Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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

The government promising change but failing to drop its unfair Budget.

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—

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In all the chaos and confusion of the last 48 hours, one thing is very, very clear: the government just does not get it. We see all the speculation, all the backgrounding, all the backstabbing about who wants what job. We see the positing of who will be the next Treasurer across the newspapers of Australia. We see all the backbiting against each other and all the blame shifting about whose fault the mess is. One thing is very clear: they do not understand the problem. All the speculation about staff members, about who said what to who, and who is on the outer in the Prime Minister's office—none of that matters if a government is going well. None of that matters if the Australian people have trust in their government. None of that matters if the bonds of trust have not been broken between a Prime Minister and the nation. And the fundamental problem with this government—that the government still just does not understand and get—is that those bonds of trust have been broken by the entire government with the Australian people.

They were broken in May by the Treasurer who brought down a budget with unfairness at its core. They were broken in May by the Treasurer who brought down a budget which— systemically, methodically, calmly—broke every election commitment they made. Can you imagine them going through the real solutions document saying, 'We missed one! We haven't broken that promise yet.' They are very methodical when it comes to breaking their election promises. They went through and ticked them off, one by one, and said, 'Now we have. Now we've broken every promise.'

That was the trust that was broken with the Australian people. They knew it. The Treasurer knew it. That is why the Treasurer prepared the table showing the impact, on Australian families, of the budget—just as they have done for every treasurer since Peter Costello—and they said, 'Here they are, Treasurer; here are the tables.' He said, 'Don't put them in the budget. That would be too open and transparent for my liking,' said the member for North Sydney, the Treasurer. 'We can't tell the Australian people the impact of our decision. Take them out of the budget.' The first Treasurer who did that, he knew the impact on the Australian people of their budget.

Has anything changed in the last 48 hours? Has anything changed in the last three hours? The Prime Minister apparently said the budget was too ambitious; too bold. So what elements have been dropped.? It is a very fair question. Has the GP tax been dropped? No. He told the party room, 'We might drop it,' but then we had a bit of cleaning up and a bit of speculation and, 'No, it's still government policy.' Has the decision not to put the submarines out to open tender been dropped? No. That is now very clear. He won a couple of extra votes from the South Australians by telling them he would—and then it did not. Nothing has changed.

Have the $100,000 degrees for Australians been dropped? Not on your life. They have not been dropped at all. What about the decision to take $80 a week away from Australia's pensioners over the next 10 years by cutting indexation? It has not been stopped. It is still their policy. The decision to make Australians work until they are 70—a longer working life than any other country in the world—has it been dropped? Not by this Prime Minister; not by this Treasurer.

The decision to create an underclass by removing the ability of young people to receive Newstart in Australia, the decision to deliberately, calmly and methodically create an underclass in Australia, by taking away the right to unemployment benefits when people fall on hard times—no it has not been dropped. The government just does not get it. They do not get it at its core. Their problem with the Australian people is not who is in what job, it is not the sales job—as bad as it has been for the Treasurer—it is the product. It is the product of his budget, it is the product of their dishonesty and is the product of their strategy, their collective strategy—agreed among all of them—to mislead the Australian people at the last election. We know it was agreed between all of them.

We saw the Prime Minister today reassert that none of the budget measures have been dropped. We saw the deputy leader of the Liberal Party say, 'This was a cabinet process.' Confirm it was a cabinet process. And we heard the Minister for Communications say, on 2GB, 'I support unreservedly and wholeheartedly every element in this budget, every single one.' That is his position now, that was his position then and that is his position as he circles the Prime Minister of Australia, waiting for the right time to strike.

The Minister for Finance belled the cat on Sunday. Nobody on the entire frontbench has raised with the Minister for Finance that the budget is unfair. Not one of them has gone to the Treasurer or Minister for Finance and said, 'I think cutting the pension is unfair. I think cutting young people out of Newstart is unfair. I think making Australians work until they are 70 is unfair.' Not one single one of them has had the gumption or courage to stand up for Australians who know that this budget is unfair. They know that they are in deep trouble the Australian people. They do not know how to fix it, because they will not drop and cannot drop their unfair budget. Whether they drop the Treasurer or not, what needs to change is the budget and the approach to the Australian people.

We know that this has had an impact on the economy, because the Australian people say this: 'We expect Liberal governments to be unfair, but we expect them to be competent as they go about it,' and they have not even managed that. We have seen the mixed messages, we have seen the loss, we have seen the change in approach day after day. We have seen the Prime Minister who cannot have the same message in the morning as the afternoon. He tells the senators from South Australia one thing and his ministers another.

The Treasurer cannot decide whether he is brilliant because he has passed the entire budget or the parliament is terrible because it will not pass the budget at all. He cannot work it out. He cannot work out whether the savings are necessary for budget repair, the creation of a medical health and research fund or for tax cuts. They are apparently all three, all at once. No wonder the Australian people have lost confidence in this Treasurer and in this economy. No wonder the Australian people have seen consumer confidence and business confidence fall on this Treasurer's watch.

It was 93.2 in January, said the Westpac-Melbourne Institute. This unfair budget has smashed consumer confidence. Westpac's chief economist, Bill Evans, said 'Pessimists still outnumber optimists by a significant majority.' Why would the Australian people not lose confidence when the Australian government does not have confidence in the Treasurer? Why would the Australian people not lose confidence in their government when they see headlines like this? If the government does not have confidence in the Treasurer, how can the Australian people have confidence in the Treasurer? They are the best headlines since this one that I am holding—

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member will—

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why would the Australian people not lose confidence in their Treasurer? They lose confidence in their Treasurer because he is being dishonest with them. We know he breaks his promises. Now we know he breaks the law as well. The Charter of Budget Honesty is very clear.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for McMahon will withdraw the assertion that the member has broken the law.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The law is very clear and the government is in breach of the law.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. Withdraw unreservedly.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unreservedly.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unreservedly, I withdraw. We know the Treasurer breaches his promises. We also know that the government has not complied with the Charter of Budget Honesty. The Charter of Budget Honesty, which is the law of the land—very clear—says that the Intergenerational report shall be released five years after the last one. Five years has been and five years has gone, and the Treasurer has not released the report.

The Intergenerational report is not a Labor invention. It is something instituted by Peter Costello as Treasurer. It is something that the Labor Party honoured in office, because we could see the benefit. We could see it has become an important document. We welcome the discussion around the Intergenerational report. And what does this Treasurer do? He cannot even get his homework in on time. He sits on the report. Why? Because he sees the Intergenerational report as his political plaything. He sees the Intergenerational report as his excuse—his political opportunity to try and reboot the budget debate. 'Let's have another go,' he says. 'We've only had 76 reboots; let's have another go. Let's release the Intergenerational report.' But he releases it in a time frame which is not allowed for by the Charter of Budget Honesty—very, very clearly. As much as the government may try to ignore or deny the fact, the fact is clear: the law is clear and this government is in breach of it. And, when the Treasurer eventually gets around to releasing the Intergenerational report, it will be clear that he has used it as his political plaything. He has used it as his political plaything to make up for the fact as an excuse that he has a budget which he cannot sell. And the fact of the matter is he cannot sell it because it is an appalling document; it is a bad product to sell by bad salesman who has seen consumer and business confidence fall on his watch.

Now, we are about to get a job application from the Assistant Treasurer. We are about to get a job application from him. If he does his job, he will comply with the law. He could release the Intergenerational report. He could to do it. He could say, 'I'm not going to breach the law', but he will not. He will not, because this government— (Time expired)

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

After being KO'ed last night by Alan Jones on Q&A, here comes disco Chris into the chamber to show us how he has forgotten the last six years of chaos on the Labor side. Who remembers that famous statement that chills the bones of every Labor member: 'The four years of surpluses I announce tonight'?

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who said that?

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who said that? The member for Lilley. The member for Lilley was so good at his job that it quickly went to the member for McMahon. Who remembers that? We certainly remember that on our side. If you talk about false hopes and about expectations that are never met, that is the best example. The member for McMahon knows so much that he is texting the member for Lilley just to check that everything is true.

The members on this side know two things: firstly, they know what a failure the Labor side was; and, secondly, they know how significant our achievements have been in less than a year and a half in office. They know we are not shirking the challenge of budget repair. We are not shirking that challenge because we know that if we do so we would be as bad as you in that game of intergenerational theft—the game in which you left a bill of $25,000 for every man, woman and child in Australia as a result of your debt bill. So let's remember: when those opposite inherited the Australian balance sheet, there was zero government debt. When we inherited it we were fast on a trajectory of $667 billion of debt—an interest bill of $1 billion a month. As the Treasurer has pointed out to this House, we are now borrowing and spending $100 million a day more than we are taking as revenue. And $40 million of that $100 million is just going to the interest payments on Labor's debt bill. That is the legacy they have left us in addition to 400,000 jobs being lost in small business, a rotisserie of small-business ministers—six in just the same number of years—the Pink Batts and the school halls fiascos.

So far everyone seems to forget what a job we have done in stopping the boats. Not only did we save thousands of lives at sea but also we saved the taxpayer over $10 billion, because that would have been the bill if it was business as usual as it occurred under Labor's watch. Of course, they gave us a mining tax, which was expected to produce $26½ billion in revenue. And do you know what it produced in revenue? Just over $300 million—less than three per cent of the expectation after the ATO had spent $50 million in administering it. They gave us a carbon tax, which was hit on the average Australian family of $550 a year. They reduced Defence spending to its lowest level since 1938. They took money, as the foreign minister has reminded us, from the aid budget to help fill the gap in their border protection policies. And, of course, on the NBN they turned what should have been a nation-building project into an expensive white elephant which was out of time and out of budget. So that is the record of those opposite.

When we came to government the adults were back in charge, and we commissioned a Commission of Audit. We got a respected businessman in Tony Shepherd to tell us what really needed to be done. And he laid out a blueprint for reform. The hard reform was to bridge that structural deficit—the gap between spending and receipts—that this Labor opposition had left us after their time in government. He pointed out that in Australia we face an ageing population where currently we have five working Australians to every single retired Australia but by mid this century that ratio will fall from five to one to 2.7 to one. We cannot afford to have health spending go from $8 billion 10 years ago for Medicare to $20 billion today and to $34 billion in just a few years time when only half of that $20 billion is coming from the Medicare levy. We just cannot afford the increasing cost of an ageing population without tightening our belts and without getting smaller and more efficient government. So what have we done? We have done exactly that. As a result of our reforms, the government's debt will be $170 billion less than it would have been under Labor in 10 years time. The interest bill will be significantly lower so more money could be spent on roads, hospitals and schools.

We have gone on with the job of microeconomic reform, particularly deregulation. We have taken 57,000 pages out of the statute books, significantly reducing the red tape burden for small business and for big business alike and for the not-for-profit sector. Getting $1 billion a year of red tape reductions was something that those opposite thought was impossible but, in fact, we more than doubled that with more than $2 billion of red tape achievements being reached.

We have the largest infrastructure spending projects on record underway as a result of the $50 billion stimulus in last year's budget and an asset recycling plan which incentivises the states to take those decisions to sell existing infrastructure and reinvest in new infrastructure. But, no surprise, those opposite block our attempts to reboot the Australian economy and to boost supply by investing in appropriate infrastructure. That is what we have tried to do.

On top of that the member for Goldstein has been heroic in his efforts to get through free trade agreements. Those three free trade agreements will be the bedrock of this Australian economy in the years to come because they lock us into the growth economies on our doorstep—to China, to Japan and of course to Korea, three of our largest export partners, with China being our No. 1 trading partner with $150 billion a year of two-way trade. Of course, we are not stopping. Indonesia and India are also where we are going.

Things stayed in the Labor Party's in-tray for way too long and never had their i's dotted and t's crossed. We have achieved that. As a result our dairy exporters, our beef exporters, our resource producers and our service providers—because 70 per cent of the Australian economy is services but only 17 per cent of our exports are services—will all benefit. That is going to be a result of the initiatives that are underway.

Members opposite try to say that the Australian economy is not going well. I can tell you that the Australian economy is strong, sound and improving under our watch. Just consider this. In the last year growth was 2.7 per cent compared to 1.9 per cent under Labor. Job advertising levels are at their highest in over two years. Over 200,000 jobs were created on our watch, which equates to 600 new jobs every day. The Dun & Bradstreet business expectations survey released on 3 February this year found that outlook on employment is the most positive it has been in 10 years. Australia's retail trade numbers have now risen for seven consecutive months to be 4.1 per cent higher through the year. Of course, the four-week average of the ANZ consumer confidence index sits around its long-term average levels and last year there were 223,000 new companies registered in Australia, which was an increase of 10.2 per cent from the levels we saw in 2013.

Dwelling approvals are also up—8.8 per cent higher than last year. This is a very good story. When you combine that story with the fact that we have just had an interest rate cut by 25 basis points, which for an average family with a $300,000 mortgage will mean $750 extra in their pocket, with the fact that petrol prices are at their lowest levels in many years and as a result the average Australian family will save about $1,000 a year and with the fact that electricity prices are now $550 lower because we have abolished the carbon tax, that is good news for the standard of living for an average Australian. That is a good news story. We have more investment, greater exposure overseas and the cost of living is coming down.

On this side of the House we do not just talk; we do. In our 17 months in office we have been very proud of the work in budget repair that we have undertaken. We have been very proud of the infrastructure projects we have underway. We have been very proud of the free trade agreements we have secured. We have been very proud of the deregulation we have undertaken. That is all now making its way through the Australian economy in terms of increased job advertisements—jobs being found for people who have previously been unemployed. Housing dwellings are up, retail numbers are strong and at the end of the day the Australian people looked to those opposite and said, 'You never delivered anything in your six years of office other than debt and deficit.' There is a better way and it stands with the coalition.

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have had now two question times and media appearance after media appearance of those opposite saying: 'We have learnt. We have been chastened by the experience of the leadership spill motion we had in our party room. We have been chastened. We are going to promise change.' What have we seen in the two question times and in the speech just delivered? Absolutely no change. No change to the unfair budget. Which measures have you dropped? What have you learnt from the experience? It is not about who sits in the Prime Minister's chair; it is about the strength of your policies, and your policies stink.

The Australian people have said to you very clearly that they think your GP tax is unfair. If you are not experiencing in your electorates GPs coming to your door telling you what the outcome of the policies of this government will be on bulk-billing and on their practices then your doors are obviously not open. If you are not having families tell you about $100,000 university fees and what that will mean for the aspirations of their young people then you are clearly not listening. Have you not talked to pensioners about what this government has done and is deciding to do to our pensioners and the unemployed? Look at the cuts that are happening to emergency relief services, to homelessness services across the country—some of the most vulnerable people in our community. You have not been listening.

What we know is that this government has not changed at all. It has tried to have a reset and claimed to have a reset but it has not. We have had the same language and the same speeches over and over again and the same policies are sitting as a stinking carcass around the neck of every single one of your backbenchers.

Let us talk about health. We had at the Press Club last week Tony Abbott giving the great reset speech after a disastrous 2014 and not one single mention of health was made in that speech. It was a speech that confirmed yet again that the Prime Minister and his government have absolutely no interest in listening to anybody and remain committed to this deeply unfair budget—every one of them. Nothing more graphically illustrates that than this government's commitment to its GP tax, a tax that has destroyed the electorate's trust in the government. After three attempts—three rewrites of this policy—and now two health ministers the government is still determined to introduce it.

This government still intends to introduce $2 billion worth of cuts directly to general practice, which will be passed on to patients across this country. This government has not said it is walking away from the freeze on indexation or the $5 reduction in rebate, which is the GP tax. The government still has $2 billion worth of hits to general practice that will be passed on to patients. We know that general practices across the country have put up notices about their new fees and what those fees will mean for patients across the country and what they will mean for bulk-billing for general patients. It will see a collapse in bulk-billing rates.

This government has absolutely not changed one iota when it comes to its attack on Medicare—its attack on the universal health insurance system that is Medicare—and its attack on bulk-billing rates and general practice in this country. Two health ministers have now publicly committed to this tax and, while the new minister promises to consult, she insists that no matter what she hears, the GP tax is still absolutely and utterly on the table. And we know that every single member of the front bench and every single member of the backbench is committed to this policy because they have stayed with this budget, and they have stayed with this Prime Minister. The members of the front bench on the ERC—every single one of them—have supported this GP tax. And we heard the member for Wentworth, in particular, when he was asked about the budget, say very clearly, 'I certainly do support it. I support all of the budget.' That includes, of course, the GP tax measure.

During the Griffith by-election, when we raised the possibility that the government was going to introduce a GP tax, what did the foreign minister say? She said that the Labor Party and the now member for Griffith—the fantastic member for Griffith—was scaremongering. She said: 'No, we haven't got any of these sorts of policies at all. You're scaremongering.' This government has not changed its spots at all. It still wants to destroy.

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When we had the change in government in 2007, we saw a great change in the position of the budget. We went from a position of budget strength to a position of budget weakness. Why is it important? With a strong budget you can deliver surpluses. You can pay back the debt that has been created by those opposite. The previous coalition government was left with $96 billion of debt. With a strong budget you are able to deliver personal and company tax cuts. You are able to invest in the future through such things as the Future Fund, and you are able to withstand global economic shocks such as the Asian financial crisis and the dot-com bust.

When you go to a position of budget weakness you have deficit upon deficit increasing debt. The previous government, the Labor government, increased debt to a position where, if there were no changes, it was going to be $667 billion—$25,000 for every man, woman and child—leaving us in a position where future generations would need to pay this back, at a time when we know our population is ageing, when there will be increased pressures on the budget and when we will be even more vulnerable to global economic shocks.

Since we handed down our first budget, all we have heard from those opposite is this simplistic chant of 'fairness'. It reminds me of that great literary classic Animal Farm, written by George Orwell, in which we heard, 'Four legs good, two legs bad.' And the reason the characters in that book repeated this chant was so that it would become an orthodoxy. Those opposite, again, want this to become a chant—an orthodoxy—that they can try and con the Australian people with.

Well, let us examine the statement. At the heart of Labor's charge is that fairness is defined as making no change to policy settings—no matter what the circumstances, no matter what the potential impact. This is quite wrong. Underlying their proposition is that not giving something to someone or scaling it back is, prima facie, unfair. Now, clearly this is a nonsense. Let us examine the way that this situation has changed. We are now, today, spending $100 million a day more than we receive. This is borrowed money. This is increasing debt for future generations.

Those on the opposite side of the chamber are not worried about debt. They are not worried about bequeathing debt to future generations, but I think that they should be. One of my great colleagues, Senator Brett Mason, today highlighted the fantastic work of the economist Niall Ferguson, a historian who has focused on economic history. He said in one of his recent books, The Great Degeneration: how institutions decay and economies die:

The heart of the matter is the way public debt allows the current generation of voters to live at the expense of those as yet too young to vote or as yet unborn.

We, on this side of the House, care about those people. In my present condition, I can certainly say that I care about the future generations who will have to pay back this debt, who will have to withstand lower living conditions because they have been saddled with this debt. If we want to talk about fairness then we need to talk about intergenerational fairness. We need to talk about the legacy that we will be leaving to those generations that will follow us.

How fair is it to lock-in spending that we know we cannot afford? How fair is it for those who will follow us? The debts today that we build up will be paid for by future generations. That is why on this side of the House we are serious in engaging in budget repair over the long term and getting the policy settings right for a competitive and resilient economy. It is only by doing this that we will be able to create the very best future for future generations and for those present in this current generation. That is our responsibility. That is our duty.

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister's claim that he would lead a stable, adult government has gone from a political promise to a political punchline. In 521 days of government we have not had one single budget passed. There have been fewer budgets passed than leadership spills during the Abbott government, and that is why the government has become a joke. They are led by a figure of some ridicule. They have a much diminished figure as Treasurer.

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All of these characters that pipe up now just reinforce my point that they have become a joke. We have got a Treasurer that cannot even secure his own job, let alone the jobs of Australians. The Prime Minister stood there yesterday, hand on heart, and said he would change, but not a single policy changed yesterday. Even the promise to properly consider Australian-built subs only survived about as long as that creepy, quivering silence he subjected Mark Riley to in the courtyard out there that day.

Let us take stock of the policy suite of those opposite. They still have, after this big reset, cuts to the age pension, the disability support pension and the veterans pension. They are cutting the pensioner education supplement and axing the seniors supplement. They have still got a GP tax. They are still increasing the petrol tax and they are still radically increasing the cost of a university education. That is why yesterday was not a restart; it was a re-run. That is why it did not matter, at the end of yesterday's leadership ballot, who was left holding the axe, because people on low and middle incomes were still under attack from this Liberal government.

As entertaining as it has been to watch them stagger around in a haze of confusion and contempt for each other, it does have serious consequences for our economy. It has consequences for our business community and for people on low and middle incomes. For those people, the government's disarray is no joke. Economic growth and jobs are at stake while they fail the nation. That was a point made very well by Peter Martin from The Age today, who said:

The government itself has become an impediment to economic growth. It had the ability to make a fresh start. On Monday it didn't take it.

They said there would be an adrenaline charge and they would be open for business. Confidence is way down. Consumer confidence is down 16 per cent since the Abbott government was elected.

Mr Watts interjecting—

As the member for Gellibrand says, it is like they are trading while they are insolvent.

Half of company directors surveyed said that they were making negative decisions about their decisions based on the performance of the Abbott government. They said over there that they would be part of the solution. Instead, they are part of the problem, whether it is the budget, which they have made worse, whether it is the cost of living, which they have made worse, whether it is stability and confidence, which they have made much worse, or whether it is employment outcomes, which they have made much, much worse.

It beggars belief that the government lecture us about budgets when, after 521 days of government, they still cannot pass one. There is a simple reason why they cannot. It is that this budget asks the most vulnerable people in our community to carry the heaviest load. For as long as the fair go lives and breathes in this country, for as long as the fair go is cherished by the Australian people, a budget like this will be rejected. It says it all about those opposite that the Minister for Finance on Sunday, and the Prime Minister today, confirmed that not a single minister around the cabinet table said this budget might be unfair. As much as the member for Wentworth and the member for Curtin want to pretend that this budget was drawn up in a cabinet room that only had the Prime Minister and the Treasurer in it, they are all part of this same mess. And, when the member for Wentworth stood up today in that avalanche of arrogance that he always brings to the dispatch box, he confirmed that he supports every part of this budget. No matter how far and how fast the member for Curtin runs in the morning, she will never escape the fact that she supports this budget. The member for Wentworth will wear this budget like a leather jacket on Q&A. He will wear this forever like a leather jacket on Q&A. On this side of the House, we will keep standing up for people on low and middle incomes, because that is what we do. On that side of the House, nothing has changed. Monday was not a restart, as they claim. It was a re-run of a budget horror show.

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is indeed a delight to have the opportunity to speak on this MPI, because I have spent much of the last 12 months being lectured by those on the other side of the House about fairness, or at least their version of it. Indeed, I was so interested in the topic of fairness that I read and thought deeply about it over the holiday break. It is interesting, because what we are dealing with here is a party whose definition of fairness is knifing two leaders—not one, two—in their disastrous time in government. And they were good at it. They could teach us a thing or two, I am sure. They allowed 40,000 people to jump on boats, and 1,200 of them died. And that is fair? They poured money into school buildings that have never been used. They funded pink batt programs responsible for deaths and phenomenal wastage. And that is fair?

But, in this budget context, their approach to fairness is absolutely extraordinary. Let's go back to basics. The Parliamentary Budget Office tells us that Labor locked in spending growth of 6½ per cent a year. For those of you who are not economically literate—and I realise that is a fair whack of those over that side of the House—that is significantly faster than GDP and tax. So guess what you have to do if you are going to do that. Option 1 is debt. Do not demonise debt. I have heard it from the former Treasurer. You can run that option if you really want to. Your other alternative—and I suspect this is the real plan—is to raise taxes, not once but every year from now till forever. They are your options.

We have a plan to fix this problem, but, given Labor's complete refusal to manage its spending, it only has those two options. Labor needs to come clean with Australians about which path it is going down. Are you taking us to European-style debt or are you going to raise our taxes every year from now until forever? The real question here is: who will pay for Labor's largesse? Is it today's taxpayers or tomorrow's Australians? That is your choice: today's taxpayers or tomorrow's Australians. Come clean. But we have hints. The member for Fraser has told us that Labor could balance the budget by bringing back carbon and mining taxes. So we have been told. It is clear. We know the answer. And we know he echoes the views of others in his party. Whack middle Australia with a tax to fund your handouts. Never mind that the mining tax revenues never eventuated and the carbon tax was simply shifting jobs, emissions and tax revenues offshore. But the member for Fraser knows well there is an alternative, and that is to pass on the debt to your kids.

A lot of people say that government debt is different to household debt, and that is quite right. It is different. And there is one big difference: you can pass it on to your kids. And that is exactly what the Labor Party plans to do. And let us look at the situation of younger Australians. House prices have been rising for 20 years: cheap mortgages, supply shortages and a lack of investment in infrastructure have resulted in high house prices across Australia. We have amongst the highest levels of household debt in the OECD, and you want to add on more? In fact, the Grattan Institute tells us that you have already added $50,000 for every young Australian through your debt—and that is fair? Please, please, please have a think about what fairness is really all about.

In a recent opinion piece I made the point that Labor is treating middle Australia and young Australians like Boxer the draught horse in George Orwell's Animal Farm, and I was delighted to hear Animal Farm raised by the member for Higgins. As a reminder, the pigs—the socialist revolutionaries in Orwell's novel—exploited Boxer's good nature, strong work ethic and commitment to his community for their own selfish purposes, and then sent him off to the knackery when he could not work anymore. I read Animal Farm as a 10-year-old, and I knew that was unfair. (Time expired)

Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, as one or two of us have sometimes said maybe you and I are heading in that direction; maybe we are not far from the knackery.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is that a reflection on the chair?

Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think when we are talking about knackeries, let us have a talk about this government. Let us have a look at what has happened.

Government members interjecting—

Hey, at least I've got knackery things! But let us have a look at what we are dealing with here: a government that hit the reset button, a government that said: 'Okay, we're going to change. We made some serious mistakes, but now we're okay.' Before Christmas it was, 'Let's get the barnacles off'. I do not know if it was Jack Sparrow or Captain Pugwash, but either way the clown is the member for Warringah. He is supposed to be the leader of this country, and he was out there saying, 'We're going to change'. Of course he must have had a hint that there really was a problem on the backbench. I note we have around 10 to 12 government backbenchers over there, so on the basis of that roughly two-thirds of you did not vote for the Prime Minister. I am just wondering: I know it was not the member for Bass, I know it was not him; I do not think it was a member for Hume; I am not sure, but I have my suspicions about the member for Barker. I really do. He is just too loud, he is just too noisy. They always say about babies that the ones with the dirtiest nappies always scream the loudest. He cannot help himself.

The member for Hume—he is a very serious man, just ask him—is always someone who will give you a lecture about the nature of the serious economic situations we face. He does look a bit like a parliamentary Ken doll—Brad Pitt, without Angelina Jolie. But the bottom line is this: he is no Alby Schultz. Alby had at least one eye, as we know. The member for Bass is a man I have known for some many years and whom I have some time for, but having said that let us not forget I have been here eight long terms and in that time there have been seven members for Bass.

An opposition member: Soon eight!

No, seven. There is only one who has been re-elected in that entire time. I wish the member for Bass luck—not much—and frankly I think he is going to need a lot of it. The point is: what we see in this government and the circumstances they are facing is real difficulty.

People mentioned, 'We learnt about leadership stoushes from you guys'. I might have been involved in one or two, that is true, but I will tell you what: it took me longer than 16 months! It took me twice that time, frankly! You guys are faster than us, I will give you that; much faster. You ought to think what that means. You reckon we were bad after six years, what do you reckon you are going to be like in three? What do you think? I will tell you what we will see: it is going to be chaos.

Mr Taylor interjecting—

Go and find Barbie! The bottom line is when you look at the question that we are facing here today on this budget, and this government, they are saying: 'Let's change. We're going to change.' But then the circumstances are: 'But we're not going to change anything. We're actually going to stick with a GP tax. We're actually going to stick with $100,000 university degrees. We're actually going to stick with very unfair changes to the pension indexation. We're actually going to stick with petrol indexation. So we're going to change, but we're not actually going to change anything.'

I did note the chief of staff of the Prime Minister seemed to be missing in action today. I am not sure if she is on leave, I am not sure if she has been hidden—I am not sure what is happening there. Maybe she was out having a go at somebody, which seems to be, from what we hear from the other side, what happens on a regular basis. But the bottom line is: she was not here. Maybe that is a change? But I do not think there is any real change in respect of this government going forward.

And when a budget has been met in the community in the way that it has, you know, because the backbench showed you, that when you go out there into the community, they hate it. They hate what you are trying to do, they hate what it is about, they hate what it says. You can sit back and talk about how, 'We're taking the principled line'. Joe Hockey made one speech two years before the last election, 18 months before the last election, saying there was a problem and then he shut up. You all went around your electorates, you went around the country saying, 'No, there's no problem; there's no need to move on all these issues', while you are now saying there are major problems. You are lying. You have lied in every one of your electorates, you lied throughout the country and now you are dealing with the aftermath of that.

The fact is the Australian community has seen what you have done and has heard what you have said and has realised and recognised that you are a fraud of a government and you have done it so quickly. Well done. Reap the whirlwind of your lies; reap the whirlwind of your behaviour. In the months ahead you know what is going to be happening: 39 is going to go 42 and then to 45 and then to 48 and then to 51 and then to 52—and even some of you are going to be in that cart and you know it! (Time expired)

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Quite fortunately this morning I was in a meeting with probably one of Australia's most esteemed businessmen, and I think it fits with today's MPI. He quoted Condoleezza Rice. The quote was:

Today's headlines and history's judgment are rarely the same.

It went on:

If you are too attentive to the former you will most certainly not do the hard work of securing the latter.

So in looking at today's MPI, I thought let us look at a little recent history because this budget and the discussion about the budget needs some context. Thinking back on previous Australian governments, I can remember Whitlam. With all due respect to the great man, he was passionate. He had passion and he had values. He might have been misguided economically, but he certainly had values. Look at the Fraser government. I think history has judged the Fraser government as a steady government; some view that it certainly missed some opportunities that it could have taken.

Look at the Hawke-Keating government. I think history has judged them as reformist. They obviously overspent a bit and left us some debt, but I think people have judged that government as pretty good performers. I think history has judged the Howard government as good economic managers. I think history already has judged the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years as a disaster. Unlike Whitlam, they had no values. Unlike Hawke and Keating, they were not reformists; they were populists and they were valueless. That quote comes back to haunt them because they were permanently looking at the day's headlines. That is how they governed and that is why they have gone down as not good governments. As many have previously mentioned, they gave us the six biggest deficits; therefore, the largest debt this country has ever had.

The member for Lilley on the television a week or two ago was saying: 'We're hung up about debt. It's not a problem.' That shows the folly of that side of politics. Isn't it wonderful being a politician and running around the country throwing out money. That is an easy thing to do. It is a populist thing to do, but it is not sustainable. They have proven it is not sustainable and we see many examples around the world right now as to why it is not sustainable and the problems that that causes. While it might feel good in the short term, and while it might be good for the short-term headline, it is not good and history will not judge you well for it.

The other side also talk often about how righteous they are environmentally. They talk about the environment, about energy and about sustainability. Sustainability is their mantra. Do you know what we are into? We are into economic sustainability. We are trying to bring this country's finances back into something that is ongoing. To the member for Lilley who says that debt is not a problem, I will give one example of why it is a problem. We are now spending close to $1 billion a year in interest. It is not hard to work out that it is well over $10 billion a year. We are not going to being spending that sort of money. That sort of money is not even budgeted for in Gonski going forward. They talk about the NDIS and about Gonski. That is money that we are spending in interest before you even start spending money on programs like this. Again, populism works in the short term—

An opposition member interjecting—

Someone on the other side said, 'You need to learn from your mistakes.' Even in opposition, you can go down in history as having been a good opposition. I think the Howard opposition was a good opposition. They could have taken short-term populist shots at the then Hawke-Keating governments. The Hawke-Keating governments did some real reforms and this side of politics could have played the populist and said, 'We'll oppose everything to win votes in the short term.' That was not for the good of the country. Even in opposition, the Howard opposition showed that you could have real values in opposition as well. While the short term may give you popular votes, history will judge you badly. They have proven that in government and they are proving that in opposition.

Tim Watts (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, in the immortal words of Ron Burgundy:

That escalated quickly …

Just 521 days after the election of the Abbott government, less than 18 months after the current Prime Minister promised a 'grown up, adult' government, the current Prime Minister made history by facing the fastest motion to spill their leadership position of any Australian PM since Federation. This flutter certainly attracted a lot of attention. It really got out of hand fast. It really jumped things up a notch. I think I even saw Wyatt Roy throw a trident at one point.

Historians were particularly interested to see whether Tony Abbott would officially take the crown from William McMahon and become the worst Prime Minister in modern times. For the record, though, the Prime Minister still needs to survive another 116 days to best Billy in the worst PM stakes—in terms of tenure at least. So that is something to keep in mind for the inevitable post-budget challenge. Tony has until June to avoid ignominy.

But, despite the attention on the spill, the result was a bit of a fizzer. None of the mooted saviours of the Liberal-National government put up their hands. The failed opposition leader, the failed former shadow Treasurer and the failed former managing director of Tourism Australia all kept their powder dry. As a result, when the spill eventuated, only 39 Liberal MPs were terrified enough to put their hand up and vote for 'anyone but the current PM'. 'Tick-tock' Tony lives to bungle another day! He didn't waste any time and pronounced with a beguiling lack of self-perception in a press conference that very afternoon, 'Good government starts today'. But here's the rub.

Despite his admission that Australia has been subjected to a 'bad' government from this current ministry, we have seen absolutely no change in what they are serving up to the Australian public. The morning after the day before, can anyone in this place name a single policy that has changed as a result of yesterday's events? As the Bard once said, this attempted spill has been:

… a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

It is true that the Prime Minister is:

… but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more …

But, despite the PM's effective political death, there has been no rebirth of this government's connection with the Australian people. As the finance minister told the ABC on the weekend, not a single minister in this cabinet, none of the contenders in the 'Game of Tones', has complained, even privately, that the measures in this government's budget were unfair—not the $80 billion in cuts to schools and hospitals; not the attack on the pension; not the tax on the sick, the GP tax; not the $100,000 university degree debt sentence.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Member for Gellibrand will resume his seat. The Member for Lyons on a point of order. What is the point of order?

Eric Hutchinson (Lyons, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It concerns parliamentary language. It is not appropriate to be describing the Prime Minister in such a way. There should be some modicum of respect shown for the Prime Minister of our country.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Lyons, I would suggest that would apply to a lot of speakers on both sides of the parliament. I think that is a timely intervention. This House should respect people on both sides of the House, whether they are the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition or anyone else. I call the member for Gellibrand.

Tim Watts (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I accord the current Prime Minister the dignity of his current office. The problem with this government is not their current leader; it is the values of their MPs and ministers—the values that have led every one of them to support the extreme, ideological agenda of this government, the values that led the Minister for Communications to tell Alan Jones, 'I support unreservedly and wholeheartedly every element of the budget. Every single one,' and the values that led the Minister for Foreign Affairs to declare, 'The whole cabinet has to take responsibility for the budget.' The Prime Minister might claim that 'good government starts today' but the unfair policies of his bad government remain unchanged.

Even the one policy that the PM tried to change to save his bacon, his alleged backflip on the broken promise not to build Australia's next round of submarines in Adelaide, is less than meets the eye. Instead of the 'full and open tender' for the construction of these submarines promised to Senator Edwards and other South Australian MPs before the vote on his leadership, we are now told that the PM intends to run a 'competitive evaluation process'—a mystery process unknown to anyone in the Australian defence community. Perhaps the member for Bass can inform us in his upcoming contribution.

In this respect, at least, the Prime Minister has helped to reconnect South Australian MPs, including the Member for Hindmarsh, with the Australian public. South Australian Liberal MPs now know exactly how the rest of the country feels after being lied to by the Prime Minister before he asked them for their vote. I am sure that South Australian Liberal MPs now wish they could hold their very own 'competitive evaluation process' of the Prime Minister's job. This government has not changed, and it will not change until the next federal election.

Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

After those failed lines, the member for Gellibrand should be on the stage—the next stage out of town. Can I also thank the member for Bruce for supporting my re-election campaign. I will be looking forward to his campaign donation when I run strongly for the seat of Bass. Can I also congratulate the member for Hume, who made some excellent points about fairness.

But I am going to focus on hypocrisy, because getting a lecture on economic performance from the Labor Party is a like being lectured by North Korea about the value of the UN, or a Daesh lecture about human rights, or Bill Shorten's lecture in question time yesterday on the importance of loyalty to prime ministers. All of those things highlight the sort of rampant hypocrisy we get from those opposite.

Everyone knows that Labor have dealt themselves out of the rational debate when it comes to the economy. They know about the Labor forecast in 2012 of a $2 billion surplus, which at their 2013 budget suddenly became an $18 billion deficit, and then in the aftermath of the 2013 election turned out to be a $48 billion deficit. That represents a $50 billion negative turnaround in our economic circumstances. But is gets worse. Because of debt repayments and Labor locking in spending growth above inflation, the Treasurer made very clear that this country today spends $100m each and every day more than we earn in revenue. Today we paid $40 million in interest repayments on Labor's debt. Tomorrow it will be another $40 million; the next day it will be another $40 million. The opportunity cost of that is appalling. It costs $50 million to build a new school in this country. So when you think about that, we could pretty much build a new school every day from those interest repayments—from that opportunity cost.

What that means, and we have heard other speakers say it, is that we are mortgaging the future income of our children and grandchildren. Labor may not wish to listen to us, but they should listen to the honourable leaders of Labor's past. They should read that wonderful article from Bob Hawke, Paul Keating and John Howard, on 1 January this year. I hesitate to use the word 'leader' on that side, because former Prime Ministers Hawke and Keating belled the cat on what an appalling lack of leadership we have seen from Mr Shorten. Mr Hawke said Australia's deteriorating budget must be addressed and 'governments cannot just keep pushing up taxes'. Keating calls for a return to the bipartisan economic reform of the past, where surplus budgets and structural economic reform were normal. They long for a return to the lengthy period of fiscal responsibility that allowed Australia to weather the global financial crisis. Recently-retired Treasury Secretary Martin Parkinson warned that failing to act now 'consigns Australia to a deteriorating future'. Chris Richardson, of Access Economics, says, 'If we haven't repaired the budget starting now, we will really regret that down the track.' Phil Bowen, from the Parliamentary Budget Office, says debt and deficit does not improve with age: 'The longer you leave it the more exposed you become and the harder it is to wind it back.' John Edwards, an RBA board member appointed by Wayne Swan, and who was Paul Keating's Principal Economic Adviser, says: 'We're accumulating debt as a higher share of GDP and of course in absolute terms, it is absolutely astronomical compared to far more serious episodes in Australian history.'

Put simply, a more sustainable and prosperous economy cannot be achieved through yet more borrowing and spending. If it could, the wise Australian people would have given the Rudd-Gillard Rudd-Milne model of economic management a third term, to spend our way out of trouble. But they did not do that. They decided that they would take a different path, and we are taking those hard decisions that you were never able to take.

The fourth Intergenerational Report will highlight some important things, but if you are looking for a 'canary in the coalmine' insight of what lies ahead for Australia, look no further than Japan, where the sale of adult nappies today exceeds those of the baby variety. The implications for healthcare, for pharmaceuticals and for residential aged care facilities are potentially horrendous.

I say to those opposite: listen to the wise heads of the past, who have been there and have done that. Work with us on those big strategic issues confronting our country, and let's take a more prosperous future back to the Australian people.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The discussion has concluded.