Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member opposite for her contribution. Perhaps the best place to start, for the sake of harmony, is where there is some agreement and, looking over the Labor response today, there does seem to be some agreement at least to some of the savings proposals that the government has placed before the parliament. I refer to the media release that has come out today from members opposite, which notes that:

We will not oppose the Liberal’s changes to family tax benefit B for couple families, a saving of more than $500 million.

That does represent at least a modest acceptance of a portion of what would have been the overall savings from a fiscal measure over four years of $4.7 billion. They are agreeing to a saving of $500 million, and that saving appears to be, if I can infer, agreed to being fair by members opposite.

It is our proposal, and it is one that has been agreed to by members opposite, that for a family, which has been receiving family tax benefit A and family tax benefit B, when the youngest child turns 13 the family tax benefit B would cease. Labor seems to have agreed that that measure is fair in the overall context—we do refer very consistently to the budgetary context that we are in at the moment, and that is something I will return to in a moment—but in effect nothing else in this suite of measures, which is designed to save money, restrain expenditure and pay for child care, is deemed to be fair, but this one thing is.

I want to touch on the issue of the schoolkids bonus. Each and every piece of data or cameo that is produced by the Labor Party cites a reduced figure that acknowledges that the schoolkids bonus has been abolished. That was a payment designed by Labor to go to families; it was explicitly linked to the mining tax. So, when the member for Jagajaga states that Labor is protecting families, the real-world question arises: are you protecting the interests of families by continuing to support the payment of a bonus, which is now being paid for by borrowed money?

When we find ourselves in a situation of inherited deficits and inherited debt—which is precisely where we are—we are borrowing the money to pay for every piece of growth in expenditure in every portfolio that cannot be restrained. The question arises in respect to something like the schoolkids bonus: are you actually protecting the long-term interests of families by paying them money that in effect is borrowed because we are in debt and deficit. When we came to government we inherited the five worst deficits ever in Australian history—worth $191 billion compounded. We inherited $123 billion in projected accumulative deficits. As I noted earlier, Treasury noted that, if remedial action to save some money and restrain expenditure growth was not taken, we faced at least 10 years of ongoing deficits. What that means for every single child in a family that receives family tax benefit A or family tax benefit B—if there is some form of expenditure inside that system that cannot be restrained and that money is being borrowed—those children will end up having to pay that money back when they are fully fledged members of the Australian taxation system. So you are in effect borrowing money for payments that must be repaid by people when they inevitably enter the tax system. So a child at 13, who becomes a 23- or 24-year-old taxpayer, may well find themselves, without appropriate expenditure restraint, in a situation where they are paying taxes to fund not only the welfare system of their own time but also the welfare system from five, eight, 10, 15 years ago. That is not a fair situation. The only way that situation can be avoided is if there is meaningful restraint in expenditure. That, as I noted in question time, is a very, very difficult process to engage in.

What is very notable is that members opposite acknowledge, in principle, that savings have to be made within the budget, that we do have a spending problem. They acknowledge that in principle. The member for McMahon has been intelligently and rationally quite consistent in noting this on a variety of occasions. He even went so far as to say, in a comment he made in respect of the 2014-15 budget at the Press Club on 20 May 2015:

Labor does not necessarily object to the quantum of fiscal consolidation in this budget.

That is simply a statement that the Labor shadow Treasurer agreed that the type of turnaround that was envisaged in the 2014-15 budget is appropriate. Yet, at some point, that must involve rational, considered savings. Some of those savings will be reinvested in other expenditure measures, as is the case here with sweeping reforms to child care. Some of those savings will contribute to fiscal consolidation and closing that gap between what we spend and what we earn as a nation every year.

What appears to happen is that members opposite agree in principle to the notion that you must make savings. They agree with the notion that savings are difficult to make. They agree with the notion that savings proposals will, in the words of the member the McMahon, not be 'universally popular' or 'necessarily win us votes', and yet they do not nominate savings. They oppose a variety of savings. They oppose savings that they themselves suggested should be made whilst they were in government.

We heard some talk today about the budgetary black hole that members opposite face. What they have done since we have come to government is oppose or suggest the reversal of saving measures which would total $48.5 billion. They have also proposed $10.6 billion worth of expenditure. That would not deliver anything that resembles fiscal consolidation. Is that in the best interest of Australian families? It cannot possibly be in the best interest of Australian families to propose an overall budgetary setting that never sees our nation return to surplus and sees the children of each and every family coming into the tax system with the burden of paying taxes not only to provide for welfare services and infrastructure for their own time but ending up with the debt and the requirement to pay the interest on that debt to service our expenditure today. How is that possibly, on any rational analysis, fair?

See this speech in context