothing more than attacking workers and attacking their representatives in the unions. And, when it comes to education, the LNP are busy selling their cuts. Those will have a negative impact on children and, I fear, particularly on those children from remote and regional areas—those who need it the most.

So, when you look at the key issues in this matter of public importance, we know that the LNP are failing them on every single one. They're failing when it comes to the issues about cost of living. We know that they're failing on the issues when it comes to tackling climate change; we've actually seen pollution go up under this government. And we know that the undermining of wages and conditions is something that is happening unabated under this government.

They constantly attack unions and constantly attack workers. We know what they have done with penalty rates and we know what is happening in places like regional Queensland, where labour hire is rampant. The government are doing nothing to crack down on that. We've seen casualisation increasing, making it harder for people to get a loan to get into the housing market or to buy a car. This is having a devastating impact on regional towns. It's actually changing the nature of those regional towns. These towns were once very attractive places to go and live and work, but the fact that in some of these places you can only get casual employment is making them less attractive. It means that people are going to have to move away. It means that kids who are growing up who are potentially third or fourth generations living in that town are having to move away for opportunities. This is what casualisation is doing; this is the uncertainty that it is causing. We also know that the LNP have not been able to resolve their internal challenges around energy and the impact that's having.

Labor are the only party listening when it comes to responding to these challenges. The Greens are divided. We know that there are repercussions internally that they have to deal with after what happened in Batman—but, still, they haven't changed their behaviour. We know that the LNP are not listening to these people. We know that they are not taking these issues into account in determining how they are going run their government. But Labor are listening. We are spending as much time as we can on the ground in these communities and hearing directly from them. We will continue to ensure that we represent the views of all Australians in this place.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was a little bit bemused by this MPI when I read it and I thought, 'Senator Collins, you're really not trying hard enough with these MPIs.' We've got a grab bag of issues here: cost-of-living pressures, climate change, undermining wages and conditions, and the importance of ensuring that children of any postcode in Australia, city or country, can get a quality education. They are all very important issues, but it is a very strange way of phrasing an MPI. I was wondering to myself, 'What could this possibly be about?' Of course, what it is really about is a chance for the Labor Party, as we've just seen from Senator Chisholm, to have a whack at the Greens—a whack at the government on the way through, of course, but a whack at the Greens. It isn't surprising at all that, after we saw the Labor Party tacking to the left and following the Greens on various issues as they chased a result in Batman, they are now attempting to tack back to the centre now the Batman by-election is out of the way. It's a pretty cynical exercise. It's an exercise that the Australian people see through pretty clearly.

In addressing this grab bag of issues, one of the key issues on the table at the moment is the current enterprise tax plan from this government. The enterprise tax plan is coming in multiple parts and it has at its foundation the idea that keeping Australian business as strong as possible by encouraging economic growth is how we drive business growth, wages and employment growth. We grow the economy for everyone by making the economy a positive experience for as many people as possible in Australia. That's why what we're trying to deliver is so important.

We have already seen the first part of that legislated in this place for businesses earning up to $50 million in turnover each year and with particular changes that assist those smaller businesses with $2 million to $10 million in turnover every year. In addition to the tax cut itself, there are things like the small business incentive and the instant asset write-off, which I know has been used extensively by small businesses to upgrade plant and equipment, to invest in new technologies for their business, to help grow their business and to employ more people. We've also seen the pooling of depreciation and GST being able to be calculated on a cash flow basis—all things that advantage these small and medium businesses, which is very important.

The next part of the enterprise tax plan grows those tax cuts to larger businesses. The most important thing to remember in that regard is that larger businesses feed through to smaller businesses in terms of employment, growth and opportunities. You see this throughout the economy but certainly in my home state of Western Australia. I was recently at what you'd have to say is a medium-sized business, Legeneering. It's a business that employs around 200 people, is based in the electorate of Fremantle and services, largely, mining industry clients. That is a business that started just 12 years ago, in 2005, with three employees and an apprentice. As I said, today that business employs around 200 people. It's a very successful business. Who does that business contract to? Who does that business derive its business from? One of its major clients is Woodside, which, we all acknowledge, is a large business. Woodside is a company that started about 64 years ago, and that is a business that started with just one person and an idea.

The idea is that we are trying to lower tax rates so more people can grow their businesses and take their businesses from one person to two people to 20 people to 200 people to many thousands of people. Woodside currently employs about 3,000 people directly and indirectly provides opportunities to about 20,000 people. Every big business started off as a small business and it's really important to recognise that, in this space, we have to stay globally competitive if we are going to encourage and allow those small businesses to grow to medium-sized businesses and then grow to large businesses. That bastion of low taxes, France, has a corporate tax rate of 15 per cent. In Hong Kong it is 16½ per cent, in Canada it is 15 per cent, in Ireland it is 12½ per cent and in Singapore it is 17 per cent and lower for some companies. In the United Kingdom it is 19 per cent, with a plan to drop to, I believe, 17 per cent. In the US currently, at the federal level, it is 21 per cent, with a plan to drop to 15 per cent. In a world where capital is mobile—and it certainly is—and business decisions are made on a long-term horizon, for Australia not to look at its corporate tax rate would be a severe problem in the future. We need to encourage those businesses to want to invest in Australia long term and we need to keep our corporate tax rate competitive with the rest of the world.

In this grab bag of an MPI, we also have climate change. Obviously, the National Energy Guarantee is very important in order both to address our energy security issues and to meet our international commitments. Again, this feeds directly into business profitability. The modelling that was conducted on the National Energy Guarantee by Frontier Economics shows that a medium-sized business such as a supermarket could save over $400,000 a year. This is a significant amount of money to those small and medium-sized enterprises that employ Australians. This is the key thing. I recently met with the owner of a small supermarket from South Australia whose electricity bill had gone up in one year by $100,000. How many small and medium-sized businesses can sustain an increase in their costs of $100,000 in 12 months? We need policies in place to drive down energy costs, and the National Energy Guarantee clearly will do that. We need everyone to come on board this policy. Hopefully, with a new government being elected in South Australia in recent days, we will see a much more productive conversation taking place in this area.

When it comes to emissions, what does the National Energy Guarantee provide? It will see a 26 per cent reduction in the emissions from the National Electricity Market. This is a significant contribution to our international commitments and a significant way in which this government is both addressing the issues of energy efficiency and energy production and reliability and meeting our international commitments.

As I said, I wondered why I came in here, and it was clearly so the Labor Party could try and tack back to the centre and have a whack at the Greens. I feel like making a contribution between the Labor Party and the Greens. I should let them go at it. But I will reflect again on why it is important that this government gets support from the crossbench for its enterprise tax plan. It is a very important economic reform. Growth is not an abstract number in the budget; growth is what will drive businesses to employ more people, for wages to be able to increase over time. Growth is what will give people the opportunities for the jobs for the next generation. It is certainly something that all people in this place should support, and I would encourage the crossbench to seriously consider that as they consider their position on the government's enterprise tax plan in the future.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Chisholm, from the Labor Party, spoke earlier in this matter of public importance debate. I agree that it is important—the need for policies that address cost-of-living pressures, climate change, the undermining of wages and conditions, and the importance of ensuring children from any postcode in Australia, city or country, can get a quality education.

Being from Queensland, Senator Chisholm would know, and he should know, the good news: he's in luck that those policies already exist, and it's the Greens that have those policies. Being from Queensland, he would have seen up close how strongly the Greens promoted policies targeting exactly these issues in his own state, getting results from the electorate as a consequence of that. This from the Labor Party, who have presided over massive increases in electricity costs in Queensland because of their adherence to the neoliberal ideology that has meant that they pursued that approach of privatisation and corporatisation of public entities that were previously there to deliver for the interests of community rather than for corporations and for profit.

Senator Chisholm was talking about climate change and the need for policies on climate change on the very day that the Labor Party voted once again to adopt a new subsidy to explore for thermal coal. Perhaps Senator Chisholm and the Labor Party could look in the direction of the Greens and see the policies that already exist if they wanted to ensure that there is action on cost-of-living pressures, on climate change and on the undermining of wages and conditions.

It is the Greens that have led the way unequivocally in being the first out to oppose cuts with regard to penalty rates, to promote the importance of increasing the minimum wage substantially and to push up substantially an increase in Newstart and pensions—one way to address cost-of-living pressures and ensure that those people that are being paid the least, that have the lowest incomes, have their income increased. The Greens policies are to address housing affordability by investing in building more houses that are affordable for people, by ensuring that electricity is affordable, by ensuring all energy networks and generation corporations are changed back to being efficient public authorities and by ensuring that public transport is significantly cheaper and reliable. We are getting the opposite with the state Labor government in Queensland—and I'm sure in many other states around Australia—which is putting up public transport fares, and, certainly in the south-east, the rail system is becoming an embarrassment.

We have this problem with cost-of-living pressures because, under the ideology of neoliberalism, of free market fundamentalism, we have seen the steady march of privatisation of our essential services like energy, housing, hospitals and education. Neoliberalism, this free market fundamentalism, is an ideology that ruins communities and lives and it's an ideology that both the old parties of the political establishment are still wedded to. They both sold off essential services that provided for basic human rights and basic human needs so that they could be run for profit. They both continue to support an approach where corporate profits are put ahead of community needs.

With climate change, it is important and pleasing to see the ALP are acknowledging the need for more action, but what we need is not just an acknowledgment of better action; we need an adoption of effective policies. Let me remind the Senate about the fact that it was the Greens in this parliament who pushed and—no-one can deny—were pivotal in delivering what many independent observations say is the world's best practice in regard to a carbon reduction mechanism that also ensured that people weren't hurt by increased cost-of-living impacts. It was shown to be effective in the very short period of time before it was disgracefully dismantled—vandalised by the coalition. It delivered a reduction in emissions—emissions that are now going back up again under this government at a time when energy prices are also going up further under this government.

This isn't just a matter of protecting our environment and protecting the future of our planet—fundamental as those things are. It is about the impact on people's lives right now. The failure to act on climate change is putting people's lives at risk and is also contributing to those cost-of-living pressures. In my own state of Queensland, in Far North Queensland, which I've already spoken about in this chamber, people, individuals and businesses have faced over the last five to ten years massive increases in their insurance premiums specifically linked to increased severity of weather events. It's having a direct cost impact on the community in Far North Queensland right now. The people of the Torres Strait Islands are having their homes and islands made uninhabitable by rising sea levels, increased severe weather events and higher storm surges. Hopefully, all of us here will be aware of the major damage wreaked in the Torres Strait Islands just a couple of months ago for this reason. Entire island communities and cultures are at risk of being wiped out due to climate change right here in the Australian community, in the Queensland community, within decades. Yet we get nothing, in terms of any meaningful action, from this government. In fact, we're getting action that makes things worse.

People's lives are being put at risk. The future of their communities is being put at risk. They are facing cost-of-living impacts right now because our politicians, in league with massive fossil fuel corporations, are putting profits and corporate donations ahead of human lives. Just as does tobacco, we know fossil fuels put lives at risk. But here in Australia the two parties of the political establishment are in the pockets of the big fossil fuel corporations, so they continue to not act or to not act adequately to address what needs to be done.

When we're talking about wages and conditions, let's not forget that wages are not just flatlining but, for many people, particularly those on lower incomes, going backwards. They're not keeping up with the cost of living, yet corporate profits are at record highs. And let's not forget that this is under Labor's so-called Fair Work Act. The Your Rights at Work campaign in 2007—and I was in this parliament at the time—showed just how much ordinary Australians care about their working conditions and how they will get behind an imaginative and progressive union campaign and a community movement that is focused on people's direct needs and direct experiences. But it's also a lesson in how grassroots movements can be betrayed by politicians, given that when Labor got into government they introduced this unfair work act, which has failed to deliver on the promise of the campaign, so much so that the union movement is now launching another major campaign to get our industrial relations laws to work to fix Labor's Fair Work Act.

In regard to education—and it's pleasing to see this particularly specified—the importance of ensuring children and, frankly, people of all ages are able to access a quality education from anywhere in the country is something where we've been going backwards for a long period of time now. This is another area where the neoliberal agenda has caused so much damage to our communities, to human opportunities and to what is a crucial sector not just for economic and employment opportunities in the future; let's not forget that the education area itself is a major employer, particularly in regional areas. For all of the talk about mines in Central Queensland, the biggest employer in Rockhampton is the Central Queensland University. In Cairns, when I was meeting with the chamber of commerce just last week, they reminded me that, after tourism—which is, not surprisingly, the top employer, the top job generator, for that region—the second biggest is education. So, when we have our education sector being harmed and cuts to university funding under this government, it's the regional universities and it's the jobs in those regions that are being put at risk right now, as well as the future opportunities for the young people of those regions being put at risk.

We have a world-class system of vocational and further education that has been deliberately destroyed purely on ideological grounds. One of the great reforms of the Whitlam era was the abolition of university fees, yet they were reintroduced in 1988 by another Labor government, which reflected just how much they and the political class as a whole had been captured by neoliberalism. People can only get a quality education, as is emphasised in this debate, if it's affordable and if it's available at all. Under the policies of both the parties of the political establishment, things have been going backwards there. The Greens will continue to turn things around with the policy suite they've been promoting proudly and strongly.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I start, can I just remind Senator Bartlett that it was the Greens who helped the Liberals cut pensions. There was a quote from someone—I can't remember who it was—on the other side along the lines that Senator Di Natale had constructively engaged with the government on this measure, so you might just like to remember that, Senator Bartlett.

There's something that our now Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, said 2½ years ago that will come back to haunt him. He said this when he announced that he was challenging Mr Abbott for the leadership of the Liberal Party:

The one thing that is clear about our current situation is the trajectory. We have lost 30 Newspolls in a row. It is clear that the people have made up their minds about Mr Abbott's leadership.

Well, Mr Turnbull is now two Newspolls away from failing his own test, and he can't walk away from what he said. It's not a test that his party set for him. It's not one that the media set, and it's not one that we set for him. This is the test that Mr Turnbull set for himself.

It should be obvious to those opposite, as it is to most Australians, what the core of the problem really is. It's not just the chaos and the disunity within this government, as loud and as broad as that is; it's its failure to come up with policies that address the challenges facing everyday Australians and their aspirations for the future. Those on the other side have squandered any opportunity they had to be a government that is focused on the future and that governs for all Australians.

Set out in Senator Collins's MPI are a number of policy areas where this policy failure is particularly apparent. On climate change, Mr Turnbull's Direct Action climate policy has been a complete failure, and his long-awaited climate change review has offered no new or alternative climate policy. The government's own projections show carbon pollution rising between now and 2030 rather than going anywhere near its target of a 26 to 28 per cent reduction. The government has no climate change policies beyond 2020 and has made no commitment to long-term emission reduction targets.

On cost-of-living pressures, the government has comprehensively failed to tackle the rising costs of housing, school and childcare expenses and electricity bills, and in many cases it has made it worse. Australians wanting to afford health care are hit with the double whammy of skyrocketing private health insurance and the government's Medicare rebate freeze.

Cost-of-living pressures have of course been exacerbated by the pressures on Australia's incomes. Wages growth is now at a record low, thanks to the government's relentless attack on the pay and conditions of Australians. The failure of wages growth to keep pace with Australia's economy is leading to growing levels of inequality. The situation certainly hasn't been helped by the Turnbull government's cut to penalty rates for retail and hospitality workers, which has cut the wages of thousands of Australia's lowest paid workers by up to $77 a week, and now the government is talking down the minimum wage increase too. As for the government's education policy, their $17 billion cut to schools has hit school systems hard. Most of the cuts have hit the schools that need the funding most. Eighty-six per cent of the cuts have been borne by public schools and 12 per cent by Catholic schools.

By contrast, Labor want to see schools across Australia able to invest in regional and remote students, in students with disability, in Indigenous students and in students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. We want to see schools where teachers can get the support they need in the classrooms for those students who need that extra assistance, and this is why we initiated the Gonski review and followed its recommendations, and this is why we will reverse the Turnbull government's savage $17 billion cuts to schools.

We also have comprehensively costed plans to address the other areas where this government has failed dismally to show any leadership. We will legislate within the first 100 days of a Shorten Labor government to restore the penalty rates for workers who've been affected by the government's cruel pay cuts. We will reform negative gearing so that we can help young Australians to buy their first home. We will modernise the National Electricity Market to give more power to consumers, and Labor will take real action on climate change with a six-point plan which includes achieving a 50 per cent renewable energy target by 2030.

But right now we're stuck with a government that are sleepwalking towards electoral defeat because they are gripped by policy paralysis. They have no serious policies to address the problems facing Australians. They have no serious policies around facing the rising cost of living, stagnating wage growth, the threat of climate change or the need for a quality education. The major policy platform of this government seems to be more about union-bashing— (Time expired)

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

I rise today to speak in response to the matter of public importance submitted by our Senate colleague from Victoria Senator Collins. Senator Collins would like the chamber to consider an extraordinary breadth of subjects in a single MPI, breaking with the convention—and, dare I say it, the commonsense tactic—of using an MPI to raise a single issue for consideration by the Senate. Senator Collins has instead unloaded a stream-of-consciousness diatribe in policy areas, and one might better ask the question: what didn't Senator Collins ask the chamber to consider this afternoon? Nonetheless, Senator Collins has asked the Senate to consider:

The need for polices that address cost of living pressures, climate change, the undermining of wages and conditions, and the importance of ensuring children from any postcode in Australia, city, or country, can get a quality education.

While I barely know where to begin, begin I must, and particularly on cost-of-living pressures—an issue that, you know, Mr Acting Deputy President O'Sullivan, is particularly important to this government and one that we take very seriously indeed. How very galling it is that a representative here of the Labor Party would bring up cost-of-living concerns, when in fact her party's contribution to the energy debate has been limited to an obstructive and blind commitment to a 50 per cent renewable energy target. Or—hang on—is it a 75 per cent commitment? No, wait—it's a 40 per cent renewable energy target. To be honest, I am not sure what it is, because it changes with the winds of political expedience. It really depends on whether you're campaigning in South Australia or whether you're campaigning in Batman. The Labor Party's commitment to the truly random 50 per cent renewable energy target is nothing more than a capitulation to the green-left flank of its own party, and Senator Collins knows full well that it will have absolutely no effect whatsoever on global temperatures or climate change. It will, however, dramatically reduce energy reliability and, ultimately, increase energy prices for Australian households. So does Senator Collins really want to discuss this today—a day after the Labor Party lost government and was sacrificed in South Australia on the altar of renewable energy zealotry? It beggars belief.

It is amazing, too, that Senator Collins has asked this chamber to consider cost-of-living pressures, when the ACTU's Sally McManus has come up with the perfect solution—a living wage. Betraying an Alberici-esque grasp of economics, Sally McManus has lobbied for a massive living-wage increase of 60 per cent of the average wage. But do not for a second be fooled, for a living wage is nothing more than a significant increase in the minimum wage, and the last person to implement a living wage increase of this magnitude was in fact former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, who, in 1973, raised minimum wages by 27 per cent. And, of course, in its wake, we saw unemployment balloon and inflation skyrocket, harming the very people that Prime Minister Gough Whitlam wanted to protect—low-income earners and pensioners.

Even Mr Whitlam was forced to concede that employees can in fact price themselves out of the market, and the ALP's then Minister for Labour, Clyde Cameron, complained in 1974 that—wait for it—'union bloody-mindedness' was 'slowly but surely pricing thousands of Australian workers out of employment'. Will history repeat itself? If Sally McManus is pulling the strings of the opposition leader then inevitably it will, for the call on an unrealistic rise in the minimum wage is exactly what Mr Shorten announced to the National Press Club earlier this year. The politics of envy and grievance form the foundation of Labor's pitch to voters, and that is the elephant in the room.

Labor want to talk about cost-of-living pressures, but they want to address that not with effective policy at the source but through fistfuls of handouts for sectional interests. Rather than growing the economy, increasing the number of jobs and using basic laws of supply and demand to organically increase wages in a non-inflationary and sustainable way, the Labor Party have absolutely no plan whatsoever to grow the economy. They have no plan for jobs, no plan for growth and no plan for business growth—nothing. Instead, there are plenty of announcements of how Labor intend to punish people that they don't like—people who don't vote for them, people who invest, people who save, people who run a family business, people who don't want to be a burden to the public purse, people who just want to get ahead and people who choose to manage their own superannuation. And therein lies the nub.

I think we can agree that last week's policy announcement was a massive misfire. At the behest of the industry superannuation fund sector, who are the only beneficiaries of a less-attractive self-managed superannuation fund market, the Labor Party announced it would be removing legitimate refunds of tax already paid on dividends to those who pay low or no tax, calling them 'rorters', 'fat cats' and 'the top end of town'. When it became all too apparent that this harebrained policy disproportionately affects low-income earners and pensioners who have set that little bit aside in blue chip Australian shares, Mr Shorten generously told them that he will make it up to them through an increase in their part-pension. 'Don't worry,' he said. 'It may be rightfully your money, earned legitimately, tax already paid, but I am going to take it from you and redistribute it where I think it could be better used. Trust me; I'm from Labor.'

Make no mistake, Mr Shorten is a clear and present danger to the future prosperity of our great nation. He has no plan to create jobs, no plan to increase wages and no plan to grow our economy. And now, by promising to steal dividends earned legitimately from the savings of those who deserve our thanks and not our condemnation, Mr Shorten has tipped over Labor's promises into more than $200 billion of new taxes. That is almost the GDP of New Zealand that Mr Shorten will be taking away from your pay packet, from your pension, from your investments and from your business. He has forgotten the Winston Churchill proverb that a nation trying to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle; it is simply impossible. 'Shortenomics' is the greatest threat this country has seen in decades.

Much as I would love to, I simply haven't got the time here today to go into the importance of ensuring that children from any postcode can get a quality education. But, if the meandering words of today's MPI, let alone the dodgy maths of the policy announcements coming from the ALP, are anything to go by then, please, let that quality education include some basic economics because, if it was taught at school when Senator Collins was there, I think she must have been taking a sickie.

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on today's MPI and do so to agree with the statement, particularly in reference to ensuring children from any postcode in Australia, city or country, can get a quality education. I point to commentary last week—hurtful commentary by government ministers, members, candidates and the media—in which those opposite have been advocating for a one-size-fits-all approach to the adoption of children in Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory. It is frightening and it is ill informed. I understand some of their concerns. Indeed, I share some of their concerns in regard to the safety, wellbeing and future of our children, which we know is absolutely paramount for any child, in any postcode, in any city, in any bush country town.

Sexual violence is a terrible crime and is even more horrifying when committed against a child. It's tragic and it's awful, but our responses should not become a competition of outrage, of who is more outraged than the next person. It is actually about humanity rising above—transcending—the differences that we have, and knowing that it is about caring. It does not mean that we should revert to removing children from their homes, their families and their culture.

As part of educating and protecting our children, the Territory government has already taken substantive steps to reform youth justice and child protection, investing in new bail support services, accommodation facilities and family and youth supports. This demonstrates the absolute seriousness with which the Territory government has taken the royal commission's findings and its understanding of the need for wholesale reform of a broken youth justice system. I urge the Turnbull government to take responsibility and negotiate in good faith and work collaboratively with Chief Minister Michael Gunner and the Northern Territory government so that the royal commission's findings can be implemented and so that every child, everywhere, has a solid future.

First-nations people and organisations must be front and centre in developing solutions. Governments must work with first nations people in the co-design and delivery of programs. It's absolutely unhelpful to take the advice of ill-informed commentators—for example, the commentators on the Channel 7 Sunrise program, who have yet to include first nations people in their conversations. Safe, secure housing has to feature in keeping children safe. It will also play a critical role in addressing the cost-of-living pressures for the parents and/or guardians of vulnerable children.

Unfortunately the Turnbull government has walked away from investing in remote housing. We know of the high rates of homelessness. Katherine has one of the highest rates of homelessness in the Northern Territory. We have families who are living with 15 people in their homes because these houses cannot be built. There are no commitments to SA, WA and Queensland. The minister has backflipped on his original commitment to match the NT's $1.1 billion investment in regional and remote housing. We desperately need this funding so our communities can thrive. Closing remote communities, calling for another NT intervention and calling for the removal of more Indigenous children from their families is a knee-jerk response to complex, deep-rooted issues.

We know widespread child removal is not a panacea. We know culture and child safety are not mutually exclusive. The safety of the child is always paramount. Unlike those opposite, Labor will do something positive to ensure our children have the best chance in life. In our first 100 days in office, Labor will convene a national summit on first nations children. The summit will bring governments and experts together to help find solutions to this crisis, working with first nations people.

Every child has a right to grow up healthy, happy and safe. Every child has a right to a roof over their head. Every child has a right to world-class education, no matter where they live. Kids in the Northern Territory don't deserve to have their future stifled. They don't deserve the $15 million in funding cuts from the Northern Territory's premier university, Charles Darwin University. They deserve to be more than safe; they deserve to have a roof over their heads; they deserve proper access to medical facilities— (Time expired)

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They say that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. I think we can say with great confidence that this matter of public importance today was definitely designed by a committee. It would have been fascinating to have been a fly on the wall in the Labor tactics committee meeting this morning. I'm assuming that perhaps Senator Farrell, after a devastating loss in his home state of South Australia on the weekend, having learned his lesson that the environmental policies pursued by the Weatherill government came at a great political cost to the Labor Party and having no doubt recognised the detrimental effect that his ideological embrace of renewable energy has had on household budgets, came into the meeting and said: 'Guys, we have to talk about the cost of living. Can we make sure that's the MPI today.' Perhaps it was Senator Pratt from WA, passionate environmentalist that she is, who said: 'No, no, no, no. We shouldn't be talking about the cost of living. We have to talk about climate change. That's what the people of Australia want to hear from us.' Maybe it was Senator Carr, devoted union man that he is, who said: 'No. We should be talking about the wages and conditions of Australian workers.' Probably, it would have been Senator Collins herself who said: 'No. I'm on the education committee; I'm passionate about schools. Why can't we make an MPI today about education?' Clearly, they couldn't agree. So instead of making the difficult decision of picking just one topic for the MPI today they said: 'Why not have four?' It's like the ad for Old El Paso: 'Por que no los dos?' I apologise for my ineffective pronunciation.

That's why today we have an MPI covering four issues. It's a 37-word motion, as I counted. The English teachers of Australia are calling out for a full stop in there somewhere. Reading out the MPI is liable to make one run out of breath.

I faced a dilemma myself when thinking about my contribution to this debate: which of its many and varied issues would I choose to make a contribution on? I couldn't go past the cost-of-living pressures, because it has been particularly galling to hear the Labor Party come into this chamber today, one week after announcing a plan to smash the household budgets of retirees, and talk about the cost-of-living pressures that Australians face. I will make one political observation before I get to the substance of the policy. I have been very bemused in the last 24 hours to hear it said by some of those opposite and by some of their allies and friends in the media that the Batman by-election victory for the Labor Party is vindication of their policy to abolish dividend imputation. I have to say that I don't think that the Labor Party retaining a seat that it has held for 100 years, more or less—against the most shambolic and hopeless Greens campaign that we've seen in their recent attempts to take that seat—is exactly an endorsement of their policy. I'm not sure that Batman, regarded as the most left-wing seat in the country, could be taken to be representative of the rest of Australia, and I suspect that had that by-election been held somewhere else in Australia, perhaps in the suburbs of my home state of Victoria or any other state in this country, the result might have been different. No doubt it would have been different, given the absolutely insane nature of this policy.

Let's be honest about the political strategy being employed by the opposition and Mr Bill Shorten. He is clearly setting out to raise revenue through new and higher taxes from groups in the community who he thinks are unsympathetic—who he may not have sympathy for, who the Labor Party might not have sympathy for. For example, he has identified people who own investment properties and said, 'We'll take some money from you.' He has looked at companies and thought, 'They're not very popular. We'll take some money from them.' He's looked at people who operate family trusts and thought, 'We'll take some money from you;' at people on high incomes: 'We'll take some more from you;' and now, finally, at pensioners and self-funded retirees: 'We'll take some money from you, as well.' What he plans to do with this money he takes from groups in the community that he thinks are unpopular is spend it in ways that are more politically beneficial for him. He's going to spend it in populist ways. He's going to hand it out to groups in the community who might be more open to voting Labor. That is clearly the political strategy here.

We shouldn't pretend that this is a policy that has been carefully thought through or has been carefully designed. We shouldn't pretend that this is a policy that is trying to respond to genuine public policy issues. It is a smash-and-grab raid for the money saved by many retirees to provide for their own retirement so they're not reliant on the pension or are less reliant on the pension in their old age. Mr Shorten wants to come and take it so he can give it to others in the community who he thinks are more likely to vote for him.

It's a $59 billion tax hit, yet another of the many tax hits announced by Mr Shorten since the last election, now totalling more than $200 billion. It will mean less money in the pockets of more than one million Australians, especially retirees and pensioners on low incomes. As we have now discovered from ATO tax statistics, more than half of the franking credit refunds were paid to individuals who are over the age of 65. Of the individuals who receive a franking credit refunds, 97 per cent have an income below $87,000. I wouldn't have thought that Mr Shorten or the Labor Party would regard people with an income below $87,000 as being in any way, shape or form rich or wealthy people, yet these are the people that he is going after in order to raise revenue to give to others.

More than half of all the refunded franking credits are paid to individuals with a taxable income below the $18,200 tax-free threshold. That means people whose income is so low that they don't pay any income tax at all, and yet Mr Shorten wants to take a franking credit away from them. It will impact about 40 per cent of self-managed super funds, which affects 370,000 member accounts and retirement savings for 3.5 million super fund accounts. You would have heard the contribution from the member for Hume earlier in which she identified one of the beneficiaries of this policy being the industry super movement, and she would know; she's been in the belly of the beast. This is not only a blatant tax grab; in my view, this shows that the Labor Party are guilty of lying to the Australian public. The ALP's own website still suggests that an earlier $15 billion tax hike on retirement savings is the final and only change that Labor will make to tax treatment of superannuation.

This is a really important point: there are people who have planned for their retirement carefully over many years who are now in retirement and there is not much that they can do to change the plans that they put in place years ago. We in this place, on both sides—on all angles of this chamber—have put the rules in place for their retirement and they've planned accordingly. Many of these people are too old to go back to work. They don't have options to restructure their finances, and some of them have very modest means. But the rug has been well and truly pulled out from underneath them with no way for them to respond. It will mean a very real loss of income and I suspect—going back to the motion today—it will have a severe impact on the cost of living for many of these people. I urge the Labor Party to reconsider what I think has already been proven to be a disastrous policy.

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

I rise to speak on the MPI, which goes to cost-of-living issues. It's disappointing that, when given the opportunity to speak on the issues that impact ordinary Australians, Senator Paterson and Senator Hume chose to take that opportunity to talk about the Labor Party—to obfuscate and engage in political hyperbole and talk about Labor's principled position in respect of tax reform, a proposal which 92 per cent of taxpayers are unaffected by.

I want to talk about cost-of-living issues and I particularly want to talk about the issue which even the Treasurer identified as being the greatest single threat to the Australian economy, and that is wages growth. Wages growth is at historically low levels despite the fact that we have enjoyed 26 years of continuous economic growth, and cost-of-living pressures are therefore weighing heavily on low- and middle-income households. So, having put it out there that this is the greatest single threat to the Australian economy, what has the government done about this issue? The government put out the company tax cut proposal, which is their centrepiece—from which all good things will come and, according to them, will lead to wages growth. That is trickle-down economics and patently absurd. The Australian people don't buy that story anymore, but that remains the government's centrepiece. The Treasurer also talked about productivity growth. But, at a time when productivity is continuing to grow, wages are flatlining. So the Treasurer is completely out of touch on that issue.

It is quite clear that average workers are not getting the benefit of that economic growth. Last week, I had the opportunity to visit the Australian Workers' Union and ETU protest outside the ExxonMobil facility at Longford. At that time, those workers had been protesting for 265 days and taking a principled stand against a 30 per cent wage cut being imposed on them by one of the subcontracting firms within the ExxonMobil facility. They were taking that principled stand not only for themselves but also for other workers and their children. They saw it as very important to take that position. So we know that the rules are broken when it comes to enterprise bargaining. The government could take the opportunity to talk about that issue, but they are silent on that.

The national wage case decision is coming up, which presents a very important opportunity to address the issue of wages. We know that the outcomes of the national wage case have flow-on effects throughout the economy. What particularly disappointed me was the submission to the wage case by the National Retail Association, where they have come out and said that they are proposing a zero per cent wage increase for workers across the economy. What are the government doing about that? How can they stand by silently whilst that sort of nonsense is being put out there? I say: shame on the National Retail Association for putting it out there. They had the gall to indicate that the explanation for that policy was in part the fact that retailers did not enjoy spending growth in the pre-Christmas period, which is when they traditionally get a pick-up in retail sales. Of course, it's quite clear that, if you give workers a zero per cent wage increase, next Christmas we're going to see an even worse outcome in retail sales in the lead-up to Christmas. So that is a very short-sighted policy position from the National Retail Association and I call on them to change their position.

Labor believe in affordable healthcare and education options and affordable insurance. We believe in cracking down on corporate tax dodgers. We believe that a fair tax system should be in place and that those who can afford to pay more should pay more.

Going back to that Retail Association submission, what added insult to injury from my perspective was that not only are the retailers asking for a zero per cent wage increase; they're also continuing to enjoy the benefits of the penalty rate cuts which are flowing through the system. Again, the government are silent on that. In fact, they have done nothing about those penalty rate cuts, which are impacting on the cost-of-living pressures for ordinary workers. It's time for the government to get on with the job and do something about this issue.