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

I, too, take the opportunity to speak on these appropriation bills. These bills, effectively, are a result of the last election. Labor has agreed to pass these bills. But it is worthwhile noting that, together with the supply acts, which were passed earlier, these three bills of appropriation from the Consolidated Revenue Fund are for annual service of the government for the full year of 2016-2017 and to facilitate the implementation of the 2016-2017 budget. In total, around $58 billion is sought for the remainder of that financial year, and these amounts effectively form the bottom line for the budget.

As I say, this very much results from the last election and, to that extent, I think it is worthwhile to test some of the government's record as it now appears. The basis of this budget, if you listen to the government, is called 'budget repair'. Interestingly, one thing that you will never hear this government talk about is the global financial crisis. They will never talk about what occurred there. They will never talk about what their response was to the global financial crisis when they were in opposition, because, through their then shadow Treasurer, they said, 'We should wait and see what develops.' It is clear that Labor acted in accordance with Treasury advice. We acted to protect the citizens of this country, we acted to protect growth—we were the only OECD country during that period that recorded growth—and we acted to protect jobs. And there was a cost to that—there is no question about that. But what this government has done is come along so many years later wanting to lay the blame for budget repair solely at the feet of Labor. Particularly at that time in opposition, they just buried their heads in the sand and played politics.

I would contrast that to the position that Labor is adopting today. We are supporting the government's position. We do acknowledge the need for addressing budget repair. As a matter of fact, in the lead-up to the last election, Labor made it very clear that we would partner with the government in addressing issues of budget repair. We spoke about increasing tobacco excise, which is not necessarily popular out there. We actually proposed that. We spoke about negative gearing and adjustment to capital gains tax. I know we were not the first to do it. I know the then member for North Sydney, in his valedictory speech, also made mention of the need to do that. We know that Treasurer Morrison spoke on many occasions about it being subject to various successes. But when it came down to it, there was only one party prepared to take the hard decisions. We are committed to doing something about this. It is an issue that particularly affects those of us living in Sydney and those of us living in Melbourne who are very much impacted by the inflating real estate markets. We said that we were prepared to do it and we committed ourselves to do it.

Similarly, in terms of VET FEE-HELP, we on this side do want to get young people through trades. We do want people to actually gain an education which is going to help them be more job ready for employment opportunities. We said we would put an $8,000 cap on that, which was not what we saw this government do over a period of time where I think it blew out 300 per cent. People were receiving various certificates, diplomas and all sorts of magical documents with lovely crests and headings on them but they did not eventuate into jobs. And yet people are being stung for VET FEE-HELP debts of over $30,000 and not netting employment. We do not think that is a very good idea. It is not a smart idea. And it has taken this government a long time to actually come to terms with that and to be committed to doing something about it.

The plan of those opposite was to give big business a $50 billion tax cut. In the course of this concept of budget repair, they thought there was something to trickle-down economics. They proposed that if they could give business a $50 billion tax cut then those businesses would, in turn, pass it on to their employees in higher wages. Put this to the test: how many times have you ever heard of a conservative government popping up in a test case of the Industrial Relations Commission of the minimum rates adjustment to say, 'We support it'? In the whole time that I have been involved in public life, I cannot remember a government from the conservative ranks ever saying that they support a wage adjustment. The fact at the moment is we have the lowest possible wage growth seen in the last 20 years; it has stagnated. Most economists say that is one of the issues we currently face. I would have thought that, through trickle-down economics, a $50 billion tax reduction might see corporate profits go up a little, may see dividends to shareholders paid out and may see a little bit of corporate buyback, but I am not sure I would have backed that in as being the biggest drawcard to budget repair.

The same could be said for giving people earning $180,000 a tax cut to their marginal rate. Those opposite would propose that, if they gave the top three per cent of wage earners in the country a tax cut, those people would invest, they would put their money somewhere else, they would stimulate the economy and they would create jobs. Maybe not, maybe they will buy their sixth or seventh house. If that occurred, 75 per cent of people would not get anything.

Deputy Speaker Coulton, I know you are familiar with my electorate. There are many things my electorate is very proud of. We have the most multicultural community in the whole of the country. Thirty per cent of my community speak Asian languages. It is very diverse, colourful and vibrant. But my community is not a rich community. When the government indicated it would give these tax cuts at the higher end of the scale, it basically took away any chance of anyone in my community receiving a zack. In my community, the average household income is under $60,000, not the average income but the average household income. People want to talk about things such as education. They have high aspirations for their kids. They know that in a society like Australia that the ticket to success is a good education. They understand that and, quite frankly, they make their kids work pretty hard to attain good results. Mums and dads will work two or three jobs to make sure their kids get a proper education and the resources they need. Education is a very high priority for them.

Health was also a big issue, with the government wanting to talk about Medicare insofar as cutting financial support for people going for MRIs and cutting funding for various aspects of oncology treatments. It is all very well to say that people are expected to pay as they go, but, in a community like mine, health is very, very important. In a country like Australia, we expect that people will be able to access first-class health care with their Medicare card, not their credit card. Those things were important.

The central plank of the budget was $50 billion in tax cuts for business, showing that those opposite turned their backs on working-class areas like mine and those that many members on my side represent. Although the truth of it is that, while many of those opposite might not want to admit it, people in their electorates would have been in the same financial position as those in my electorate. They turned their backs on those people, and the consequence of that is that they lost in the vicinity of 16 or 17 seats. They turned their backs on the needs of ordinary people in their community.

Those opposite are cutting $30 billion from schools, and they want to talk about Gonski, asking what it has delivered and all the rest of it. Apart from everything else I have indicated, my community is over-represented by families that live with disabilities, and there is a reason for that. As I said, it is a very working-class community; it is not a very rich community. A lot of people gravitate to Western Sydney because the land is cheaper. They will compromise on houses and land to make sure that their children are able to receive the necessary support. For instance, 52 per cent of all families in New South Wales that live with autism are within a 20-kilometre radius of the Liverpool CBD—and it is certainly not due to the water we have or the air we breathe. It is due to the fact that people make compromises to look after their kids, particularly kids who are on the autism spectrum. Probably the most devastating statistic is that 82 per cent of all those families are single-parent families; regrettably, very few marriages survive issues associated with raising children with autism.

These people want to know, and they deserve to know, that their kids will be given the necessary assistance through our education system and through our health services, that they are not going to be forgotten, that their kids can do what all the rest of our kids can do, which is to reach their potential. The Gonski money was used pretty constructively in schools in my electorate—I cannot speak for everyone else, but in my electorate I saw what was happening. For kids with a learning disability or kids who needed speech therapy, including kids on the autism spectrum, there were special classes aimed at adjusting kids into mainstream education. These are areas where we can make a difference. We are a lucky society. We are a very fortunate society. But society cannot be lucky and fortunate for a certain few—we must make sure that we do not allow people to fall through the cracks.

We must be, and we must always aspire to be, a caring community. That does not mean to say that we are simply going to be a welfare state. I was just talking to a member at the table about the need for people to be in work. We made that very clear—in fact, while in government we made it very clear. We drew a distinction between people on a disability support pension or an age pension and people on Newstart, on the dole. We did not want to establish an alternate economy where people could opt-out and simply say, 'I'll join John Howard's surfing team'—as they used to call it in the past. We want to make sure there is an incentive for people to get out and gain employment and contribute to the community. It is a two-way street. We tried very hard to deliver that message in the community.

Quite frankly, when we talk about jobs, education and health, these were things that resonated with the community. Because of that, particularly in Western Sydney, all these seats came back to Labor. They had a flirtation with the Liberals—and I am talking about the fancy things—but they found out that it meant a tax cut for big business. There was nothing for mums and dads raising kids in Western Sydney, nothing for their struggle to pay a mortgage and nothing for them in relation to job security. These are issues that were important. These are issues that Labor was able to focus on. These are the issues that delivered Labor election victory in Western Sydney. As I said at the start of my contribution, we will not oppose the passage of these bills, but I think we ought to have regard to how that came about.

See this speech in context