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

It is most interesting to follow the member for Fraser on his contribution to his private member's motion, which seemed more like plugging his book, rather than any advancing of alternative economic strategies of the opposition. We hear these great concerns from the opposition about the less well off in our society. I say to the members of the opposition: if you are so concerned about the less well off, why are you not repealing the carbon tax? The Parliamentary Library has been kind enough to get us some information about the spending on electricity prices. It follows that the lowest quintile of our population spent 5.2 per cent of their income on electricity. As we get to the lower end of that lowest quintile, it would be much higher. An average household spends only 1.5 per cent of their income on electricity. So the lowest income household spends 3½ times more of their income on electricity than does the average household. If we compare it to the highest quintile of incomes, the lowest quintile spends five times more of their income on electricity.

So one would think that if members from the opposition here were concerned about the inequality in our nation, they would be very keen to do everything they possibly could to get those prices of electricity down. They have another chance. Today the Prime Minister reintroduced the repeal of the carbon tax bill in the House. The opposition now have a chance. If they are really concerned about inequality, the steps are simple. Repeal the carbon tax because that lowers electricity prices. When you have high electricity prices, the people that you hurt the most are the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. But it appears to me from the contribution by the member for Fraser, he is prepared to have the lowest quintile of our population pay five times higher electricity prices as their share of income, because he believes—and I think he writes—that this will stop the sea level from rising, otherwise we will inundate Pacific atolls. That is the message from the opposition: 'We do not care about you; you will pay higher prices for electricity because we believe we can control the sea levels.'

It also shows the complete fundamental misunderstanding of our economy that those on the other side have. Our economic pie, our wealth, is not a fixed, static unit. It rises and falls with the struggles and achievements of our entrepreneurs and that is what we should be encouraging. We should be making sure that we do everything to encourage small businesses—the entrepreneurial class of our society—to get out there, to have a go, to create, innovate and take risks, because that is what increases national income and that is what enables us to provide more money to those lowest quintile earners.

In fact, that is what we have done in this society over the last several decades. For example, in 1983-84, per capita, welfare spending in this country was $1,500 in today's prices. Today, because we have grown the economy, it is actually $6,000. We have been able to increase it four times. This is the spin-off when we get on with creating economic growth and growing the economy. What did we see under the six years of Labor?

What happened to that small business community, the entrepreneurs of our society? We saw job losses in the small business sector of over 500,000 people. You could fill the MCG five times with the number of people in small business that lost their jobs under this group. Yes, there was a transfer of small business—

Dr Leigh interjecting—

See this speech in context