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

I rise to speak on the appropriation bill and outline Labor's concerns in relation to the central plank of the government's plan to provide $80 billion by way of tax cuts to large corporations in the main. If you look at the breakdown of the $80 billion, well in excess of $75 billion will go to the very large corporations, many of which are multinational companies, and the big banks. Having calculated the proportion of money that would be provided by way of tax cuts, we know that that would ensure the big banks would receive $17 billion in tax cuts. It just so happens that that $17 billion shortfall, which we'd like to see go to schools, instead will be provided to those four banks.

For that reason, we absolutely reject the priorities and the values of the Prime Minister and this government in terms of their focus on favouring those corporations in lieu of providing decent health and decent education in this nation—cuts to hospitals, cuts to schools and largesse to mates of the Prime Minister. He's always felt most comfortable in the boardrooms of Australia, not the workplaces. Being a former merchant banker, the Prime Minister would be on intimate terms with many of the chief executives of these banks and businesses. Clearly he needs to deliver to them, as he would see it. He argues that this is in keeping with trickle down economic theory—that is, provide the biggest tax cuts to big business by cutting funding to social services and it will trickle down, like some form of osmosis, to middle- and working-class families.

This economic theory has been discredited by every eminent economist across the world. It was rejected when it was introduced by the Reagan administration. It led to massive government debt because they did not fund the tax cuts. It impoverished services in health and education. We've seen that country, a great nation, now clearly not looking after its middle class. The middle class has been hollowed out. Real wages have fallen in very significant terms in the United States of America. And the rot started with the introduction of trickle down economic theory—propounded then by someone who was held to know something about economics, Milton Friedman. Well, his theory now has been discredited.

Indeed, it is that theory that the current President of the United States and the now Prime Minister of Australia want to do, which is to provide unfunded corporate tax cuts to big business, to multinational companies. Imagine this: we already know, given the amount of money that will be provided to multinational companies, that it immediately leaves our shores. That much is clear. Why should it be the case that the banks in this country receives such largesse given their conduct over the last number of years?

The royal commission has just started its examination of that industry, and the revelations, quite frankly, are astonishing. The victims of decisions by banks number into the thousands, if not tens and hundreds of thousands of people. Whether it be just a complete disregard for services, whether it's undermining insurance and not treating customers of insurance properly or whether it's robbing them by increasing fees without notice, there's a litany of sins by the banks, and yet this government, led by this former merchant banker, the Prime Minister, has sought to remove or transfer what should be going to hospitals and schools, to banks. That is quite shameful, and that's why we cannot abide that view.

At the same time all of this is happening, we're having a debate around providing largesse to the banks. We have, on 1 July this year, the second tranche of penalty-rate cuts taking effect. We saw the cuts to 700,000 workers' wages on 1 July last year. Retail and hospitality workers—some of the hardest-working, lowest-paid workers in this nation, who suffered real losses as a result—will now see on1 July this year, in just over a month, a further cut to their wages. As a result, the acute pressure on them to deal with cost-of-living pressures will be getting greater and greater and yet, of course, the Prime Minister turns his back on those workers. He has no empathy for those workers, no empathy for any working people in this country.

You see, the Prime Minister really hasn't ever financially struggled. You'd think the leader of this nation would have regard for its people. You'd think the leader of this nation—whatever his background—would actually take a keen interest in the needs and aspirations of working people. But not this Prime Minister. This Prime Minister's values are written in the budget papers. This Prime Minister's values are: look after the big end of town and turn your back on hardworking Australians. This Prime Minister has no empathy or concern or regard for the hardworking Australians that are in workplaces throughout this land and that's why he supports cuts to penalty rates, supports $80 billion worth of cuts to big business and, at the same time, cuts to health and education at a time when wage growth is at its lowest in more than 20 years. We're supposed to cop this.

Labor will not stand for this approach. Labor do not support and will never support such a remarkable largesse to big business. We look after middle-class and working-class families in this country. The backbone of our economy is working people—yes, working in businesses—and businesses too. But it doesn't mean you turn your back on working people, which has occurred here, and it's written in the budget for all to see.

As I was saying, on 1 July this year, there will be cuts to those 700,000 workers' wages at a time of low wage growth. There are now more applications being put forward to the Fair Work Commission. So along with retail and hospitality workers, hairdressers and beauticians' awards are being put forward for consideration for further cuts. All of us have visited hairdressers and barbers. They're not highly paid. In fact, for the amount of training they have to do, they're quite low-paid workers. And yet they're going to get—if the application is successful—a cut in their wages because there'll be a reduced penalty. We say: where are the priorities of this government when it can provide so much to those who need so little and, at the same time, cut real wages from people that are struggling to pay the energy bill or health costs or pay for school uniforms or school fees just to make ends meet, to put food on the table, to look after their family, to pay the mortgage, to pay the rent, to put petrol in the car?

Those basic essentials are under pressure, and the government's answer is to make it harder, not make it easier. I say people can outgrow their background and a true leader is empathetic to the needs of others and doesn't have to have a lived experience, but it would appear clear to me now that the Prime Minister has no empathy. He does not understand the challenges of millions of Australian workers that are dealing with these day-to-day pressures. If he was comfortable in the boardrooms, he feels awkward in the depots, offices and other workplaces where 12 million Australians work. And for that reason he should be censured and so too should be the government for its priorities.

Labor's plan is, of course, to be fiscally responsible, not provide an unfunded tax cut to the big end of town and actually provide greater tax relief for the majority of workers. It's true to say that, when wage growth is this flat and the government has no answers, at least providing a decent tax cut is some form of relief. But we'll need to do more if we're elected, and we will do more in government about rebalancing arrangements in the workplace. There are too many people marginalised in workplaces, not willing to speak up, whether it be on getting a pay rise or, even more importantly, health and safety issues in often dangerous workplaces. It worries Labor when people are injured or die at work, particularly if they've understood the risk and haven't felt comfortable enough or supported enough to raise concerns with their employer or others.

And so we say to the government: this budget is a budget that is, at its core, unfair and looks after the top one per cent. The Prime Minister would understand that because he is the top one per cent. The Prime Minister is at the top 0.1 per cent! Clearly, when he thinks about trickle-down economics and it working, he may well be right, because there are some winners with trickle-down economics. It's the top 1 per cent. They'll benefit. We know that without question. They'll benefit because we're going to raid the Treasury, we're going to raid taxpayers' piggy bank and we're going to give it over to big banks and multinational companies and then not have a whit of understanding as to how we're going to properly fund a first-class education system, fix up the complete debacle that is the NBN, and look after the health needs of Australians, look after people in aged care—the real pressing needs that exist, that families are struggling with: looking after older parents, looking after kids in child care, trying to find places and all of the difficulties that each family confronts.

And yet everywhere you look, it doesn't matter where, there just doesn't seem to be a role for this government just to lend a helping hand. Nobody wants a hand out; they want a helping hand. They expect their government to provide that form of support. We call ourselves the country of the fair go. We like to think of ourselves as having an egalitarian spirit. Well, it has to be manifest in the policies of the nation. It has to be clear within the budget that we care about working-class and middle-class people, not just those people who are associates of the Prime Minister, who work with the Prime Minister or socialise with the Prime Minister. It's clear to me that, if anything, this budget is honest to that extent, because it reflects the values and priorities of a Prime Minister who is, effectively, an elitist and, indeed, socially unable to empathise with the concerns of the overwhelming number of Australians who are struggling.

See this speech in context