House debates

Wednesday, 17 November 2010

Matters of Public Importance

Cost of Living

Photo of Harry JenkinsHarry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for North Sydney proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The failure of the Government to take decisive action on the cost of living for Australian families.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

3:34 pm

Photo of Joe HockeyJoe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | | Hansard source

Listening carefully to that question time, I was able to reflect with my colleagues on the fact that—although perhaps we did not pick it up—in the last days of Kevin Rudd, the member for Griffith, as Prime Minister he became increasingly shrill when answering questions in question time. He was clearly a man under pressure. Perhaps we did not pick it up in the way that we should have, but we did notice that it had occurred.

What I and my colleagues picked up today is that this week our Prime Minister has been incredibly shrill. Our Prime Minister has been extremely nasty and has begun to answer every question with a nasty statement personally attacking the individual who asked the question. Quite clearly, she is missing the praetorian guard that normally a prime minister has that is capable of delivering the blows in question time. But what is most surprising about this is that the Prime Minister should fall into this form so quickly after an election. Just a few months after the election, the Prime Minister seems to have her own backbench acting like an ill disciplined bunch—be it the member for Capricornia who today came out and said that she supports gay marriage even though the Prime Minister herself says that she does not or the member for Wills, who said it yesterday and talked about gay marriage, at the same time as the Minister for Trade said, ‘These are the things that should not distract us.’

But, of course, the Prime Minister has had cause to be distracted—be it the words of Citizen Graham Richardson, be it the words of Citizen Paul Howes or be it the words of Citizen Karl Bitar. This is a government that, before our eyes, is fracturing. The problem for Australian families is that they are being left out of the equation. Australian families are no longer being discussed by this government. Australian families are the victims of this government. Australian families are being left behind by a government that has so carelessly forgotten their interests.

The Labor Party in government no longer is talking about the cost of electricity; it is the coalition that is talking about the cost of electricity. The Labor Party in government does not talk about the 13 per cent increase in the cost of water; it is the coalition that talks about it. The Labor Party does not talk about the increase in hospital prices of seven per cent; it is the coalition that talks about it. The Labor Party, which pretends to care about child care, does not talk about child care. Child care has gone up seven per cent in the last year alone, well above the inflation figure—let alone education expenses more generally which have gone up six per cent. It is the coalition that is raising these issues. It is the coalition that has laid down a plan. It is the coalition that raises the challenge of rising interest rates. It is the coalition that has the courage to lay down a nine-point plan to get more competition into banking. It is the coalition that has the courage to introduce into this place legislation that takes on the big banks and oil companies on price signalling. It is the coalition that is getting on with the job of doing something for those families that are struggling under the everyday increases in prices. That is because we understand what people are going through.

Many Australians are asking themselves how it is that we are in a mining boom and how it is that we are meant to have this great economy, this wonderful economy—as the Treasurer and Prime Minister keeps saying, the strongest economy in the OECD—and yet we are paying more and getting less. That is what they are asking themselves. It is a reasonable comment. Quite clearly, the Australian economy is patchy. Quite clearly, the Australian economy is performing at different speeds. Quite clearly, there are some people who are doing exceptionally well and we say, ‘Hoorah! We want that, we want our country to be strong,’ but there are so many Australian families that are wondering now how they are going to pay for Christmas presents. I am serious about it, because if you have got a $300,000 mortgage then in the last fortnight alone your mortgage repayment after tax has gone up $1,000.

There may well be lots of economic justification for the RBA moving on interest rates, and it may well be the case that there are so-called justifications for the banks moving above the RBA rate—none of which I buy—but I say to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, emphatically that to simply ignore the impact on Australian families is wrong. The Leader of the Opposition will not do it, the coalition will not do it, because we are prepared to stand up for people that at the moment are voiceless in Gillard Australia. We are prepared to speak for those people. We are prepared to recognise that the cost of living is hurting and that a new carbon tax will increase electricity bills. If Paul Howes says it, believe it to be true because he is simply reflecting what is common sense, that if you put a carbon price and a tax on electricity it will go up in price. That is something that every Australian family is going to face.

On top of that, with rising interest rates, economists—be they compassionate people or not—can at times provide solace. When the markets factor in an increase of at least another 50 basis points from the Reserve Bank over the next 12 months, that means more hurt for everyday Australian families. It means higher interest rates, higher credit card rates and higher small business loans, and Australian families are wondering how they are going to pay for it, and they are right to. I thought, as they thought, and the rhetoric says, that education is free, but education has gone up seven per cent in the last 12 months. We are meant to have a free universal medical system, but we know it is not free because hospital and medical services have increased seven per cent. We know that if you live in the outer western suburbs of Sydney or Melbourne, or if you live in the suburbs of Brisbane or any other major capital city or, for that matter, any of the regional cities, it is very hard to own a home unless both parents are working. So many of those parents desperately need child care. It is not a lifestyle choice any more. The cost of housing is so beyond Australian families that we now have one of the least affordable home entry points in the developed world. Believe that—and it is directly linked to the fact that there is insufficient supply because you have got state governments that are more focused on re-election than they are on making hard decisions about zoning. It is also about a political party, the Labor Party, that is more focused on preserving its power than making its power work for the benefit of the people.

The fundamental point here is that for everyday Australians there is less and less choice. There is less choice in the cost of housing, there is less choice in the cost of electricity, there is less choice in the cost of telecommunications, there is less choice in hospital care and there is less choice in education. They have to pay these bills—they have no choice. According to the official data, the CPI—which increasingly the Reserve Bank itself has said is not a proper indicator of the everyday cost of living—comes in at a reasonable level. Why? Because computers and flat screen TVs have come down 20 per cent, primarily because of the strong Australian dollar and because these products in general have come down from China. But that distorts the figure because, if you are really struggling to meet the bills, you are not focused on a flat screen TV. You are focused on how to pay the electricity bill, the water bill, how to pay for school uniforms and how to pay for school excursions—whether your kids can come to Canberra or not. They are the bills people fret over.

As we approach Christmas it has not been the usual practice of the Reserve Bank to increase interest rates in December, because that is like a body blow to the heart of retail in Australia. But that body blow has been delivered by the Reserve Bank and it has been delivered by the banks. It has all come about because of this government’s inability to control its expenditure and this government’s inability to make a hard decision.

That is what I said to the Prime Minister across the table today: ‘You have no ticker.’ And she does not have any ticker. She has no courage; she has no core. The Prime Minister does not understand that in order to deliver real reform and in order to share the opportunity of the future you have to make hard decisions. It was this coalition, including the shadow minister for finance and my colleagues, who went with courage in the election campaign and announced $50 billion of cuts to government expenditure—and they were hard cuts and we know they were not popular, but they were the right thing to do. They were the right thing to do because we know that when you have the most generous terms of trade in 50 years, that when you have an economy growing at above three per cent and that when you have inflation at a reasonable level, if you do not run budget surpluses then when the bad times come again you are ill prepared. We know that because we have been there. We know that you can never climb a mountain unless you do the training. We know that you can never deliver security into the future unless the government itself has prepared the nation for the darkest of days. We know that because we have been there. And we are scathing and we will not let up at all on this government for its lack of courage, because we have displayed the courage that it does not have. We are the ones that have been prepared to do the yards, to get the budget back to surplus faster, to ensure that we can start to pay down some of that debt—and the debt is going to be a major issue into the future.

Bear this in mind: Ireland and Portugal are on the threshold of absolute collapse, and Spain is not so far away. In 2011-12 you are going to see one of the biggest bond refinancing programs the world has ever seen on any measure, as all the sovereign debt of these countries that have borrowed so much over the years needs to be borrowed again. On top of that, corporations rolling over their debt means that ultimately Australia should not be in the position of going with a begging bowl to the rest of world, begging the world to pay for school halls that are still being built four years after the negative quarter, begging for the world to pay for all of the waste—the record waste from the Gillard government and the Rudd government—and begging the world to pay for the massive deficits and debt that have been left behind by countless state Labor governments. We are going to the world and begging them for their money at exactly the wrong time, which puts our economy in peril. It puts our welfare at peril at a time when we are sucking the juices out of the world, trying to take advantage of a mining boom and a commodity boom when we need that capital to grow the mines.

I say to you, Mr Deputy Speaker: this is a difficult time to run the Australian economy, and the government has got it dead wrong. Every Australian family knows that if they are spending more than they are collecting, if their debt continues to grow, then the day will come when the bank comes knocking. So, too, for our country. If we continue to borrow money at a hundred million dollars a day at a time when we are in a prosperous environment then I say to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, when the tough times come there are few bullets left in the gun of the government to try and ensure that Australians get through the darkest hours.

This is a significant moment. We will have Australians fretting about Christmas. We will have Australians fretting about the bills that come after Christmas. We will have Australians who wonder why they have been left behind by the Gillard government. I say to those Australians on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition and my colleagues: we will not forget you, we will not leave you behind, we will always speak for you and we in the coalition will have the courage to make the hard decisions that ensure that Australia can get through the tough times and that your families can get through the tough times.

Photo of Sid SidebottomSid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

A sonic effort!

3:49 pm

Photo of Jenny MacklinJenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | | Hansard source

I absolutely agree with the member for Braddon: that was a sonic effort, an effort of 15 minutes of noise, an effort of 15 minutes of negativity from the shadow Treasurer. There was absolutely nothing positive—not one positive contribution, not one positive policy idea from the shadow Treasurer. He talked about debt and deficit and we will recall that during the election campaign the shadow Treasurer and the opposition finance spokesperson refused to allow the Treasury and the department of finance to look at their costings. Immediately after the election we found out why. We found out that in fact there was an $11 billion black hole in their costings, $11 billion that they got wrong that would have affected the federal budget if they had won the election.

Interestingly enough in this debate today the one policy that they did take to the election that would have had a devastating effect on families, the shadow Treasurer failed to mention. That one policy was their determination to put a new Liberal tax on every single family in this country, an extra 1½ per cent tax on business that would have put up the cost of everything that everyone buys at the supermarket—not just families of course but pensioners and carers; it does not matter who you are. Every time you went to the supermarket, every time you bought petrol, every time you had to go to a hardware store, this Liberal Party would have seen an increase in your costs. Of course it is not just the Labor government saying this. Listen to the National Independent Retailers Association CEO. He said that costs for businesses would be passed on to smaller operators and consumers. This of course will be no surprise to anyone who has to manage their budget. They know that an extra tax that the Liberal Party wanted to put on everything was going to end up in increases in their cost of living.

But, as we have just seen from this shadow Treasurer, every single time they stand up in this parliament all they are is negative—negative about everything. All they want to do is tear things down, not put up any sensible or positive proposals that would in fact help Australian families. By contrast, the government are determined to do everything we possibly can to support Australian families. We do understand that families are under financial pressure, and that is why we went to the election with a number of new policies to support families. It is also why we took the action that we took during the global financial crisis, because there is one thing in particular that is so important to the family budget, and that is for mum or dad or both to have a job. There is nothing more important in making sure that families have the money that they need to meet their costs, and particularly to meet the costs of bringing up their children. That is why we are so pleased to see the way in which the economy has recovered, the way in which hundreds of thousands of jobs—in fact, 375,000 jobs—have been created in the past year, and almost three-quarters of the jobs created in the past year have been full-time jobs, full-time jobs that mean that mums and dads have more chance of being able to adequately look after their families. We know that these are the most important things for Australian families.

The OECD economic survey of Australia that came out this week said that the Australian economy has been one of the most resilient in the OECD during the economic and financial crisis. That report went on to praise the Australian government, saying that our stimulus package was among the most effective in the OECD. But of course all we get from those opposite is carping, negativity and criticism about what this government did to make sure that jobs were protected in this country.

I want to take the opportunity afforded to us in this debate to go through a number of other measures that the government has put in place to support families and to make sure that they are helped with their cost of living pressures. One of those, which came in a number of tranches, was the tax cuts that we delivered to individuals and to families. Take someone on $50,000. They are in fact now paying $1,750 less in tax each year—an 18 per cent cut in their tax—because of decisions made by this government. We are going to make it easier for people to do their tax returns and we are also going to have tax relief for savings accounts. This will be particularly important. We are introducing a 50 per cent tax break for the first $500 of interest on savings from 1 July 2012. These are practical forms of assistance to Australian taxpayers, real things that make a difference to individuals and families—not the noise and bluster that we heard from those opposite.

As many will have heard me say on a number of occasions, we are very pleased to be introducing Australia’s first national paid parental leave scheme, because one of the times in a family’s life when they are under significant financial pressure is when a new baby comes into the family. We know that there are many, many families in Australia who have never had access to paid parental leave, so we are bringing about this major change. Eligible parents will be able to get 18 weeks of paid leave, paid at the federal minimum wage—around $570 a week before tax. Of course, it is this government that is delivering this change from 1 January next year. It was never delivered by those opposite. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition was so famously heard to say that paid parental leave would be delivered ‘over his dead body’. So much for the Liberal and National parties caring at all about the financial pressures that are on families when a new baby comes into the family. We expect around 148,000 parents will be eligible each year for this historic reform.

We have also made very significant changes to child care. The shadow Treasurer talked about the importance of child care. He of course made no policy promises that would address the costs of child care. By contrast, this government during our last period in government increased the childcare rebate from 30 per cent, which is where it was under the Liberal government, to 50 per cent of parents’ out-of-pocket costs. We do understand that child care is a very significant cost in the budget of many, many parents. We have also increased the maximum amount that parents can claim per child. It has gone up under this government from a bit over $4,300 to $7½ thousand a year per child. We also changed the childcare rebate to a quarterly payment so that parents did not have to wait so long. Under the previous government they had to wait for a very long time to get the benefit, but from 1 July next year we are improving that benefit again. We are going to make sure that parents will be able to receive the childcare rebate fortnightly rather than having to wait and receive it quarterly. But of course we do not hear any of those initiatives from those opposite.

It was this government that introduced the education tax rebate. We also heard from the shadow Treasurer in his 15-minute bluster before that yes, parents do have costs from sending their children to school. That is why this government introduced an education tax refund, and that is now delivering to 1.3 million families—1.3 million families are benefiting from the change that this government introduced. Of course, we are not just sticking with what we did during the last parliament, when we had benefits that covered laptops and textbooks. We are also extending this benefit to the cost of uniforms. We introduced the Teen Dental Plan, and that too has been a major benefit to many families. In fact, we have seen 950,000 preventive dental checks undertaken so far. Families can, if they are eligible, receive a rebate of up to $150 each time their child gets a check.

One of the major changes we have made, which the previous government refused to fix while they had the opportunity when they were in government for such a long time, was to the problems that occurred with family tax benefit when a child hit 16 years of age. During the last election campaign this government made a commitment to increase family tax benefit part A for families who have teenagers aged 16 to 18. That was never done by those opposite—it has never even thought about by those opposite—but it will be delivered by this government because we know that children get more expensive, not cheaper, as they get older. For those families who are eligible, this will mean up to $4,000 extra a year, but the children will have to be in school or training. That, too, is a major change that this government has introduced. This government wants to see young people continue their education and training because we know that will make such a huge difference to their future earning capacity and to their future ability to look after their families. We expect that this will benefit around 650,000 families over the next five years. That is 650,000 families who are going to be better off because of this government’s action. It was not thought about by those opposite, it was not promised by them during the election campaign and it was not raised in this debate by the opposition’s treasury spokesperson because they do not have any positive ideas to do anything to really support families. They just want to be negative, and bluster and carry on.

Under the previous Howard government a proposal to increase the pension for some of the most disadvantaged people in the community was taken to cabinet but was rejected. It was rejected by the previous Liberal government. It was this Labor government that delivered the most significant improvements to the pension that we have seen in 100 years. This was not just an increase to the base payment, but also a very significant improvement to the indexation arrangements. People who are on the pension—the age pension, the disability support pension and those who are on the carer payment—have received over the last year, from September 2009 to September 2010, an extra $115 a fortnight in their pockets because of the changes we have made. That is for a single pensioner on the maximum rate. That was never delivered by those opposite and it was not talked about by the shadow Treasurer in his rant today. If you are a pensioner or are struggling to make ends meet, we want you to know that we are not a government that is going to put up the cost of living through a new 1½ per cent tax. We are a government that has delivered the changes to the pension that so many people were so desperate for for so long.

This government understands just how critical it is to be there, to make sure that we support families in times of need and, especially, with the costs of educating children. That is why we know we have to do what we are doing to support those families who have children with a disability and why we are increasing support for those families. This opposition is hell-bent on being negative and on trying to tear things down, rather than coming in here and putting forward positive proposals that might actually make a difference to families’ lives. This government will just keep on doing the right thing by families and providing the support that they need. That is what we believe in.

4:04 pm

Photo of Greg HuntGreg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | | Hansard source

This Prime Minister and this government are in denial about electricity prices under their carbon tax—or emissions trading scheme—proposals. This government and this Prime Minister are engaged in a grand deception of the Australian people, with the pretence that the increase in electricity prices which is inevitable as a consequence of their policy will simply not occur. There will be electricity price rises. That is the design, structure and intent of their policy. That is what a carbon price is meant to do and that is what they are denying. It is time for the government to be held to account on the impact of electricity prices over and above that which would have occurred in any event. All of these prices have an impact on the cost of living, which is fundamental for mums and dads, pensioners, seniors, small business owners and farmers.

The starting point for today is, first, to set out the facts about the additional costs to electricity prices for consumers and small businesses as a consequence of the government’s intended and designed policy. The second thing is to deal with the fact that this comes about as a direct consequence of a fundamental breach of a core, bedrock promise made by the Prime Minister on 16 August, the Monday immediately before the election, and on election eve, Friday, 20 August. Then, the Prime Minister said to the Australian people: ‘I rule out a carbon tax.’ This is not a minor breach; this is a major and fundamental breach. The third thing is to deal with the fact that there is an alternative which can deal with emissions, without the impact on cost of living that is proposed by the government.

Let me deal with the facts. First, let us begin with what the Prime Minister of the day, the member for Griffith, said on 3 February this year in this place at the dispatch box. Mr Rudd was asked about the impact of the emissions trading scheme proposed by the government on electricity prices in addition to what would occur in any event. His answer was very simple. He told the House that Treasury modelling indicated that:

… in 2011-12 electricity prices would go up by seven per cent and that in 2012-13 they would go up by 12 per cent.

All up, he told the House that there would be a 19 per cent increase in the first two years of the government’s emissions trading scheme over and above all other electricity price changes.

The great myth being perpetuated by the Prime Minister and the government at this moment is that electricity prices would have gone up and therefore there is not going to be any impact. Let it be absolutely clear that there are two effects in place here. Firstly, there are underlying pressures on electricity as a result of network changes resulting from retail costs and margins and from other changes to wholesale electricity including tightening fuel costs. They exist, as the member for Groom has acknowledged elsewhere, as I have acknowledged, and as others have acknowledged. But over and above that—in addition to, on top of—there is a CPRS emissions trading scheme, or carbon tax, effect. Everyone in this House knows that. Everyone in this House knows that electricity prices for consumers will rise as a consequence of the government scheme in addition to what would have occurred in any event.

Let me move beyond what the member for Griffith has said about the government’s own Treasury modelling of a 19 per cent impact over and above every other electricity price effect in the first two years of the scheme. In March of this year the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of New South Wales, in their review of retail tariffs and charges for electricity, made it clear that they would authorise a 35 per cent increase over three years for electricity if there was no CPRS and a 60 per cent price rise if there was. In other words, there would be an additional 25 per cent if there was an emissions trading scheme or a carbon tax. There can be no starker demonstration. They calculated the cost of the price rises in electricity to consumers without an emissions trading scheme or carbon tax, and then with one. The differential is an additional 25 per cent over the first three years. It is likely to rise, on the estimates of many, to the extent that there will be a doubling effect on the price of electricity over the coming eight to nine years.

The third of the sources is no less than Professor Garnaut, who at page 387 of his report made the position absolutely clear:

A major part, if not all, of the costs faced by electricity generators will be passed down the chain from electricity generators, distributors and retailers and finally to households through higher prices for electricity.

These higher prices will require households to spend a greater proportion of their incomes to obtain the same goods and services purchased before the introduction of an emissions price. This will reduce households’ real incomes and purchasing power.

Electricity prices will go up as a consequence of the emissions trading scheme or a carbon tax. Anything less than acknowledgement of that by the government is a pure distortion, a pure lie, a pure deception—and they know it. Fourthly, the same figures were given at page 122 of the BCA paper of 2009 prepared by Port Jackson Partners:

The ETS would have a 60 per cent increase on wholesale prices which would translate to a 24 per cent additional impact on consumer prices.

‘Just be honest’ is the message. The fifth of the elements of evidence is that Paul Howes himself made it absolutely clear on 9 November that it was ‘a rubbish argument to claim that a carbon tax won’t push up electricity prices’. He goes on:

… the whole point of putting a price on carbon is to make things more expensive so you don’t use them.

That is the theory; that is the purpose; that is the intent; that is the structure of what they are proposing. And that will be the effect. If they want to argue that, let us have a debate on mechanisms. At the moment we are engaged in a sheer case of undeniable distortion, deception and lying by the government which is simply not able to face the consequences and the costs of its action—and that will be a driving up of electricity prices for consumers over and above what would otherwise occur. This all leads to what we see from the Prime Minister, which is the deception. She said on 16 August, four days before an election:

There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.

She said on 20 August, on election eve, as reported on the front page of the Australian:

I rule out a carbon tax.

I repeat: ‘I rule out a carbon tax’. This was not a minor deception; this was a fundamental, bedrock pledge on election eve as part of her pitch to Australia. The Prime Minister has broken that pledge. She knows that there will be an increase in electricity prices in the first three years of between 24 and 26 per cent, in addition to everything else, as a consequence of what she is proposing. If she believes in it, she should argue for it. If she believes in it, she should have the courage to accept the consequences. If she believes in it, she should tell the Australian people the truth. That is the test for this Prime Minister and she should release the full Treasury modelling of the impact of electricity prices on consumer prices under her scheme before parliament rises.

That leads me to the third element of my contribution. There is an alternative. We have set down a very clear approach, which is abatement purchasing; engaging in a carbon buy-back. We see elements of this scheme in place in Japan and in Switzerland. It is what Canada has proposed as their scheme, and it is how the New South Wales Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme works. Under that scheme each tonne of abatement procured at the moment costs about $7.15, as opposed to the government’s proposal of, in the first year, $4½ billion of revenue to purchase 13 million tonnes—an effective abatement price of $340 per tonne. It is an extraordinarily ineffective scheme. The reason it is ineffective is that there is a massive dead weight cost associated with it. It translates to massively higher electricity prices, whereas if you target the problem by specifically purchasing the carbon buybacks which are necessary then you can clean up the environment but at a massively lower cost because there is no dead weight overhang.

That is the simple alternative approach. We will match the targets, we will achieve the time frames, and we will do it without the massive increase in electricity prices. The test for the Prime Minister is absolutely clear—release the Treasury modelling on the effects of the emissions trading scheme on electricity prices by the end of next week; come clean and be open with the Australian people and tell them that electricity prices are going up. (Time expired).

4:14 pm

Photo of Richard MarlesRichard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs) Share this | | Hansard source

This debate has confirmed that the opposition are the masters of carp. This debate—

Photo of Ian MacfarlaneIan Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources) Share this | | Hansard source

Masters of what? I didn’t quite catch that.

Photo of Richard MarlesRichard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs) Share this | | Hansard source

The masters of carp; masters of carping and bleating. The opposition are the masters of fearmongering. We heard the shadow Treasurer in this matter of public importance discussion talk about Australia. The phrase used was ‘We go with a begging bowl to the rest of the world,’ when the reality is that we stand here today with one of the lowest public debts in the world. We heard the shadow Treasurer talking about our economy ‘being in peril’, when the OECD has just said that we have one of the most robust and resilient economies in the world. I think that I heard it right when I heard the shadow Treasurer talking about Australia in the same breath as Ireland and Portugal. This is fearmongering at its worst; this is carping and bleating at its worst.

What we have seen with the shadow Treasurer over the last few weeks when he has tried to mount an argument in relation to the cost of living or the banks has been thought bubbles here, knee-jerk reactions over there, a slogan next and him jumping up and down with ever greater feverishness on the one spot like a hyperactive frog. The shadow Treasurer is a man who has absolutely no solutions whatsoever.

Despite the carping and the bleating of the opposition, despite the slogans and the populism, despite the cynical politicking and despite the utter absence of any solutions whatsoever to the real issues that are facing the Australian people, on the positive side we have a government that has recognised from day one the difficulties that are associated with balancing the family budget that are being experienced by everyday Australians. And not the least of the reasons why they are experiencing those difficulties is the state that they were left in after 12 long years of the Howard government. We saw what was happening with interest rates in 2007 when the Howard government came to its end. We understand the difficulties faced, such as rising grocery prices, paying the mortgage and petrol prices. We know the difficulties that are being faced in balancing the household budget.

That is why we took the action that we did at the height of the global financial crisis at the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009. And if you want to talk about ‘decisive action’—words used in this matter of public importance—that action was decisive. The Labor government took decisive action to bring direct stimulus payments to those who most needed it: families, pensioners, carers and self-funded retirees. It is a great example of how this government has from day one been keenly aware of the pressures that families are under.

That is why we have taken other decisive actions, such as raising the pension. Since September 2009, the pension has been increased by $115 a fortnight and $97 a fortnight for couples. We have indexed that to wages, which are growing faster than the rate of inflation, so that pensions have a degree of protection from price increases in our economy. This is the biggest reform to the pension in 100 years. There are 2.1 million age pensioners receiving that benefit, 764,000 disability support pensioners and 167,000 care payment recipients. It stands as decisive action in stark contrast to the inaction on the pension by the Howard government over a period of 11 years.

We can also look at paid parental leave. From 1 January next year, 148,000 new parents each year will be eligible to receive 18 weeks at the minimum wage, a value in excess of $10,000. Applications for that are being taken right now. That is again decisive action that stands in stark contrast to the inaction of the Howard government over 11 long years.

When we are talking about the cost of living, one of the most important things that we need to understand is that it is not just about what needs to be paid out; it is also about what you can bring in—the revenue, if you like, for a household; the wage packets. The most decisive action of this Labor government was abolishing Work Choices. Work Choices will be etched on the tombstone of the Howard government. Work Choices monstered the household budget and income by giving rise to a loss of penalty rates for working on weekends, for example, a loss of shift work allowances and a loss of overtime. Studies have estimated that casual and part-time sales assistants lost 12 per cent of their earnings under Work Choices. Full-time working women under Australian workplace agreements—that legislated scheme of workplace contracts—were $87.40 per week worse off than their counterparts working under collective agreements.

In that brief window of light that the then Howard government allowed to be shone upon the scheme of AWAs, we learnt very rapidly that 64 per cent of AWAs were cutting annual leave loading, 63 per cent were cutting penalty rates, 52 per cent were cutting shift work loadings, 51 per cent were cutting overtime loadings, 46 per cent were cutting public holiday pay and one in five were providing workers with no pay rise at all and in some cases preventing a pay rise for up to five years. That is what we had under the Howard government.

As much as Work Choices is etched on the tombstone of that government, we have seen attempts to resurrect Work Choices by the Abbott opposition. In the lead-up to this election—on day one, I think—we heard Tony the politician talk about giving the Fair Work Act a go.

Photo of Peter SlipperPeter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

The parliamentary secretary should be aware of standing order 64.

Photo of Richard MarlesRichard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs) Share this | | Hansard source

We heard the Leader of the Opposition talked about giving the Fair Work Act a fair go. That is what the Leader of the Opposition said when being a politician. But when it came to Tony Abbott the conviction politician—

Photo of Ms Anna BurkeMs Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | | Hansard source

Order! The parliamentary secretary ought not to disregard my gentle advice.

Photo of Richard MarlesRichard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs) Share this | | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. When it came to the Leader of the Opposition priding himself on being a conviction politician and on being an ideologue, we know that he regarded Work Choices as one of the great achievements of the Howard government, which is why he said that he could not rule out any changes to the Fair Work Act going forward. That was the real indication of where the opposition would go when it comes to Work Choices. It may be on the tombstone of the Howard government, but the Abbott opposition is attempting to resurrect it and it was up there front and centre when it came to the last election.

In terms of dealing with the cost of living, you can look at the decisive action that this government has taken in relation to manufacturing jobs, with almost one million jobs in that industry. For example, the $6.2 billion car industry package is a critical thing in my electorate, particularly for those people who work at Ford in the suburb of Norlane because of the cost-of-living issues they face. In 2007, in the dying days of the Howard government, Ford took a decision to close their engine plant, which said everything about the sense of confidence, or rather the lack of it, that they had in the future of manufacturing under the Howard government.

Photo of Ian MacfarlaneIan Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources) Share this | | Hansard source

Mr Ian Macfarlane interjecting

Photo of Richard MarlesRichard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs) Share this | | Hansard source

It is not rubbish; that is absolutely what happened.

Photo of Ian MacfarlaneIan Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources) Share this | | Hansard source

Mr Ian Macfarlane interjecting

Photo of Richard MarlesRichard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs) Share this | | Hansard source

I absolutely do. Fifteen months after that, in the spring of 2008, with renewed confidence in what the government was doing for manufacturing we saw that decision overturned. One thousand jobs were saved right there—not to mention the indirect jobs—in the economy. That was decisive action, which absolutely affected the people in my electorate of Corio in meeting the costs of living. That action stands in stark contrast to the opposition, which, frankly, would not know industry policy if it jumped up and bit them on the nose. At the end of the day, what we in this country have is an economy in fantastic health. That is what we hear from the OECD when they talk about our economy being ‘one of the most resilient’ economies in the world. There were 375,000 jobs created last year, and 200,000 jobs were saved by virtue of the stimulus packages that we put in place, which were opposed by the opposition—stimulus packages which are now praised by the OECD. Labor have a record of decisive action. The economy that we now preside over is the envy of the world and it stands in contrast to the populist, rank and cynical politics that we see from the opposition. (Time expired)

Photo of Peter SlipperPeter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I call the honourable member for Dawson on what is probably his maiden participation in a matter of public importance debate.

4:24 pm

Photo of George ChristensenGeorge Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | | Hansard source

In rising to speak on this matter of public importance it is absolutely clear to me that this government has failed to take decisive action to tackle the cost of living for Australian families. Wherever I go in my regional electorate of Dawson I hear the same stories, from workers, small business men and women, farmers and pensioners—that they are struggling with the rising costs of living. Earlier this year, the Mackay based Regional Social Development Centre came out on the attack on this issue in the local media. At that time, the headline of the local Mackay newspaper the Daily Mercury read ‘Mackay families struggle with rise’. The article read:

HOUSEHOLD bills are set to skyrocket - and our families will pay the price, with homelessness, domestic violence, gambling and drug use expected to rise as a result.

Some people, including long-time residents, will be forced out of the region as they struggle to meet unexpected costs, according to Mackay Regional Council for Social Development business development co-ordinator Deborah Rae.

Electricity bills are expected to rise 13 per cent next financial year, adding to already spiralling household costs; and increased operating expenses could force Mackay Regional Council to lift rates by double figures in coming months.

Ms Rae is quoted as saying:

“The number of families who are struggling is bigger than most people realise; it’s difficult to capture that number because many families who come to our region and who struggle leave because of the unexpectedly high cost of living.”

Ms Rae said the number of homeless people in Mackay had significantly risen in recent years, as had the number of people forced to move to other, more affordable, areas.

This is serious stuff. The rising cost of living is hurting families in the Mackay region and in the electorate of Dawson. And it is also hurting those who are trying to help those families. I refer to another article from the Daily Mercury, this one titled ‘Soaring costs hurt charity workers’. The article reads:

AFTER years of offering help to those who are struggling, the Mackay chapter of the Tribe of Judah

a local charity—

has itself been hit hard.

With rental prices on the rise, the charity has become a victim, enduring a rent rise of more than double.

The article goes on:

“Our rent is going from about $23,000 to about $46,500,” Pastor Hayhoe said.

Pastor Hayhoe is from the Tribe of Judah. The problem of rental costs and housing costs is a massive one in the Mackay region. Last year the 6th annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey examined 272 markets in six countries, including Australia, the US, the UK, Canada and New Zealand. The study included Mackay, in my electorate of Dawson, and found that the housing market was severely unaffordable. That fact is not news to many first home buyers in the Mackay region who are trying to get into the housing market. The data released from the survey revealed that the cost of living in some regions throughout Queensland is comparable to the cost of living in New York or London, cities that are renowned as the most expensive in the world.

Last year, at a time when the then Prime Minister was the man who said he was going to ‘ease the squeeze’ for Australian families, the Daily Mercury reported, under the headline ‘Rent in Mackay set to skyrocket’:

MACKAY is heading into a rental property squeeze and prices are set to head skywards as houses become scarce.

So what is the government doing?

Photo of Karen AndrewsKaren Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Nothing!

Photo of George ChristensenGeorge Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I would like to say ‘nothing’. At least that would mean they were indifferent to the problem. But the reality is that they are making the situation worse. Under the former Prime Minister, the member for Griffith, the government had two programs that dealt with housing affordability: the National Rental Affordability Scheme and the Housing Affordability Fund. I note that both those programs have been abandoned, at least according to comments made during the election.

Electricity costs are on the rise, as I said, with the Regional Social Development Council in Mackay expecting them to go up by at least 13 per cent this financial year. And it will probably be more than that. What are the government doing about that? Again, I would like to say ‘nothing’ because it would be better to be indifferent than to be part of the problem. But they are part of the problem. They want to introduce a carbon tax—a tax that they promised not to introduce and a tax that will hit everyone, pushing up the price of just about everything, notably electricity.

There is a lot of talk about the need for a carbon tax because of certainty, as if the certainty of a carbon tax is some sort of a good thing. You do not accept a bad thing just because it is certain or just to get certainty. If that were the case, you would wake up in the morning, send all your money to the ATO and then shoot yourself, because the only things in life that are certain are death and taxes. This carbon tax will impact families in more ways than one. Not only will it put up the price of everything but it will also put the squeeze on investment and jobs.

In September, the Mackay Whitsunday Regional Economic Development Corporation—about which I have to mention that the Labor candidate for Dawson sits on the board—expressed their concerns about this carbon tax. Again from the Daily Mercury:

Regional Economic Development Corporation … chief executive officer Narelle Pearse … said she was concerned about the effect a carbon tax could have on the Bowen Basin.

“It certainly is a risk for our region. It’s something the government has been talking about for some time,” she said.

Well, it certainly is a risk for our region. It is a risk for our nation and it is a risk for Australian families. A letter to the editor in today’s Daily Mercury pretty much summed up my views. It said, ‘Gillard’s ideas need to be consigned to the scrap heap before she wrecks more of the economy.’ We in the coalition have a better way of dealing with climate and the environment, and it will not cost jobs or family budgets.

Costs are increasing and this government is doing nothing but adding to the problem. As the Prime Minister said recently, the government has pretty much lost its way. And I would say that it continues to lose its way when it does nothing to help ordinary Australian families with the continual cost-of-living increases. I note that the Australian picked up on this the other day. They drew an analogy between the government and that very frustrating TV show, Lost. They said:

Labor’s Lost begins with a plane crash that strands the surviving passengers of Kevin 07 on a tropical island, forcing Labor MPs and the independents to work together to stay alive.

But their survival is immediately threatened by various mysterious entities, including a carbon price, the haunting ghost of Kevin Rudd, an unseen creature that roams the jungle (the “Latham”), and the island’s malevolent, and largely unseen, inhabitants, known as “Focus Groups”.

Being a fan of cult TV shows, that snippet got me thinking of other descriptors for the government in terms of TV shows.

We could look at the rainbow coalition of Labor, extreme Greens and a few Independents. It is certainly not The Brady Bunch but perhaps it is more Diff’rent Strokes. We could look at Senator Bob Brown and the Prime Minister almost arm in arm at recent press conferences and conclude it is The Odd Couple. Then again, perhaps not; it might be more Who’s The Boss? We could look at the promise—the promise that was made to the Australian people before the election—of no carbon tax, a promise that was made by the Prime Minister twice, as has been said in this chamber. And then we could look at the incessant push for such a tax as soon as Labor formed government. That is pretty much the TV show Lie To Me, isn’t it?

We could look at the absolute mess that we are getting into already because of this government on water and the Murray-Darling, on illegal immigration, on the unravelling mining tax or on the NBN white elephant. It is all turning into a mess. So we could be forgiven for thinking those on the other side are a bunch of Muppets, or perhaps we are being run by The Dukes of Hazzard. We could take Senator Doug Cameron at his word about these guys being zombies and wonder if we are in The Twilight Zone or perhaps if The Addams Family are in charge. We could look at the fact that this government thinks it is going to solve the illegal immigration problem through East Timor when East Timor does not agree with that. The government must be living on Fantasy Island.

But the big issue of the day is of course banks and rising interest rates and the fact that the government has done nothing to counter the problem of them putting interest rates above the RBA cash levels. What we have had from the government is a bit more than nothing: a lot of talk, a lot of bluster, a lot of barking at the gate. We have a Treasurer who has issued more than 30 separate warnings to the banks not to raise interest rate levels above RBA levels, and every warning has been ignored. It struck me then that the perfect TV show for the government is Get Smart. We have our own Maxwell in the Treasurer himself. Cornered by the four big banks all threatening to pull the rates trigger, he puffs out his chest and says: ‘Would you believe that I have this place surrounded with a SWAT team, an armoured personnel carrier and a dozen killer attack dogs? No? Would you believe a security guard, a Mini Moke and an angry pit bull? How about an old lady, a stroller and a poodle?’ The Treasurer is the Maxwell Smart of Australian politics and, for all the bluff and bluster, his government is doing absolutely nothing about the banks and their reprehensible actions.

We have a government that is lost in a mess, doing nothing but adding to the problems that Australian families are facing. We can only hope that the crossbenchers supporting this mob see the light soon, or it is going to be Mission: Impossible to turn this ship around.

4:34 pm

Photo of Shayne NeumannShayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I listened to the member for North Sydney, the member for Flinders and the member for Dawson—15 minutes of carping, 10 minutes of moaning and 10 minutes of jocularity, with not one answer for the Australian people, not one policy, not one proposal and not one idea from all three about how to assist Australian families. We understand that Australian families are struggling. We understand that these are difficult days. We have been through the global financial crisis. But guess what. We went to an election not more than a couple of months ago with the Leader of the Opposition promising to impose additional costs on Australian families, proposing to impose a cost of about $10 billion on businesses that would push up prices and blow holes in the budget of working Australians. He would have imposed a 1.5 per cent tax on 3½ thousand Australian businesses. That would have meant higher prices for grocery stores, department stores and petrol stations and businesses passing them on to small business. He did not think it was going to have an impact on those four million people engaged in small business in this country—2.4 million small businesses across this land. He was kidding himself. Guess what. The coalition took to the last election a policy of cuts—cuts to services, cuts to funding for schools, cuts to hospitals, cuts to e-health, and getting rid of the National Broadband Network.

The opposition leader was proposing to take us backwards—backwards on Work Choices and backwards on cuts to all aspects of community, making it easier to sack people. The idea that you would resurrect Work Choices in another name—and they could not even get it right within an hour of the election being called—and the idea that you would possibly entrust the architects and the apostles of Work Choices with the treasury bench once again would have seen low-income earners, working-class people, women, suffer at the hands of those opposite. What was their record on AWAs? We heard the member for North Sydney talk a lot about what we know. What did they do? They brought in AWAs, and the consequence of AWAs was that women on average earned $87.40 per week less, and worse if they worked in cleaning or retail. That was the consequence and that is the record of those opposite.

What is their proposal? Nothing at all; nothing to ease the pressure on Australians. We are acting, we have acted and we will act. For numerous election cycles in a row the coalition claimed that they were the great supporters of families in this country. Guess what. Their rhetoric was not borne out. We had the 10 interest rate rises under those opposite. They now criticise us when they know very well that monetary policy is established by the Reserve Bank independently. Since we have been in power, we have reduced the tax burden on Australian families, with income tax reductions three years in a row. We have abolished Work Choices and brought in a fairer, simpler system for Australian families that gives families a chance. We have increased the childcare rebate and extended the education tax refund to include school uniforms. That is what we are doing. Those opposite did not do any of those things when they were in power.

The Prime Minister has committed us to a strong economy, a sustainable Australia and better education services for our families. Through getting the economy right, acting decisively, supporting jobs through the global financial crisis, 375,000 jobs have been created in the last 12 months, which was absolutely critical. We have been boosting savings, building skills and improving infrastructure. Investments in road, rail and ports have seen $37 billion in infrastructure in those areas alone. This is far more than the coalition did. And workers work in those industries, they work on those roads and in those ports and on the railway lines. This is giving them jobs, giving them opportunities. We have improved health and hospitals with increased funding to those areas to put on new people.

We have achieved lower debt and lower deficit, and lower unemployment than most countries in the world, the countries that the member for North Sydney mentioned in his speech, ranting and raving on with not an idea about what he would do if he were in power—not a word; big on rhetoric, poor on action. We will bring the budget back to surplus by 2012-13 and it is not going to be by luck nor by chance but by decisive, determined action by this Labor government.

We have delivered pension reform and you can see it clearly: $115 per fortnight more for single pensioners, $97 per fortnight more for couples on a pension. It is the biggest pension reform this country has ever seen. Did those opposite do this? They took a proposal to cabinet, not long before they were ousted in 2007, to increase pensions, but it was knocked back. It took a Labor government to undertake secure and sustainable pension reform in this country to give pensioners a chance. Those opposite did not. We have seen 2.1 million age pensioners, 764,000 disability support pensioners and 167,000 carer payment recipients benefit from these unprecedented reforms, which are about easing cost-of-living pressure on Australians. The member for North Sydney did not address any of those issues in his speech.

From 1 January 2012 families with teenagers aged 16 to 18 in school or equivalent vocational training will benefit from even more significant reforms, such as increasing the maximum payment rate of family tax benefit part A by more than $150 per fortnight. And 650,000 Australian families will benefit as a result of these changes. Those opposite carp and moan about Building the Education Revolution, the BER. In my electorate 65 schools received $108 million for much needed community infrastructure: vital improvements to libraries, to multipurpose halls, to classrooms; digital whiteboards—we have seen it all in my electorate. On each and every occasion I go to a BER project, I ask the project manager, the builder and the school principal what is being done, how many jobs are being created, how many jobs are being supported, and how many local jobs. On each and every occasion the same message comes back: local jobs supported, local jobs created, the names of local builders, local carpenters, local electricians given. That is what is important and that is why we did it, supporting local jobs, helping with cost-of-living pressures for Australian families in local areas. If those opposite do not think that in the suburbs they represent that is important to help with cost-of-living pressures, they are kidding themselves. Early decisive action during the global financial crisis was absolutely critical for Australian families. That is why we spent $16.2 billion to support jobs. Those opposite opposed it. They come in here and they carp and they whinge and they moan.

They have really got a gall to talk about cost-of-living pressures, because their rhetoric does not match reality and their voting record in this place does not match their alleged support for working Australian families. They spent most of this morning attacking the very organisations that support low- and middle-income families, the trade union movement. They have spent most of the day pursuing their ideological obsession. We have heard speech after speech by those opposite. They do not care for those people who are struggling with cost-of-living pressures. Their voting record in this place shows it and their actions out there show it. Their failure to provide one idea today about how they are going to help working families is a clear indication of their complete lack of policy ideas and their philosophical vacuum.

Photo of Bruce ScottBruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Order! The discussion has concluded.