Daniel Mulino (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

I must say that speech was very high on political rhetoric, personal attacks and dad jokes. I want to put on the record that I will not criticise dad jokes, because, if I do so, my daughter, when she reads this Hansard down the track—which probably won't happen—will roll her eyes at me and my hypocrisy. I'm all for dad jokes. I'm all for a bit of political rhetoric, but, at some point in a 10-minute contribution, you've got to back it up with a little bit of substance. I must say this is a very strange topic for those opposite to bring. Saying that they want to bring a topic about governing for all Australians to this place, after their suite of policies at the last election, is quite a remarkable case of self-delusion.

Let's look at what really matters to people in their lives, and let's look at which side of this chamber is governing for all Australians. Let's look at people's wages. Let's look at what really underpins people's quality of life. In the last term and this term—and, indeed, in the lead-up to coming to government—we backed in the widest possible set of strong institutional arrangements, whether it be supporting unions in their negotiating or supporting minimum wage cases. Right across the board, we've supported people having higher take-home pay. Every time we've done so, those opposite have pushed back. When we pushed for higher minimum wages, those opposite said that the sky would fall in. Those opposite said that it would lead to job losses. The exact opposite happened. What happened was that people's wages went up. What we're seeing right now is that people's real wages, right across the board, are increasing. This is governing for all Australians, providing them with the most foundational of supports for their standard of living.

What's the other side of that? It's not just what you earn; it's what you take home, and this is perhaps where the contrast is just as great, if not greater. We went to the last election with a policy of tax cuts for all Australians, and it wasn't just one set of tax cuts. We've now gone to the Australian people with three sets of tax cuts which would benefit all taxpayers. In contrast, those opposite went to the last election with a policy of increasing taxes on all taxpayers. They come into this place with a motion asking who it is that's governing for all Australians. Where we've gone to successive budgets reducing taxes for all Australians, they've gone to the last election with a policy of explicitly rolling back tax cuts—of coming into this place after the election and increasing taxes on all taxpayers—and they want to come into this place with this MPI. It is truly ridiculous.

Those opposite, with their rhetoric, are attacking us for being too left-wing. It's remarkable when you look at the actual performance over the last decade when it comes to economic management. Those opposite claimed there were surpluses just over the horizon—like over-the-horizon radar. They were almost here. 'Don't worry; they're almost here.' In fact, some of them were so close there were mugs printed. It wasn't just over the horizon; it was within grasp. There were dots on the radar. They never arrived. We had successive surpluses—successive surpluses delivered.

So those opposite come in here with the rhetoric. The rhetoric's fine—this place is all about rhetoric—but the rhetoric from that side is not backed up at all by statistics. They claim the mantle of economic management, but they did not deliver in a shocking decade of fiscal mismanagement, of real wages going backwards and of the worst productivity growth in half a century. We're the party which has delivered tax cuts; they're the party which tried to unwind them.

Another powerful example of where we are governing for all Australians and they are trying to unwind it is universal health care. We have been backing up Medicare for decades. In so many instances over many elections, those opposite come in here and try to undermine Medicare. We went to the last election with a policy supporting higher rates of bulk-billing. Bulk-billing is something we back in. Bulk-billing is so critical for universal access, because it's the best way of ensuring that everybody gets access to the core services they need. We went to the last election with a policy of more urgent care clinics, which I've seen in my own electorate, delivering critical services for people—people who are accessing them outside business hours and who can thereby avoid going to emergency departments.

Those opposite, in the last election, were led by a person who had been a health minister, and yet, after three years of having the opportunity to deliver a health policy, when we delivered our health policy, the next day they said: 'Look, we'll do the same—we'll spend the same amount. Me too.' So, after three years of deep thought on health care, they added nothing, and that's exactly what was reflected throughout the campaign in so many policy areas. When it comes to health care and when it comes to service delivery right across our social safety net, we have been backers of Medicare, of the NDIS and of superannuation—and not just backers of them; we brought them in, and we have defended them against attacks from those opposite over decades. At the last election, the contrast when it comes to Medicare could not have been more stark. We backed in universality; we backed in governing for all. Those opposite had the most shallow and hollow of policies, which would have undermined Medicare.

When it comes to housing, those opposite did so little for so long. We have invested billions upon billions in housing. We've invested in skills; we've invested in programs to help first-time buyers; we've invested in helping the upcoming generation to buy a home—to buy their first home. Those opposite spent almost all of the last term, in combination with the Greens, stopping our policies from coming through the parliament. They were blocking our policies and playing a negative game. We were governing for all in the last term, and we continue to, in the face of opposition from those opposite along with the Greens—a truly unholy alliance—and what we're seeing is that that policy is now paying off.

Perhaps the worst example, though, where those opposite aren't governing for all—not just for current generations and not just the young now but also future generations—is climate change. We went to the last election having delivered so much in the first term when it came to climate change. We had delivered a legislated 2050 target. We had delivered a 2030 target—with those opposite, of course, opposing it and opposing any action. Those opposite had a decade of inaction, which put us in the worst possible position to achieve what we need to when it comes to climate change.

When you think about not just the young people of today but future generations—about truly governing for all in an intergenerational sense—what are we seeing from those opposite? The most bizarre internal political charade, the most bizarre internal political infighting, and inward-looking approaches to policies after an election loss. That is the last thing that they or the country need. We've got senior members of those opposite putting private members' bills into this place, questioning the need to act on climate change. We've got a complete internal debate from those opposite on whether we need to do anything at all. It is truly bizarre.

Let's have a debate about governing for all, because those opposite have had the most sectional, narrow minded, cynical approach to so many issues. That was reflected in how compelling their policies were at the last election! What we're seeing, unfortunately—both for them and the nation—is that they are doubling down on that, whether it be tax policy, whether it be housing policy, whether it be the social safety net or whether it be climate change.

As I said, when it comes to climate change, they're just getting worse and worse, and it's going to be the future generations that suffer if some of the policies that they are putting forward in their internal party debates get back into the mainstream. Just about every one of our major OECD partners, just about every one of our trading partners, has moved well beyond debating whether or not climate change is happening. Many of those countries look at us and think it's bizarre that we are still debating this.

See this speech in context