Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I rise on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2013-2014 and cognate bills and in support of the amendment moved by the member for Fraser. One of my first duties as a newly elected lower house MP was to visit local community organisations and find out the best way to support them in their work in the local community. Late last year, I was lucky enough to visit the Ted Noffs Foundation in Randwick. Founded in 1970 by that great Australian humanitarian the Reverend Ted Noffs, the foundation provides essential services for young people and their families who are experiencing drug and alcohol problems and related trauma. The foundation's Randwick service is the Program for Adolescent Life Management, PALM. It is a residential drug and alcohol initiative that offers young people with serious drug and alcohol abuse problems short-term accommodation and support to help them get back on their feet.

During my visit to the Ted Noffs Foundation, I was led around the facility by a young gentleman who had recently been a graduate of PALM. It was apparent to me the pride that he and his contemporaries had in the facility and the positivity that they felt for the future, thanks to their ongoing rehabilitation and the support that had been provided by the Ted Noffs Foundation and its staff. The previous Labor government, through its Building Multicultural Communities Program, last year announced funding support for the Ted Noffs Foundation of $85,000. This financial support under this program was fully assessed, it was notified to the organisations and it was fully costed and fully funded in the 2013-14 budget. Despite the coalition's promise that there would be no surprises, no excuses, one of its first acts was to freeze or cut this program's funding to not-for-profit groups. One of those organisations that suffered was the Ted Noffs Foundation in Randwick. Many other charities, local government organisations and volunteer organisations around Australia were also cut. In fact, I had two organisations that lost funding in my community because of this government's harsh cuts and broken election promises.

The Ted Noffs Foundation is one of many organisations around the country that have been left in limbo by the freeze of $11.5 million awarded under the Building Multicultural Communities Program. Broken commitments have unfortunately become a symbol of this government. They said one thing before the election and now they are doing another thing, but the people of Australia are beginning to learn this. Before the election, the government's commitment was clear—no cuts to health, no cuts to education, no cuts to pensions and no cuts to the ABC. In the wake of the election, we all know what is true, and this bill confirms that: $4.8 million cut from the education budget through this bill, $13.2 million cut from the health budget through this bill and $11.5 million cut from Building Multicultural Communities through this bill. This is a complete contradiction to the commitments made by this government to local communities, my community, the Australian people, prior to the election. All this is confirmed in the legislation we are debating today.

This comes on top of this government completely undermining the Gonski reforms. The Australian education system is failing our kids, and we have known this for quite a while. That is why the previous Labor government invested in a comprehensive study, an analysis of the problems in the Australian education system. This study was chaired by a prominent businessman and included the work of many academics and consultations with teachers, staff, parents and children about how to make our education system one of the best in the world. This significant reform will be life-changing for many students, but it has been completely sabotaged by this government.

There is no requirement for the states to sign up to additional funding for the delivery of the Gonski reforms. A cornerstone of these reforms was additional funding from the states, but that has been completely wiped out by this Minister for Education. There is no requirement for the states to sign up to a needs based funding model. The Gonski report identified that the problem with the Australian education system is that those who come from low socioeconomic backgrounds, those who have disabilities, those who come from an Aboriginal background and those at small schools in rural communities are falling behind. They are falling behind, and the education funding system is failing them. On that basis, a needs based funding model was put in place. That model rectifies those problems and provides additional funding for those schools and students that are falling behind. What is the response of this government? It has wiped out the integrity of that system.

This bill contains cuts in the order of $13.2 million to the health budget. Those cuts come on top of this government floating the idea of a Medicare co-payment. This co-payment will disproportionately affect low- to middle-income earners in our society, particularly in my community. The pensioner with a crook knee or a crook back who relies on regular visits to the GP for prescriptions and other medical support will be impacted by a Medicare co-payment. The young girl suffering from depression who regularly needs the support of her GP will be impacted by a co-payment on Medicare when visiting the GP. The people who will be stung by this government's health reforms will be low- to middle-income Australians, the most vulnerable and those who cannot afford the additional costs associated with a co-payment for regular visits to the GP.

Those opposite argue that the fiscal position of the government is unsustainable, and their speakers to this bill have made that point. We in the opposition accept that there needed to be structural reform of the budget position. Labor in government was delivering that structural reform. We improved the efficiency of expenditure when we were in government. To raise additional revenue we looked to parts of the economy that were performing well and were in many respects earning superprofits. We did not target or put that impost on low- to middle-income earners in our economy. A classic example of this is the reforms to superannuation. Labor in government identified that some members of our community had superannuation funds earning superprofits. Some of these people earned more than $100,000 on their money simply being in a superannuation fund. That was a drain on our fiscal system, so Labor sought to ensure those earning those superprofits paid their fair share.

At the same time we sought to encourage savings for low- to middle-income Australians, those who will struggle to fund their retirement because of inadequate superannuation balances. We sought to provide them with an incentive, a boost to their superannuation entitlements through the low-income superannuation contribution. What has this government's response been to that progressive reform? The response of this government has been to scrap the low-income superannuation contribution and to introduce a tax increase for 3½ million Australians, most of them women. Many of these women are struggling to make ends meet by working predominantly in part-time and casual employment. They need a boost to their superannuation if they are going to have any hope of retiring without relying on the pension.

Another area that Labor in government identified as a drain on the nation's finances was corporate profit shifting. Labor in government undertook a process of developing reforms to ensure that large corporations making significant profits paid their fair share. Pardon me for being cynical, but at the weekend I laughed at the comments of the Treasurer at the G20 conference in Sydney when talking about the need for cracking down on corporate profit shifting and the need to ensure that large corporations earning superprofits were paying their fair share of tax in Australia. This is what Treasurer Joe Hockey said about corporate profit shifting at the conference:

… we have seen the erosion of domestic tax bases resulting from international tax planning that takes advantage of the gaps in our current taxation systems.

And citizens expect a comprehensive response from the G20 on this, given the inefficiencies and unfairness apparent in the current system.

That was a position of our Treasurer on the weekend at the G20 conference. We do not disagree with any of that; in fact, we support the comments that were made by our nation's Treasurer. But what was the Treasurer's view in March last year? What was the Treasurer's opinion when Labor sought to do exactly that—when Labor sought to introduce those reforms that the Treasurer was speaking about on the weekend—through the introduction of the Tax Laws Amendment (Countering Tax Avoidance and Multinational Profit Shifting) Bill 2013? The view of the Treasurer, funnily enough, was to oppose that reform—opposing the reforms he spoke in support of on the weekend. In his speech to this parliament, not even a year ago, on this very question that the Treasurer was speaking positively about on the weekend, he said this in respect of the bill that was before the parliament to crack down on corporate profit shifting:

This bill is going to overlay complexity and compliance costs onto normal commercial transactions, whether business transactions, new investments or corporate restructures.

It is almost laughable that the Treasurer only 12 months ago saw corporate profit shifting as 'normal commercial transactions'. What an affront to the people of Australia that those opposite seek to come in here and cut money from the education budget, cut money from the health budget, when, at the time Labor was attempting to introduce reforms that would see those who are making big profits in our community pay more tax, those opposite, led by the member for North Sydney, opposed those reforms.

It was not just in that area—there were the thin capitalisation rules, there were the changes to fringe benefits taxation, and even the minerals resource rent tax. They were all opposed by those opposite. They were all reforms that would have ensured that the most profitable businesses paid more tax in our economy—paid taxes that fund better health services, better education services and the reforms that I have been speaking of. That symbolises the approach of this government to fiscal relations in this country. It symbolises the approach of this government to getting elected and breaking their commitments to the Australian community.

Their approach is to hit the most vulnerable, and it is contained in these bills—to hit the most vulnerable by getting rid of the low-income superannuation contribution, to hit the most vulnerable by floating the idea of a Medicare co-payment, to hit the most vulnerable by getting rid of the schoolkids bonus but at the same time giving a massive break to those who are earning large profits in our community. It is there in the Paid Parental Leave scheme; it is there in their opposition to the minerals resource rent tax; and it is there in these bills. That is why they must be opposed and that is why I support the amendment that was moved by the member for Fraser.

See this speech in context