Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Gorton proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The government failing to protect the living standards and working conditions of Australians.

I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

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

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed, I do want in this contribution to talk about the failure of this government to protect the working conditions of Australians, but I might start by dealing with the failure of this government to look after the living standards of small business.

In fact, what we saw today was a remarkable thing. What we saw today, after three weeks of the government misrepresenting the opposition in relation to our position on small business measures, was a government voting against the expedition of the passage of their own bill which introduced small business measures. We have seen this government, for 22 days, suggest we would not be supporting those measures. The fact is: we supported those measures. On budget night, the shadow Treasurer made clear and confirmed that we would be supporting the measures. The Leader of the Opposition on the Thursday night in the budget reply speech confirmed the fact that we were supporting those measures, and yet, despite that, the government continued to argue otherwise. Instead, today, led by the minister for immigration at the table, we saw the government vote against the expedition of that bill.

So you would have to ask the question: is this government fair dinkum when it comes to looking after small business? If they were fair dinkum, they would know that we were always going to support those measures. And the reason we were going to support those measures is: they are our measures. I had the privilege to be the small business minister when the then Treasurer, the member for Lilley, introduced those measures to protect the interests of small business. The instant asset tax write-off was a Labor measure. The loss carry-back initiative, which has not been returned, after being repealed by this government, was also an initiative that helped those incorporated small enterprises through cash-flow issues. The fact is: the instant asset tax write-off is a Labor measure. It was repealed by the Minister for Small Business and this government. It was repealed by this government and re-introduced this week. And they are claiming it as their reform! Well, we know, and two million small businesses, incorporated and unincorporated, around the country know that this was a measure taken away from them by the government and brought back as a supposed Liberal measure. But it is not a Liberal measure. It is not a government measure. It is a Labor measure.

You want to talk about the things we did for small business? Confronted by the global financial crisis, we dealt with the biggest economic shock to this economy for 70 years, and we did it by investing at a time when private capital contracted. And why did we do it? We did it to protect jobs. We did it to protect small business. And what was the response from the then opposition? It was to oppose those measures that supported and protected 200,000 jobs and many, many thousands of small businesses—those small businesses that relied upon those government measures to ensure that they did not hit the wall. But of course, as far as this government is concerned, there was no global financial crisis. That is why we went into deficit: to grow the economy, by more than 10 per cent, post GFC, to ensure that we had low unemployment—the second lowest in the OECD. We went into deficit to save and protect businesses and jobs, and we did, and we came out the other end the best economy in the developed world.

But in just over 12 months we have seen this government double the deficit. And what has happened? They have doubled the deficit and they have increased unemployment. Unemployment is going to hit a 14-year high. Eighty thousand more Australians will be on the unemployment queues. One hundred and thirty extra Australians have been lining up in the unemployment queues each and every day since this government was elected. And that is what is happening here. They have doubled the deficit. Unemployment is rising—the budget's own forecast is that it will rise to 6.5 per cent. So let us be very clear here: this is a government that has really badly affected this economy. And that is of course an attack on small business.

What we have seen since the election of this government is them talking down the economy. Then we saw the introduction of a contractionary budget that actually stopped employers from hiring and stopped consumers from spending, which killed confidence in the economy. Consumer confidence was down. Business confidence was down. That is why unemployment is rising and that is why we have underlying weakness in the economy, and that is as a result of this government. And no efforts by those opposite would actually, I think, contradict the reality that confronts businesses.

So of course we support the measures that are contained in that bill. They are our measures. Of course we support them.

In relation to the tax cut there is a great history too, because we proposed the tax cut for small business in the last term. And what happened? The opposition lined up with the Greens in the Senate and blocked the tax cut for small business in opposition. So it should have been clear from the outset, without us uttering a word, that we were always going to support those measures that were ours. We were going to support them, and support them we did today. Unfortunately, the government voted against the passage of its own bill. That is of course in relation to small business.

But the opposition is concerned about the protection of workers. And if there is ambiguity about what the government think about small business, despite them declaring themselves to be the friends of small business, there is no ambiguity about what they think about the 11 million Australian workers in this country. There is not one area of public policy where they are not trying to hurt Australian workers—not one area of public policy. If they had their way, we know that Work Choices would be back tomorrow. They are not able to do it today, but if they could do it today it would be done. That would be one thing they would do immediately, but at the moment they cannot.

So what do they do? Wherever they go in areas of public policy they attack Australian workers. We saw it with the Treasurer when he goaded Holden to leave and they left our shores. The contempt shown by this government for car-maker workers in this country was an absolute disgrace. We have seen it in terms of the way in which they have not supported workers on ADF contracts in Adelaide and in Melbourne and in other parts of the country. We have even seen it on a personal level, where we had the Prime Minister of this country—when asked a question about whether they would be cutting the rates of pay of cleaners on Commonwealth contracts—say at that dispatch box that they would not be cutting their conditions of employment. Well, what has happened? The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade contracted cleaners have cut the rate of wages for cleaners by up to $6,000 a year. So the Prime Minister should come back into this place and apologise to the cleaners who clean his office and clean the offices of the ministers for saying that their rates of pay would not be cut. Everywhere you look, wherever it is, you will see the government attacking workers.

We are going to hear more from the member for Grayndler, because I can tell you: the policy in the maritime and aviation sectors is deliberately designed to undermine Australian standards of employment. Let there be no mistake about this: they are seeking to undermine the conditions of employment and, indeed, undermine the Australian maritime industry and the aviation industry in this country. We know that wherever they go they are always looking at a way they can undermine the Australian workforce. It is in the budget as well—wherever they go.

We have seen a debate about superannuation in this place recently. Let's be very clear here. Before the election the Prime Minister promised that the co-contribution to 3½ million workers would be maintained. Upon election to government, that co-contribution has been taken away from 3½ million low paid workers. We have also seen it in relation to the delay of the increase in super contribution. Again, this was a commitment made by the Prime Minister, and it is something that has now been taken away by this government. It does not matter where you look in relation to public policy—whether it is abolishing small business measures and then bringing them back as their own, or attacking workers in the car industry, or the maritime industry, or the cleaning contracts for their own cleaning arrangements. It does not matter where you look, this government will attack workers.

Workers in Australia can be assured that we will stand up for them. We will not allow radical industrial relations laws to be reintroduced into this country. We will stand up to prevent penalty rates being abolished and the minimum wage being abolished—the things that this government seeks to do—because Australian Labor not only supports Australian workers in this country, but we will also defend the interests of small business. That is why we want the bill that was introduced today in the House to be passed expeditiously—so those small businesses can get the measures they have sought and that they once had under the Labor government.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The shadow member for union protection, Mr O'Connor, would have you believe that they are so excited about our small-business package that they cannot wait to come in here and pass the bill. Let me give a couple of quotes to indicate exactly how strong their support is. This was Bill Shorten's quote in relation to the small-business package in his budget-in-reply on 14 May this year. He described small business package as:

A giveaway to start a fire sale at second-hand car yards and Harvey Norman … it doesn't go very far.

That was the quote from Bill Shorten, the opposition leader, in relation to a small-business package. I would not say that that is overwhelming support from the Labor Party. What about Bernie Ripoll? What did he have to say just before we announced our package. He is these shadow spokesperson for small business. He said:

… in an attempt to grab a headline and say his own skin, the Prime Minister is proceeding with his ham-fisted plan to introduce a two-tier corporate tax system against the wishes of Australian businesses.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Gee, that sounds like support!

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That sounds like fantastic support! We know that the Labor Party does not support small business. We know that they are not the party that does that. When they were in government they had six small-business ministers in six years.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Kim Beazley nailed it.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the Minister for Small Business is telling me, Kim Beazley himself nailed it, when said, in 2000:

We never pretended to be a small business party, the Labor Party; we never pretended that.

He was an honest Labor member. He was an honest Labor leader—Kim Beazley—when he said that, and he is exactly right. The Labor Party is not a friend of small business, because when they were in government they chopped and changed their small business minister every single year. They introduced the carbon tax. They introduced 20,000 regulations upon the small-business sector, and they introduced greater union laws to allow them to enter every single business in the country against the wishes of the small-business owners. The Labor Party often mistake the interests of the unions with the interests of the workers, and as we know from what is going on in the royal commission right now, that is not always the case. We know that exactly.

This matter of public importance really goes to the philosophical divide between our two parties, because it goes to the heart of how we support higher living standards. On the Labor side, Labor believe that you can support higher living standards by providing more welfare, by expanding governments, by taxing more and by regulating business, whereas we on this side of the chamber know deep in our veins that you can only enhance living standards on a sustainable basis if you have productive enterprises, if you have profitable enterprises, and if you have a strong, productive, growing economy. That is the essential, fundamental difference between our two parties. They believe in tax and welfare, whereas we believe in jobs and enterprise. It is jobs and enterprise that fundamentally underpin the living standards of this nation. The reason we believe in jobs and enterprise, in part, is that the members on this side of the House have a philosophical alignment with jobs and enterprise, because most of us have worked in enterprise. Nearly every single member on this side of the House has been involved in the private sector, if not run their own small or larger business. On the other side, nearly every single member on that side has been a union official, and very few members of the Labor Party have ever run a private sector enterprise. In fact, 50 per cent of all the Labor members of parliament were former union officials. If you go to the Senate, 71 per cent of all the Labor members were union officials. That is where they get their direction; from the unions themselves.

In our first 18 months in government we have been doing everything we can to boost the economy, to drive productivity growth, and to enhance living standards. We got rid of the carbon tax. We got rid of the mining tax. We abolished $2.4 billion of red tape. We have $1 trillion of environmental approvals. We have signed three free-trade agreements with three of our four biggest trading partners—free-trade agreements that were in the too-hard basket for the Labor Party. We are getting on top of the debt and deficit disaster which is a handbrake on our overall economy. And, of course, we have announced the biggest small business package in Australian history in order to turbo-boost what is the engine room of our economy.

What does that actually mean? What do all of those measures we have prioritised in our first 18 months translate to? What it translates to is economic growth in the first quarter of this year that is amongst the fastest in the OECD. It is the fastest growth we have had since the year 2000—it was 0.9 per cent in this quarter—with a 2.3 per cent growth on an annualised basis, which is higher than what it was under the Labor Party.

We have had export volumes up five per cent in the quarter; the strongest quarterly increase since 2000; and 8.1 per cent higher over the last 12 months. The jobs growth is 250,000 new jobs created since we came to office. That is four times higher jobs growth in 2014 compared to the last year of the Labor government. That is what raising standards means; because if you have a job then you can look after yourself and look after your family so much better.

I know that the Labor Party are fond of quoting the NATSEM—the statistical modelling organisation. NATSEM did some analysis and found that the standard of living of Australian households rose by 1.2 per cent in 2014 compared to a decline in 2013 when Labor was last in power. NATSEM modelling says that living standards actually declined under the Labor Party—and they have gone quiet on the other side now because they do not like to hear this—where they have increased in 2014 under our government.

When we look at Labor's record, we know what they were up to. We know the types of things that the Labor Party were doing when they were in government. And they are ashamed of their record, because it was a taxing record, a spending record, a wasteful record. And it did not contribute to the living standards of Australians. They destroyed the budget. They had debt and deficits so high, which of course meant that we are spending $12 billion a year just on the interest payments alone.

They have put in 20,000 new regulations. Do you think that helps the small businesses and the economy in our country? The numbers on the unemployment queue went up 202,000. And they will remember the industries they directly—not indirectly—destroyed. They directly destroyed industries such as the home insulation industry, and the live animal export industry—cattle, in particular.

We have a very proud record on this side of the chamber of supporting business and supporting enterprise. At the end of the day, you must have strong, supportive enterprises in order to grow the economy. That is what it comes down to, and that is the fundamental difference between this side of the House and the other side of the House. We believe in jobs. We believe in enterprise. We believe in growing the economy. Everything that we are doing is trying to make the economy stronger; whereas everything the Labor Party has done in office and everything they are proposing to do involves higher taxes, higher expenditure, more regulation, and more downward pressure on living standards.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I must say that it is pretty hard to respond to thin air. What we have had from the parliamentary secretary there is a complete failure to defend the government's position at all. This is a political movement opposite us that have never seen a working condition that they did not seek to undermine. They know that they cannot bring back Work Choices through the front door, through industrial relations reform. But Transport is just one example of where they are bringing back Work Choices through the back door. In the maritime sector they have a policy of Work Choices on water. They have an aviation proposal of Work Choices in the sky. It comes from the ideological position outlined in the Harper review. The Harper review said that 'consistent with the approach the panel recommends for other regulatory reviews, the panel considers that restrictions on cabotage for shipping and aviation should be removed'.

What does this not very well known idea of cabotage mean? It means that nation states understand that industries that are engaged in the global industries of shipping and aviation defend their national interests by having a preference for industries within their own borders. That is what it means. It is as simple as that. It is a national interest test. But what are we seeing from them? In aviation, we have a proposal to allow foreign airlines to fly on domestic routes. There is not a single country in the world that allows that to happen—not one. It is unprecedented. But they would allow foreign airlines to come in and undercut Australian wages and conditions, to operate in northern Australia.

This proposal is the thin end of the wedge. When they attack workers, they also attack Australian industries. So this proposal is opposed by Qantas, Virgin, Jetstar, Airnorth and Tiger. All of them employ Australians, with Australian wages and conditions—and, importantly, Australian safety standards.

We heard a lot this week about the cabinet split amid—to quote the Prime Minister—the 'come to Jesus moment'. Cabinet solidarity again has gone to hell in a handbasket. Andrew Robb is out there in the paper today bagging any suggestion that this proposal should not go forward

He speaks about vested interests. When he says vested interests, those vested interests are Australian interests, Australian jobs, Australian wages, Australian conditions and Australian industry.

In the maritime industry, they have an extraordinary proposition. If you wanted to take goods from Sydney to Melbourne on the Hume Highway, you could not bring in a Filipino truck with Filipino safety standards, employ a Filipino worker, pay them Filipino wages and have them travel from Sydney to Melbourne down the Hume Highway. It would not be allowed. But what they want is a situation where, if that journey takes place carrying Australian domestic freight on the blue highway from Sydney to Melbourne, you can have a foreign flagged vessel paying foreign wages with foreign conditions and foreign safety standards.

We saw some examples of exactly why that is inappropriate just this week on the Four Corners program. Australian ships are not the ones that have hit the Great Barrier Reef. Australian ships are not the ones that do not have the same controls over the security cards that the aviation and maritime industries have. For a government that talks a lot about borders, they want a free-for-all on our coast. They want a free-for-all where there is absolutely no protection for Australian maritime interests—none whatsoever—as well as in the skies. They are showing that they are putting their ideology before the national interest.

Craig Laundy (Reid, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In back-of-the-envelope ballpark figures, we have 11.7 million people that have jobs in the Australian economy at the moment. Of those 11.7 million, two million are public servants, as of the last round of state budgets, with more due coming up shortly; 2.5 million are employed in medium-sized businesses, 2.8 million are employed in large businesses; and 4.5 million are in small businesses. This is why this side of the House talks so much about small and family businesses. I include family business, because that is where I come from. We started from a small business, and we have worked hard and been lucky enough to grow it to a large family business. Of all the assets that my family has, the most important asset that it has is its staff. This is what comes out of small and family business. You cannot open the doors in the morning, you cannot take any money and you cannot close up at night unless you have your staff.

It is quite ironic, when talking about work conditions and standards of living, that the members for Grayndler and Gorton, who both come from a union background, stand up and profess a love of small and family business and then divert to talking about big business and unionised workforces. On this side of the house, we concentrate on the section of the economy where we will get growth. If you want to talk about policy development, what I would love to talk about is those opposite in government. I note that there is a member of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit over there. I refer to ANAO Report No.23 2014–15: Performance Audit into the administration of the Early Years Quality Fund; this is how policy development works under the Labor party. I quote from a key finding:

Successful implementation of policy initiatives requires early, informed and systematic consideration of implementation issues. The design of the EYQF policy contained inherent risks and it was foreseeable that these risks—particularly the funding constraints, the first‐in first‐served approach and the short timeframe—would affect access to the program and its ultimate success.

Normally in policy you would rely upon briefing from the department. In this report, it bells the cat; the briefing went the other way:

This role was made somewhat more challenging for this program because many of the key elements of the EYQF policy were developed by advisers in the offices of the Prime Minister and Finance Minister in negotiation with the key stakeholder representing child care workers.

I thought that 'stakeholder' was a typo. Surely it has to be plural! But no, it was not. When questioning the Auditor-General, it was United Voice. They were in the offices of the Prime Minister and the finance minister, dictating policy and giving it to the department in a first-in, first-served approach. When we had this investigation—with the combined 40 years of audit experience between Mr McPhee, the Auditor-General in this country, and the lady from the Department of Education—they had never seen a first-in, first-served approach to funding. Was that the optimal policy approach? No, it was not. What happened? Well, $150 million went to the Labor Party's mates between 11 am and 2 pm on announcement of this fund.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Craig Laundy (Reid, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Here is the kicker: in the last federal election campaign United Voice donated $1.3 million to your election campaign. That is how policy development works in big business and unionised workforces. That is why we focus on the section of the economy which drives growth and employment in our local communities.

Opposition members interjecting—

I get why you are yelling. I would not like being accused of it either. But it is not me that is accusing you; it is the Auditor-General of this country. This is a disgrace, but it is not an isolated instance.

That is how those opposite operate their policy settings. The members for Gorton and Grayndler stood at the dispatch box and cried crocodile tears on behalf of workers and small businesses in this country; I call you for what you are: you are ex-union people representing unionised workforces, and this proves it.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do wonder if the previous speaker has had a conflict of interest about penalty rates. The previous speaker has a large organisation of businesses that employ United Voice workers, people working in hospitality. Does this big boss, who is now in this House, have a view on penalty rates? Does he agree with all the other backbenchers that have said, 'We need to cut penalty rates'? If the previous speaker, the member for Reid, really does care about the people working in his establishments; and, if those opposite in this chamber really do care about working people, then why have they not ruled out attacking penalty rates?

I note that government backbenchers are very quick to talk about Sunday penalty rates, but they do not talk about the rates that workers in hospitality earn on Mondays. They do not talk about the base rate, the rate that most of these low-paid workers earn from Monday to Friday. They are very quiet about the Monday rates but they are very quick to talk about the Sunday rates.

Let's talk about another way that this government is attacking the working conditions of Australians. Let's talk about their attacks on the minimum wage. That is right: from their own terms of reference that they put before the Productivity Commission, they want to review the minimum wage rate. There is a reason why we have a minimum wage. It is historical. It was a decision made to say that people in this country need a basic income and standard of living to survive and to support their family.

In my part of the world, Bendigo, we have a history with this. John Arthur, who was a former federal member for Bendigo, was involved in the basic wage case. He was involved in that case to ensure that there was a minimum-wage safety net, a minimum rate of pay, for Australian workers so they could support their families. Now that condition is under attack. A hundred years on, that condition is under attack. This government wants to be the first government in a century to go after the minimum wage.

It is appalling the way this government is failing to support the lowest paid workers in this country. They are failing to protect the standard of living of working people. Every single measure in their budget attacks working people. It attacks their children. It cuts funding from their schools. It attacks their children who might want to go to university, by introducing $100,000 degrees. It attacks health and it attacks hospitals by cutting funding. This is an attack on working people and their living standards. It attacks their parents and goes after their pensions or part-pensions. It sees increases in the cost of petrol.

If you on the other side actually spent time talking to working people, you would discover that things are a lot tougher today than they were a decade ago. The cost of the basics, the costs of living, are going up. But, rather than supporting workers, rather than putting in a submission to the Fair Work Commission that says, 'Yes, our hardest working, lowest paid workers deserve a decent pay rise,' this government wanted there to be no increase. This government did not want to see our lowest paid workers get a decent wage increase.

The best example of how the government are going after low-paid workers is the attack on their own cleaners. This Prime Minister stood up in this parliament and said no cleaner would be worse off because the government abolished the Clean Start guidelines. What did we see a few months later? We saw a $6,000 pay cut—not a $6 pay cut, not a $600 pay cut, but a $6,000 pay cut to their own cleaners working in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. It is outrageous that this Prime Minister has misled not only this parliament but the cleaners. These are people on the lowest incomes, who are surviving because of penalty rates.

It does not matter which way you cut it, this government is going after our hardest working, lowest paid Australians. Whether they be cleaners, nurses, people working in process work, people working in construction or people working in retail, the government has them in its sights. It is going after their children through cuts in education. It is going after their parents through attacks on the pension. It is going after our regional communities, which are some of our most disadvantaged communities. And we have not seen the end of it. This government is going after our lowest paid workers. It has failed to protect the living standards and working conditions of Australian workers.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is a lack of engagement with this MPI by this side today because, as I always say about MPIs, 'This would have to be the single worst MPI in the history of the Federation.' And that always tends to be true when I say it. I looked at the MPI when I first got it, and I thought, 'What is this actually all about? What is the Labor Party getting at?' After the first three speakers from the Labor Party, I know even less what they are getting at. Is it about workers and conditions? Is it about the member for Bendigo's glass half-empty 'the world is heading off the precipice' monologue? Is it about the member for Grayndler's shipping obsession, although he was the single most important figure in shutting down the Australian shipping industry? But he wants to see the resurgence of the Australian shipping industry by getting rid of all foreign vessels. Or is it about what the member for Gorton was obtusely saying? It is like in Shakespeare's play: 'The lady doth protest too much.' The Labor Party is protesting just a bit too much about small business today.

What we saw in the House today was that Labor suddenly discovered small business! Their small business spokesperson—we do not know who it is—

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who is it? Who is it?

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

well, we do not know who it is; we are still working that out—came forward today to ask a question for the first time in 529 days. They doth protest just a little too much about small business. They are the party of small business, we are now being led to believe. You have discovered it! Small businesses are only most of the businesses in Australia. They only generate most of the employment in Australia. But you have suddenly discovered them and you have brought up small businesses here today in an MPI.

Is this MPI today about removing the red-tape and regulatory burden from small business? Is it about introducing some flexibility into the industrial relations system? The most important thing that a small business can have is some flexibility in the industrial relations system, recognising they are not big corporations, they are not big business and they are susceptible to rigid and inflexible labour market conditions. Is it about giving a small business owner a hand up so they can get on with employing people, creating jobs and employment? No, it is not.

Instead, we had monologues of absolute nonsense from the Labor Party, a mishmash of nothing—which, really, summarises their position in today's world. What are they all about? They do not really know. How are they going to do it? Somehow. 'We've got all the promises in the world, we've no method of delivering them and we don't really know what we're all about.' So today's issue of the day for the Labor Party is small business. They have discovered it! They have brought it forward: 'We're going to be about small business for today.'

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They just need a road to get them there!

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If any road will get you there, as the member for Swan points out. If you do not know where you are going, if you do not know where you will get to, any road will get you there! But I can tell you one road that you will not travel. There is one road that the Australian Labor Party will not travel, and that is being on the side of a small business owner in Australia today. It would not be on the side of the self-employed person. It would not be on the side of the tradie in Western Sydney who is now his own employer and entrepreneur and who has been developing for some time. The Howard government saw the number of self-employed people exceed the number of trade union members for the first time in Australian history. That change had been coming for a long time.

So, Tony's tradies understand that this budget is absolutely about them. They understand that we are about self-employed people, about family businesses and about small and micro businesses, and that we are really delivering policies that will matter and will change their lives. That is why the instant asset write-off program is going to work for small business, because it is an amount that matters. It is not $5,000, it is $20,000! And $20,000 is a reasonable, practical amount for small business to be able to invest in their business and return that cash flow to them. Of course, $5,000 did not recognise the reality of the modern economy.

We heard about the one per cent tax cut from the member for Gorton. This was yet another of the Labor government's tax measures that was never legislated. Once again, it was government by press release, government by fiat and government by overinflated statement. 'This is the most historic reform we will ever see: we are going to give a tax cut!' Never mind that they never actually did it. Never mind that they never legislated it and that they never got to do it.

This government has said that we will cut taxes to small business and that we will change the company tax rate, and we welcome that on this side of the House—recognising that there is a difference between small and large business, recognising that they do need to be able to compete and recognising that we have an opposition in this country who are hell-bent against them and against reform that will improve the conditions for small and family businesses in Australia today. What we need in this place is less of this rhetorical nonsense that we hear in these MPIs and more support for genuine policy measures that will help small business. Those on that side should get off their negative, pessimistic rhetoric about our economy and get on the side of small business and on the side of this government, which is helping it.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are being lectured by members opposite, who self-profess to have the interests of small business at heart when, just this morning, they were given an opportunity to flag some legislation through to be there ready to be passed by the Senate when it reconvenes. This is a government that earlier this week said that the priority this week was getting this package through. We could not possibly have a debate about issues of equality going on in the country because we had to get the small business package through.

This morning Labor gave them that gift—here it is, let's vote on it right here and right now. And what happened? They all voted against their own legislation. It is the centrepiece of their budget, that was supposed to be about stimulating jobs in this country, and they could not back it up in this chamber. They crossed the floor and voted against their own legislation. Do not think for one moment that that will not go unnoticed by the Australian people!

Let us have a look at this budget. It has been nothing but a missed opportunity from a government which clearly is much more concerned about keeping its own job than in creating new jobs for the Australian people. The only jobs that this government are interested in are their very own, not the millions of jobs of Australians in work, those seeking work or those preparing for the jobs of the future; not the 8.1 per cent of people in Newcastle who are looking for a job; not the jobs of thousands of families with mums and dads struggling against cost-of-living pressures; and not the jobs of nurses, doctors, policemen and women, the cleaners, the ship workers, the builders or the hospitality workers. They are not interested in the TAFE students and their preparations for a career into the future. They do not care about the university students studying for a professional degree in their chosen field. They are just interested in protecting their own jobs.

Let's have a look. We do know one thing about this government, despite its self-professed interest in small business. Labor has always welcomed this package, as the member for Gorton pointed out—it is Labor policy that they are now implementing. We are very happy about that! We are always happy for the government to come forward, backing good ideas from the Labor Party. But we know that when this Prime Minister starts saying that he is here to help small business that it is actually worth having a bit of a look at the track record. It is always good to have a look at what governments do rather than just the talk. What we do know about this government is that it has a solid record in failing to protect the living standards and working conditions of Australian men and women.

They dance to the tunes belted out by their mates at the IPA. The record is clear. Before the election, the Prime Minister tried to convince the Australian people that, if elected, he would not make any substantial changes to the workplace relations landscape. Remember that promise to the Australian people? No—Work Choices is dead, buried and cremated. We were not going to touch that. What have we seen since? We have seen no fewer than 10 coalition MPs come out calling for the abolition or cutting of penalty rates, including members of the front bench. Who was it who said:

… we cannot go on in a society where we are charging people on a day which is a normal operating day double what you would on any other, …

That was the junior minister for infrastructure, I do believe.

And who was it who said:

If you don't want to work on a weekend, fair enough, don't work on a weekend, …

I think that was the Prime Minister. Well, I can assure the Prime Minister that not all our nurses, our firefighters, our policemen and women, the low-paid hospitality workers and our retail workers actually want to work on a weekend. But, let's face it, none of them have a choice.

We have seen the government launch an all-encompassing Productivity Commission review into the Fair Work laws. That means every workplace right and every workplace condition is now potentially on the chopping block, including penalty rates and—as we have seen this week—the minimum wage.

But let's have a look at what is perhaps one of the greatest issues that we found with penalty rates in terms of the biggest backflip of all by this government, and that is the attack on paid parental leave. First we had, 'Paid Parental Leave over my dead body'. Then the Prime Minister tried to roll out his signature policy. Now, he just wants to attack 80,000 Australian mothers, who he labels as 'double-dipping, fraudulent rorters'. Shame on you, Prime Minister!

What about the retail workers— (Time expired)

Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is interesting that Labor has brought this matter forward today. It is a party that is opposed to economic growth and that is worried about the living standards of Australians—a party that is now opposing measures that they initially put forward to drive down debt and cut waste, but are trying to improve living standards? It is the party that put a chokehold on Australian industry with a job-killing carbon tax that cost every single household in the country more than $500 a year and yet is worried about our standards of living.

We on this side of the chamber know that the best way to increase the living standards of all Australians is through genuine economic growth. I want to take this opportunity to talk about some of the businesses in my electorate and how, under a coalition government, they are thriving, and how this is improving standards of living. I also want to talk about how the coalition government's small business package, announced just a few short weeks ago, is already creating quality, well-paid roles within the electorate of Solomon.

Brandit is a local business which specialises in uniforms and branded merchandise. Within a few days of the coalition's small business package being announced, Brandit had made a significant investment in their business by taking advantage of the $20,000 instant write-off. I understand they are buying a brand new screen printing machine. This will make them more competitive and it means they are able to complete work locally that they used to have to outsource. Now they will be able to employ somebody to do that work internally. It means more jobs in Solomon. A lot of their merchandise is sold locally, and a lot of their money is invested locally. This means more jobs; people are buying, there is more business confidence and more people being hired.

Labor's instinct is to regulate and tax the economy into prosperity. We on this side know that red tape does not help anyone—not business and not their employees. Mr Deputy Speaker, like yourself, I meet with a lot of local businesses; I talk to them about things that benefit them, things that they like and things that they do not like. Business such as: Elevated Boutique, Raw Cloth—Mr Deputy Speaker, you have commented on a number of my outfits and Raw Cloth is two fabulous ladies—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Don't laugh. You are crazy, because Mr Deputy Speaker has commented on my clothes that are being made from local indigenous fabrics in the Northern Territory.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why would he comment on your clothes?

Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am allowed to comment about this, but you are not in your seat. I have said this to you before, member for Newcastle. You should be in your seat.

Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The fact is that Raw Cloth is a wonderful, local business that employs people locally, that uses Territory made products—indigenous products. It is fantastic because they will be able to take advantage of some of the wonderful business initiatives that we have put forward. Me and My Lama is another local business which I am really proud of. They are a local small business that will be able to take advantage of the announcements we have made.

All these small local businesses have very clever local people all working to make their businesses as strong as they can and are contributing to the economy of Solomon. Every one of these business is employing local people from Solomon. Every dollar that they spend boosts the local economy. A couple of my very clever constituents have just started a law practice. Cozens, Johansen Lawyers is a new business; they started up on 23 March this year. The budget has been great for them. Since hearing about the coalition's small business package, they have already invested more into their business. They will also take advantage of the $20,000 instant write-off. For Cozens Johansen Lawyers this means that all the expenses of registering their business, creating their trust funds, registering their partnership are an instant write-off.

Being able to deduct these expenses has a real and immediate benefit for a business—cash flows improve, business confidence improves. Those on the other side would not know because they have only worked in unions. They have not worked in small business and they do not know about cash flows—(Time expired)

Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Gorton for his MPI topic of failing to protect the living and working conditions of Australian workers. Member for Gorton, is that not saying the bleeding obvious when we are dealing with this government? How can you trust this Prime Minister after he said, 'We will not touch working conditions'? Do you trust him? Those on the other side have not said, 'Yes,' because they know that they, like he, are part of the party of WorkChoices. Some of us were here when they introduced this legislation into the parliament. They brought it in here, they did not want to debate it—no mandate—but when we finally got to the detail those opposite were embarrassed. When they looked at the detail they found for the first time in Australian history that they had made it legal to pay people below the minimum award rate.

That is the party of WorkChoices. When the Prime Minister says, 'Trust us, we are not going to touch working conditions'—

Ms Butler interjecting—

Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Griffith is not in her seat.

Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

it is not a very smart move because these people have form. They have form; it is in their DNA. We know what they want. They actually call it 'flexibility'. They do not come in here to say, 'We want to cut working conditions' or 'We want to strip the minimum rates of pay,' but they do come and say: 'Look, for the productivity of the nation, we need flexibility.' The member for Mitchell over there, who is in the Prime Minister's pocket, was one of those who tried to urge the Prime Minister to get stuck into workers. They do not like the idea of 'We are not going to touch workers' pay and conditions' because they really have an agenda. They want to get back to where they were.

Just think about it: at the time they introduced WorkChoices there was exponential growth in one sector of our economy—senior executives' salaries. They were unrestricted and they went through the roof. They prefer to attack vulnerable workers—people on minimum rates of pay—and they made it legal to pay them below the minimum rate. That is what they did. As much as they whinge and bleat about it, they have history. If you want to be proud of that, put your hands up for that history

I know the population out there did not exactly see it the same way as that. Nail your colours to the mast! Be honest with yourselves! You are the party of Work Choices. It is your history. I know that more recently the Prime Minister had his minister for workplace relations, Senator Abetz, instigate a new Productivity Commission inquiry. What do you think he got them to do that inquiry on?

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Fairness, maybe?

Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, it wasn't fairness.

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Boosting living standards?

Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. They said: 'Let's have an inquiry into the workplace laws of this country. Let's open it up so that we look at everything in the workplace, including minimum rates and penalty rates.' You would not have done that if you were not intent on getting back to where you were. It is like a dog returning to its vomit; it really is. It has gone back to where it wants to belong. It shows its true colours. It wants to get back to Work Choices, otherwise it would not have done it. This time they want to be able to come into this place and say: 'It wasn't us. We are simply implementing the recommendations of the Productivity Commission.' That is what they want to do. Just think about it. They want to say: 'Trust us. We're not going to touch wages.' Why don't you ask the cleaners when they visit your office here at night, or, if you get in here early enough—and I know the member for Mitchell does—ask them in the morning, 'Have their wages been touched by this government?' Those opposite know what the answer is. That is why they have not asked them. The answer is: they have.

Do not forget these are the same people who said: 'There'll be no cuts to health, no cuts to education, no cuts to pensions, no cuts to the SBS and the ABC'—all that sort of stuff. They do not take these promises all that seriously. So, when they stand up here and say, 'We will not touch the working conditions of Australian workers,' do you want to believe them?

Opposition members: No!

They can't. And those opposite want to go quiet on that because they know that they have form. They have allowed the stripping away of award conditions in the past. They have allowed people on minimum rates of pay to be affected. Now they want the Productivity Commission to do it on their behalf. Shame, Tony Abbott.

Andrew Broad (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The matter of public interest discussion today is: 'The Government failing to protect the living standards and working conditions of Australians'. I ask: where is the Labor Party of old—the party of the workers? Over the winter break, instead of going overseas, I suggest those opposite grab a car and a camper trailer and head out to Barcaldine and stand under the Tree of Knowledge. They might be inspired under the Tree of Knowledge to remember the Labor Party of old—the workers in the heat. I remember the heat in a shearing shed north of Broken Hill. I remember the flies, the burrs, the sweat under my arms. You bend your back working. You are away from your family.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Andrew Broad (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You used to represent these people—but no longer. There is not one shearer in the Labor Party. Not one! Tell me: where are the shearers? The shearers are here. The workers are in our party now, because we know what it is like for them.

I am getting a little old. In a few weeks I will turn 40, and my memory seems to be failing me. I was in small business in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012—the years when those opposite were in government. I do not recall the $20,000 instant write-off. I do not recall that. Do you recall that?

Government members: No!

I do not recall that. I do not recall the 1½ per cent tax cut. Maybe my memory is failing me. I do not recall being able to deduct irrigation infrastructure in one year. I do not recall it. I do not recall being able to deduct grain fodder and storage in three years. Maybe I need to sack my accountant! Maybe I need to get a better accountant. I do not recall that because it did not happen. You say you are the friend of business but you did not deliver for business.

But wait! My memory is coming back. I am having a moment. I recall a bill that I got for my transport had an itemised line for a carbon tax. I recall having to write out an additional $10,000 for a carbon tax. I was just a small businessman. My memory has come back. I also remember the water management policies under Penny Wong. I remember those policies because thousands of hardworking small businesspeople turned out to protest them, because you were robbing the confidence of those country people. That is what I recall. I also recall the hardworking truck drivers. You know the hardworking truck driver. If anyone has had to get into a truck and try to get wild cattle from the Northern Territory out of a truck they would know that these truck drivers are hardworking people. I remember them being out of a job because of what happened to our export market. You shut it down. Overnight, you banned live exports. It was a disgrace! So don't come in here and talk about the working conditions of Australians, because I was there as a small businessperson. I was a worker when you were in government, and my living standards did not go up. My working conditions did not go up; they went down. And the hardworking truck driver and the hardworking shearer were keen to vote you out.

I will give you a great piece of advice: over the winter break, go for a drive, go to the Tree of Knowledge in Barcaldine and reconnect with the party that you once were: the party of the burrs in the hand, the dirt under the fingernails—the real hard workers—and you will remember what it is to lift the living standards of Australians. I suggest that, if you do not go for that drive, you will spend many years in opposition, because you need to remember why you were voted out in the first place. You need to have some honest reflection.

Australians know the truth. Their memory is better than mine—thank goodness! That is because they remember paying the carbon tax and its impact on their jobs. They remember that they did not have job confidence. They remember that you shut down exports. The hardworking truck driver had his truck parked and did not have a job. That is what they remember, and it is still fresh in their memory. Unless you go on the drive to Barcaldine, unless you go out and sit under the Tree of Knowledge and pause for a little while and reflect on what the Labor Party used to be—the party of the worker instead of the party the welfare—you are going to spend many, many years staying on that side of the parliament. Have a great drive. Get out and visit regional Australia, and it will be the first step to your learning the lessons that you still have not learnt.

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for the discussion has concluded.