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 failure of the Government to produce a Budget for Australia's future.

I call upon those honourable 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

There are times when a government has to consider that so much damage has been done to an economy, that so much is at risk in an economy and that there are such forces at play in an economy that the government has to step in and spend money. There are times when the international economy has turned so badly that a government has to spend and stimulate the economy. It happened during the period of the previous Labor government—the worst financial and economic crisis in 60 years. Labor stepped in and Labor took action. And didn't they rail against it? Didn't they complain that too much was being spent? Well, another Treasurer has decided that so much damage has been done to the economy, that confidence is so low and that the economy is so bad that they have had to increase spending to GFC levels. We see spending outlined in last night's budget at 25.9 per cent of the economy. It was 26 per cent during the depths of the global financial crisis, and it is 25.9 per cent now as they strive desperately to improve the economy after the smashing of confidence that they have perpetrated over the last 12 months.

This says, along with all the other backflips and all the other problems in its budget preparation, that this government stands for nothing. This government stands for absolutely nothing. We see the government walking away from its formal and solemn commitments about budget surpluses. The Treasurer used to tell us, 'There's no revenue problem in Australia, only a spending problem.' He has told us that time and time again, and we find spending on his watch the same as during the depths of the global financial crisis. That tells us just how lacking in substance this Treasurer is, and we see spending as a percentage of the economy 1.3 percentage points higher than it was left under the Labor government.

We see the budget's own documents outlining the impact of government decisions. There is a very important table in the budget papers, and it outlines the impact of government decisions. It shows that the impact of government decisions has blown out the budget deficit by $9 billion. They say: 'Oh, we paid for everything. Everything we've done is offset by other savings.' It is just not right. I saw the Minister for Finance on Lateline last night. This was put to him, and he said, 'You're forgetting one point: the savings from our paid parental leave'—a cunning plan. So they are suggesting that the savings come from a program they never implemented.

I am on good terms with the shadow finance minister—the member for Watson is a good friend of mine—but, if I went to him and said, 'I've got a cunning plan: why don't we come up with a bigger plan that raises expenses, and then we don't proceed with it, and then we can claim it as a saving?' I think he would suggest I take some time out to reflect on my grip on reality! As good terms as I am on with the member for Watson, he would tell me I had lost my grip on reality if I suggested abolishing a program that we had never implemented and claiming it as a saving as part of a cunning fiscal plan. That is what this government has done. It is what the member for Kooyong has done and the Minister for Finance has done.

We see the debt and deficit disaster that we heard so much about.

Opposition Member:

An opposition member interjecting—

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

As the parliamentary secretary points out, we have had the fire truck analogy: the Prime Minister telling us that the fire truck pulled up on the day of the last election and started putting out the fire of the deficit. It turns out the fire truck pulled up and the fireman got out, had a look around and kicked the tires, popped back in the fire truck and drove back to the station. That is what happened with the fire truck, because you see the deficit doubled from just last year when the Treasurer stood at the dispatch box. The budget deficits doubled over four years in just one year. This is their impact. Apparently their way of dealing with a debt and deficit disaster is to double it. That'll fix it! 'That's our cunning plan,' says the Treasurer.

People are asking, 'What is the point of the Abbott government?' Australians said in 2013: 'I'm not sure about this. I don't really trust that Leader of the Opposition. I'm not sure that I trust Tony Abbott's judgement, but he's got a plan to get us back into surplus. He'll get the deficit down, so we'll give him a go.' Many Australians said they were not sure about it and not sure they trusted him, but they gave him a go. And so what has he done to those voters who put their trust in him? He has doubled the deficit as his plan to deal with a debt and deficit disaster.

Despite all this, the prejudice remains in the budget and in fact has got worse. We know that many of the measures in the budget of last year remain. The $100,000 university degrees? Still there. The $80 billion worth of cuts to health and education? Still there. The cuts to family tax benefit? Still there and linked to childcare reforms, turning the budget document into one long ransom note to Australian families, saying, 'We won't give you more money, more assistance for your child care unless we get to take even more money than that away from you in your family tax benefit.' This is the prejudice at the heart of the Abbott government. We saw that prejudice on display very clearly at question time today because it has got worse. Not even in the last budget—the worst budget in 60 years—did they try to take money and time with their newborn babies away from Australian mothers in an ambush of Australian families.

They claim Abbott's ambush of Australian families was an election commitment to remove the entitlement to the government paid parental leave scheme if your employer provides it as well. I do not recall it being a central feature of the election campaign of the opposition. I do recall paid parental leave being mentioned by the now Prime Minister but in a very different way from what he is now alleging he said to the Australian people. But the prejudice is clear. We saw the Minister for Social Services. I note that at the end of question time there is an opportunity for members who claim to have been misrepresented. I did not hear the Minister for Social Services jumping to his feet to deny calling it a rort.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Or the Treasurer.

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

Or the Treasurer. The Treasurer could have denied calling it a fraud. I did not hear a personal explanation taken to deny this claim. No, because—perhaps in a moment of weakness—they showed their true agenda. They showed their true prejudice.

The Minister for Social Services is on quite a campaign—the new Minister for Social Services, the soft and cuddly Minister for Social Services! He could start by apologising to Australian mothers. He could start by apologising and admitting he got it wrong, admitting that he should never have said that. But he will not do that, because he still believes it. They stand by the policy. It is an outrageous policy that they have. It is an insult to the Australian people for the Treasurer, the Minister for Social Services, the Prime Minister and the Assistant Treasurer to say to those people who negotiated things in good faith, those people who negotiated with their employers and gave up wage increases and other conditions so they could spend more time with newborn children that they are rorters and take this condition away in a clear breach of an election commitment. They were promised a rolled gold parental leave scheme and instead they got Abbott's ambush from this Prime Minister who stands for nothing except prejudice.

This is the sort of treatment of Australian families we see from this government. It runs through the last budget and this budget, and I predict it will run until we see the defeat of the Abbott government. Until we see the defeat of this government, we will see this prejudice exhibited time and time again. It is prejudice which results in the budget deficit doubling as their impact on improving the budget bottom line.

We know that the Treasurer has told us there are no alternatives but his way. We also know that is not true. The Assistant Treasurer might in his remarks talk about some of the alternatives. He might in his remarks talk about Labor's plan to make sure multinationals pay a fair share of tax. He might talk about superannuation. The Assistant Treasurer is here. I had a feeling he might be here. I have a soft spot for the Assistant Treasurer. He's not the best Assistant Treasurer we've ever had, but he's in the top 10! There have been 11! But in a press release last night he said: 'And Bill Shorten and Chris Bowen need to get their stories straight. One says the budget is too soft and the other says it's not tough enough.' Maybe in his remarks he could explain what the difference is between being too soft on the one hand and not tough enough on the other. We'd love to hear it! You could start with it. There is an introduction for the Assistant Treasurer: we would love to hear him explain the difference between too soft and not tough enough. (Time expired)

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

It is very hard to take the member for McMahon, and Labor, seriously when the member for McMahon said on ABC Radio on 13 May 2010:

… the government has returned the budget to surplus three years ahead of schedule and ahead of any other major advanced economy …

I do not know what he was drinking that night but it was not ouzo, I can tell you. He was a professor of ouzo economics. We have produced a budget which will set up Australia for the future—a budget that capitalises on the green shoots in the Australian economy. It is a budget which sees us seize the opportunities afforded by the free trade agreements we have signed in the region with Japan, South Korea and China; the opportunities afforded by the more than $2 billion of red-tape we have cut; and the opportunities afforded by the abolition of the carbon tax and the mining tax.

The key themes running through this budget are three. The first is focused on small business and jobs. When it comes to jobs, we want to target those young people who are neither in education nor in employment. We want to work with groups like the Brotherhood of St Laurence to help them get a job and start working for an income. We also want to give them work experience. One of the programs we have will subsidise employers to take on young people for up to 25 hours a week for four weeks, while those young people retain their income support. Another job program in this budget is about accelerating payments to employers through a $1.2 billion wage subsidy pool—for example, there is the Restart program, which will see people aged over the age of 50 get into the workforce after they have been on income support. We will provide up to $10,000 to an employer who does that. What about the package for small business? Small business will now get its greatest tax cut in over 50 years. It will see the company tax rate for incorporated companies with revenue under $2 million cut to 28½ per cent. And unincorporated companies with revenue under $2 million will get a tax discount of up to 5 per cent, up to $1,000 a year. Both incorporated and unincorporated companies will also get the benefit of a massively accelerated depreciation of up to $20,000 for two years. This is extremely significant and allows small businesses to innovate and invest. Did you know that eight out of every 10 jobs in agriculture in this country are in small business, and that nine out of every 10 businesses that are investing in innovation and high technology are small businesses? We on this side of the House understand that small business is the engine room of the Australian economy. Those on the other side of the House had a rotisserie of ministers in the small business portfolio. They had five in just six years, rotating and rotating on the hot burner, as 517,000 jobs were lost in small business under Labor's watch. Shame on them!

There is also red-tape abolition—for example, getting rid of the fringe benefits tax on portable electronic devices and no longer requiring companies to have an ABN, a tax file number and an Australian company number. They now only need one number. There are also our initiatives around crowdsourced funding.

The second big package of initiatives in this budget relates to families and, in particular, to child care. There is $3.5 billion worth of new funding—taking the Productivity Commission as our guide, with a sliding scale of 85 per cent down to 50 per cent, with a real focus on low- and middle-income earners. We have tightened the activity test to ensure that the government is now only providing child care to those families who are actually in work, because we understand that if we can boost workforce participation we can strengthen the Australian economy. By our estimates, and the department's estimates, some 240,000 families will now either enter the workforce or will stay in the workforce longer as a result of our measures. There is also a $240 million-plus initiative for nannies, which will provide 10,000 children with 4,000 nannies—focusing, again, on some of the less advantaged areas in our country as well as regional areas. There is our $840 million commitment to 15 hours a week of universal access for preschool children. That is a signature set of policies around child care and families.

The third leg of the budget we are so proud of relates to multinational tax and to ensuring that multinationals pay their fair share of tax. The way we have done that is to strengthen part IVA of the anti-avoidance provisions to ensure that around 30 companies with artificial and contrived tax arrangements that the ATO has been looking at are paying their fair share; to ensure that the taxpayers in Australia—the mums and dads, the nurses and the doctors—are not short-changed by these multinationals not paying their fair share. We have doubled the penalties for breaches, and have also ensured that the GST is applied consistently to the importation of intangibles by companies like Netflix, to ensure that domestic providers of those services are now on a level playing field. I am very proud of those three sets of big initiatives around jobs and small business, families and child care, and the strengthening of our tax system and its integrity.

On top of that, there will be a record investment of $1.2 billion in national security, on top of the $1 billion we have already announced for ASIO, the Australian Federal Police and the Defence Force. We know ASIO has 400 high-priority terrorism-related investigations right now. We know that our intelligence agencies and our law enforcement agencies are very focused on the fact that more than 20 Australians have gone to Iraq and Syria where they are being killed—including a number of suicide bombers.

What about health? We on this side of the House, rather than the opposition, have also put up an additional $1.3 billion worth of drugs onto the PBS, including important drugs for melanoma and for cancer sufferers, because we know we have a moral obligation to assist those who are less fortunate than ourselves. What about our changes to the pension? Again, we are ensuring a more fair and sustainable pension, because the pension—

Ms Macklin interjecting—

You are in denial, the member for Jagajaga, who sits opposite. That is complete denial about the sustainability of the pension. It is the single largest budgetary item we have, at $42 billion, and it is growing at six per cent per year. It is currently 10 per cent of the Australian budget and, with the number of people over the age of 65 doubling in the next 40 years, we know we have to make the budget more sustainable. Not only will our changes to the taper rates and the asset-free areas ensure that people who may have been on a part pension but are low on assets are now going on the full pension; we have also saved $2.4 billion over the forward estimates through these measures. I am very proud of that.

As the Treasurer and the Prime Minister said today in the parliament, our budget also contains support for Northern Australia, support for farmers, $5 billion worth of concessional loans, the ability for farmers to instantly write off fencing costs, more money for mental health counsellors in drought-affected areas and $330-odd million worth of support for the drought-affected parts of our country. I am very proud of all that.

In my last minute and a half, I want to focus on one very important part of this budget and that is continuing the path of budget repair, continuing to pay back the debt and deficit that the Leader of the Opposition was completely ignorant about today. Thirteen times on Neil Mitchell's program today, he avoided a simple question and did not take responsibility for Labor's debt. When they came into government in 2007 there was zero government debt, there was $50 billion in the bank and $20 billion worth of budget surpluses. Labor created this mess and now they are refusing to support us as we fix it up. We were borrowing $130 million a day just to pay their bills; now we have brought it down to $96 million a day. This is despite writing own $90 billion worth of revenue as a result of falling commodity prices. We have brought spending growth down from 3.6 per cent per annum—that those on the other side of the House created—to just 1.5 per cent per annum over the forward estimates. That is even taking into account our major obligations and our rightful obligations to fund the NDIS going further.

From a budget deficit of $48 billion that we inherited, it will be $35 billion next year. In three years time it will be $7 billion and we will get to surplus over time. We have been left to fix up Labor's mess. We are very proud of this budget. It sets up Australia for a very bright future.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Last year the Treasurer was full of insults about 'lifters' and 'leaners'. Remember how often we heard the Australian public divided into lifters and leaners? This year the Treasurer's insults go to 'fraudsters' and 'double dippers'. Last year it was lifters and leaners and now it is fraudsters and double dippers. You just have to wonder: how low can this Liberal government go, announcing on Mothers Day that this government would cut paid parental leave to around 80,000 new mothers. That is what the Treasurer announced just a few days ago. How do they justify it? The Treasurer basically accused thousands of new mums of committing fraud. But I suppose, coming from the Treasurer, who thinks that poor people do not drive cars, none of us should be surprised. But I was surprised that the new Minister for Social Services called mothers 'rorters'. We know that the new Minister for Social Services is a wannabe Treasurer. Maybe this is the criteria for being the Treasurer in this Liberal government: you go about insulting a whole range of people to justify a budget measure. That is exactly what the Minister for Social Services has done. How insulting, to call new mothers who want to spend a few extra weeks with their newborn babies 'rorters'. That is exactly what the Minister for Social Services has done.

I find the conduct of the Prime Minister the worst. This is the Prime Minister who originally said that his policy on paid parental leave would be that any policy on paid parental leave would be introduced 'over his dead body'. Actually, today in question time the Prime Minister said how important it was to have policy consistency. He said it was very, very important to have policy consistency. Some of us have got a good memory, and we remember him saying that paid parental leave should be introduced over his dead body. Then, over two elections, he took his gold-plated paid parental leave scheme to the electorate. He said that we really should be paying very wealthy mothers $75,000 to have a baby. Then he decided to scrap that signature policy, despite saying that it was a 'fundamental conviction'. Now, in the mother of all insults, this Prime Minister is saying to around 80,000 mothers that they will be denied their paid parental leave. Eighty thousand new mothers will lose—every single year if this government gets its way—up to $11,500 from paid parental leave because of this government's cuts. What this means in real life, for mothers and their babies, is that those new mums will have less time to spend with their newborn babies. That is what this government's new policy is. That is exactly what this Prime Minister has done, in the most extraordinary of political and policy backflips that I have ever seen.

How can this Prime Minister ever be believed by any family in this country ever again? He has not a shred of credibility when it comes to supporting Australian families. Just have a look at the cuts to family payments that are still in this budget, that are going to see an average family on $65,000 a year with a couple of kids at school lose $6,000 a year. How many of you have had the honesty to actually say to families in your electorates that each and every one of them have already voted for those cuts to family payments and they are in the budget again? (Time expired)

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Jagajaga talked about policy consistency. I can tell you one area where the Labor Party has been consistent every time they have been in government: that is, they destroy the budget and they destroy the economy. That is where they are completely consistent. You go back to the Whitlam era: they destroyed the budget and they destroyed the economy. You go into the Hawke and Keating era: what happened to the budget? They left a $96 billion black hole. Then you come back to the Rudd-Gillard era; what happened once again? They do it again—they completely and utterly destroy the public finances of Australia. The Liberal and National parties have to, again, do the hard work to repair the task.

Everybody knows the situation that we inherited when we came to government. There were debt and deficits as far as the eye could see. There was rising unemployment, business confidence was low and consumer confidence was low. Having inherited an economy in absolute tiptop shape, they destroyed it. They absolutely destroyed the public finances of this place. What is worse is that not only did they destroy the current finances of those current years with, I believe, the five biggest budget deficits in Australian political history but they set in place real expenditure of 3.7 per cent ongoing into the future—3.7 per cent real growth, which meant that we were locked into a Greek-debt trajectory going all the way to debt being 122 per cent of GDP.

That is what the Labor Party did: they set us on a course to follow the Greek-debt trajectory. We know what is going on in Greece right now. They have 26 per cent unemployment. They are struggling to pay the pensions and they have absolute social unrest as a result of the debt and deficit problems, which they never got on top of throughout their course.

This is what our government is doing: we are repairing the mess that we inherited. We did that from day one and we are continuing to do this with this budget. Already we have reduced the net debt by $110 billion. Labor does not like to hear this, because they have opposed every single one. Peak debt now will be $110 billion less. We have also reduced the deficits so, when you go forward and look at the projections, we are now going down to a deficit in four years time of only a few billion dollars. Therefore we are getting very close to a surplus thereafter.

When you look at the economic green shoots that are starting to appear because of the work—and again, they do not like to hear this—when you look at jobs growth, jobs growth has been 250,000 new jobs created in the last 18 months. That is 70 per cent higher than in the last 18 months of the Labor government. We have had record residential housing approvals, record business start-ups and have had retail sales increase by over four per cent in the last year. We have had economic growth go to 2.5 per cent now, when it was below two per cent under the Labor government. Exports are up. All of these are great economic green shoots.

What we are doing in this budget is turbocharging the small business sector, because they are the engine room of our economy. We are reducing taxes for them. We are absolutely going to make it easier for them to register new businesses. We are going to make it easier for entrepreneurs to get started. Most importantly, we are going to give them a go through accelerated depreciation so, if they purchase items up to $20,000, they can write those off immediately in that year. That is the approach that we are taking. We want to turbocharge the small businesses of this world, because we know that, when small businesses do well, we all do well: jobs start flowing, infrastructure starts going and investment starts occurring. This is what occurs when small businesses go well.

It is such a contrast to Labor's approach. Labor thought you would get the economy going by sending $900 cheques to dead people. They thought they would get the economy going by putting pink batts in people's roofs and then removing pink batts from people's roofs. They thought they would get the economy going through set-top boxes for $350 that you could buy at Harvey Norman for $70. That was Labor's approach. Our approach is to back small business, and we want to get on with it. (Time expired)

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is extraordinary when you hear those opposite trying to run away from the fact that in one year this government has doubled the deficit. If there was a single test that they wanted to put to the Australian people in their period in opposition, it was that from day one they would be able to start reducing debt and deficit. What do we have now? In one year—and they cannot quibble with the figures; they are their figures—from last year's budget to this year's budget they have doubled the deficit.

Pat Conroy (Charlton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They have doubled the deficit!

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is right. We are hearing, 'That's wrong!'

A government member interjecting—

I presume you are about as loyal a supporter as Joe Hockey gets in that party room. But it is not only that. When you look at what has happened with debt, what they have done with debt, they said they were going to pay down debt. Net debt for Australia today is the highest it has been in the history of the nation. It has never been as high as it is right now. So they should not for one minute think that they can walk into this chamber or walk through any Australian community group claiming that for debt and deficit they are in any way the answer.

I disagree with the shadow Treasurer, I have to say. When they turned up with the fire truck, they did not kick the tyre and drive away—they threw a Molotov cocktail before they went. They made sure that the deficit continued to blow out and then gave the absolute reverse of a magic pudding. They made sure they delivered a budget that was bad for the economy; a budget that crashed confidence; a budget that then saw a lack of business confidence and a lack of consumer confidence, and, consequently, continue to spiral with deficits growing year on year.

The Prime Minister, in budget reply, back in 2011 was at this despatch box. He gave three tests. He said:

People can be confident that spending, debt and taxes will always be lower under a coalition government …

We will take each of those in turn. We have seen what has happened with debt: it is higher under this government. After the global financial crisis, with Labor, spending growth continued at an average of 1.3 per cent; in this budget, spending growth over the same period of time grows by 1.8 per cent. This government is a higher spending government than the previous government, post the GFC. In terms of taxes, average taxes when Labor was in office were 20.8 per cent across the forwards; under this budget, 22.6 per cent in receipts. I know they find it hard even dealing with a double number being a bigger one, but with 20 to 22, it is the second number that is the bigger one. This is the opposite, again, of what the Prime Minister promised.

There is nothing in any of the global budget numbers that competes with the lack of integrity and extraordinary hypocritical approach to policy from this Prime Minister than what he has done on paid parental leave. For years, he would look at existing paid parental schemes and say, 'These schemes are terrible because they are woefully inadequate". All of a sudden, in the last we discover, yes, he still hates those schemes because they are unnecessarily generous and anyone who is receiving benefits from them is somebody who the Treasurer will agree is tantamount to fraud or who the social services minister will describe as being in a rort. Those opposite have failed under every test that they have put forward. Are they a government that would allegedly be involved in bringing down debt? No. Reducing the deficit? No, they have doubled it. Reducing tax? No, they have increased it. Reducing spending? No, they have increased it. On what was meant to be the signature policy by which we were to know who this Prime Minister was—this was the policy that would define the Prime Minister—we thought it was extraordinary enough when he abandoned that policy; now he is advocating the diametrically opposed position, arguing the exact opposite. We know what this Prime Minister stands for. He stands for one job: his own. That is all the budget is about. That is all the conversations with the party room that he engaged in are about. Not one of his arguments from before the election— (Time expired)

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

We have been hearing a lot of numbers from those opposite, but it seems to me that the only time that they get their numbers right is when they are putting the knife into the back of one of their leaders. So I thought we would go right back to basics and I would read straight from the budget papers as to what has happened to the budget deficit. So what was the budget deficit that we inherited? I go to table 5. The numbers are pretty clear: minus $48.5 billion. That is what we inherited from those opposite. What was it 2014-15? $41.1 billion. I think the second one is smaller than the first one. The deficit is going down. Let us see what goes on from then: then we go to a $35.1 billion deficit. I am not always as good at maths as those opposite when it comes to leadership spills, but it seems to that $35.1 billion is lower. Then we go to $25.8 billion; then $14.4 billion, then $6.9 billion; each of those is smaller than the last. I think it is straightforward. If we look a little bit deeper—and I do not want to get too much more complicated—spending growth under those opposite was 3.6 per cent a year, and now it is one. It is simple. These are the numbers. Please get them right in future.

What I want to focus on is small business, because here on this side of the House we know that what drives the economy more than anything else is the job creation, investment and prosperity that are created by the small business people across our electorates: farmers, tradespeople, accountants, lawyers, entrepreneurs—you name it. They are the ones that create prosperity for our economy and our country. I was lucky enough to have a group of small business people and farmers from my electorate at the budget dinner last night. When the Treasurer announced the package of small business support measures in the budget, they were straight on their phones, texting, talking and planning how to invest in their businesses. That is what we want. That is what this budget will deliver. They were having a go within minutes of the announcements, and that is what we want: immediate impact.

This is exciting for me, because I know that the entrepreneurs, the innovators, are not here; they are out there. They are not in the public service; they are in the private sector. We want these people investing and creating jobs for Australia's future. Nowhere is that more true than in regional Australia. We have heard a lot about the tax deductions and the accelerated depreciation that will have huge impacts on the investments that are being made in regional Australia, which do not just impact those businesses themselves but all their suppliers and all their service providers who will also benefit from those investments.

There is also much in this budget about infrastructure investment. In my electorate, I am absolutely delighted that we have $16 million of investment under the National Stronger Regions Fund: a water treatment plant in Goulburn and a pipeline from Yass to Murrumbateman, which will support the growth of an extraordinary region which has been stimulated not just by this budget but by what this government has been doing since it has been in power.

I just want to spend a moment on the Labor contrast, because Labor's idea of stimulating the economy is through unwanted school halls, through dangerous home insulation, through GP superclinics and through an NBN that never delivered.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Just ask my constituents about how the interim satellite service is going. Those opposite loved centrally driven big programs. I thought that I would have a look at how the 'year of big ideas' is going, and I found this wonderful document by the member for Fraser, called, 'Sharing the future'. It is about how we support digital businesses like Airbnb and Uber—those wonderful businesses that are creating great opportunities for us to reduce our costs of moving from a to b, accommodation and so on

I expected this paper to look at things like how we grow businesses like this in Australia and how we help them to succeed, but all I found was red tape. The only thing there was red tape—what key standards should be enforced, what licensing and inspection teams there should be, what public rating systems there should be and what role government should play in monitoring and enforcing access standards.

Those opposite will never understand the economy. Here, on this side of the House, we understand that small businesses create jobs and— (Time expired)

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The key challenge for the economy at the moment is how you deal with the windback that has occurred in the resources sector as a result of the end of the mining boom and the move from the investment side to the production side. How do you fill that gap? How do you ensure future economic growth? There are two key things. You can invest in infrastructure and capital or you can invest in human capital, in people's skills and education. This budget fails on both accounts.

The fact is that this is occurring at a time when the latest ABS statistics show that the construction activity for public sector infrastructure fell by 17.3 per cent if you compare the December 2014 quarter with one year earlier, the December 2013 quarter. In the same period, private sector investment fell by some 12.4 per cent. This is a time when government should be investing in infrastructure. Yet this budget, delivered last night, does exactly the opposite. Infrastructure partnerships Australia's analysis of the budget shows that the Commonwealth investment in infrastructure will fall from 1.55 per cent of the budget to 1.47 per cent across the forward estimates to 2018-19.

When you look at the details of budgets, every year there is an infrastructure document formed. In the time I have been in this place there has always been, in every budget, a major infrastructure announcement. In 2013 we produced the nation-building infrastructure budget document that outlined our programs for infrastructure. A bit thinner than that in last year's budget was Building Australia's infrastructure. That did not work out so well because when people compared the documents they found that everything in the 2014 document was from the previous Labor government's budget. The government went around the country on their magical infrastructure re-announcement tour, pretending that these were new projects when in fact they were old ones, sometimes giving them a new name.

When you look at last night's budget, there is a $2 billion cut to infrastructure over the next two years compared with the government's budget last year. They are cutting $2 billion in two years from their budget. There is no funding for public transport projects. There is not more money for the Pacific Highway. In fact, there is less money for the Pacific Highway. There is no new money for the Bruce Highway. There is no attempt to tackle urban congestion in our cities.

There is a vindictive attack on Victorians for having the temerity to vote Labor. The government want to wind back the $3 billion that was not new money in last year's budget; it was taken from the $3 billion cut to the Melbourne Metro, the $500 million cut from the M80 and the $69 million cut from Managed Motorways. They took that way and gave it to the East West Link, which had a cost-benefit analysis of 45c return for every dollar. Then, last night, they attacked again, giving Victorians less than 10c in every infrastructure dollar spent by the Commonwealth. We will see the way that Victorians respond to that activity.

The best that the government had last night was a promise of concessional loans for states at a time when interest rates are just two per cent. At the same time, they cut Infrastructure Australia funding—this is the body that was going to be at the core—from $15 million down to $8 million. They have halved it in real terms over the forward estimates, gutting Infrastructure Australia.

At the same time, they flagged their maritime policy. They said that they want to better align employment conditions on ships based in Australia with international standards. We know what that means, because flags of convenience run on Third World wages and Third World conditions. That is their vision for Australian shipping.

This is a terrible budget for infrastructure. There is not a single new initiative in this— (Time expired)

Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this MPI. I have to say, from the contribution of the member for Grayndler, he obviously has very serious memory loss. He is leaving the chamber, unfortunately, so he cannot be reminded that one of the most important infrastructure projects in Victoria, the upgrade of the Great Ocean Road, a project that I fought for for so long, is a project that was fought against by Labor. It is one of the most iconic roads in this country. It is the centrepiece of a $2.1 billion regional economy that is driving tourism, driving jobs and improving road safety. The Labor Party campaigned against it. It was an absolute disgrace. For the people of Corangamite in south-west Victoria, that was an example of Labor failing to stand up for infrastructure.

If you consider what Labor has done on the East West Link, it is an absolute disgrace. Members opposite have stood by as Daniel Andrews has broken that contract, destroyed 7,000 jobs and turned his back on a $3 billion investment. We need that East West Link. It is an absolute disgrace that members opposite, including the member for Ballarat, have not stood up to their constituents. The people of Ballarat need better connections. The people of Geelong need better connections. The Western Distributor proposal put forward by Daniel Andrews is inferior to a proper East West Link. If Labor had the fortitude and the moral courage to stand up to Daniel Andrews, they would say, 'We need that infrastructure investment in Victoria.' I know about moral courage, and I know about standing up for jobs. I know about standing up for what is right. Labor have failed monumentally to stand up for jobs. I can tell you right now that their stance on those two projects reflects very poorly on the Labor Party.

The opposition, when it was in government, delivered a debt and deficit disaster. We are working very hard to turn that around, and that was more or less confirmed by the Leader of the Opposition this morning. It is curious that he is not making a contribution to this debate, because he called this, on Sky news, an election budget. Implicitly, he has acknowledged that this is a positive budget for Australia. That is why they are not talking about families. That is why they are not talking about our childcare package. That is why they are not talking about small business. We are delivering for small business, for families and the young people.

I remind members on both sides of our very important contribution to help young people get back into work. This is an area where Labor failed monumentally. They failed to tackle youth unemployment. I am very proud that one of the very important contributions that we have made in our region is to provide $7.5 million for the Norlane community hub, a project which will deliver 100 permanent jobs to the people of North Geelong, an area that has been largely ignored by Labor. The last major investment in the north of Geelong, in the CBD, was made when my mother was the member for Geelong. When she was in government we transformed the waterfront. We are very proud of our contribution to the Norlane community hub. We are very proud of our $1.3 million for Geelong Employment Connections and our stronger communities program.

We are delivering $1.2 billion in a national wage subsidy pool to help employers provide incentives for young job seekers. As part of the strategy to help young people get a job we are delivering a youth employment strategy of $331 billion, which includes a very important transition-to-work program, a national work experience program, a $10 weekly Newstart bonus for those who volunteer for 25 hours or more a week, a four-week waiting period for Newstart and a new, simplified means test for youth allowance. We are tackling the hard question of youth unemployment. We are working very hard, as part of our budget measures, to get young people back into work.

Yes, a big part of our measures is to turbocharge small business. Small business is the engine room of our economy, and what we are delivering with the tax cuts to small business will drive investment in jobs growth. The immediate tax deductibility of $20,000 means they will go out and spend. That is great for jobs, great for families and great for our economy.

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

This is not a budget for Australia's future. This is not a budget about the future plans of this country, that invests in this nation and that deals with the very real challenges that we as a country have. This is a short-sighted attempt to do one thing and one thing alone: save the Prime Minister's job.

On the Treasurer's own numbers he has doubled the deficit in one year. That is an achievement for a. Treasurer. Spending is up, deficits are up and—guess what?—unemployment is up too. What a great Liberal Party achievement that is. In the coming financial years, deficit has doubled from the last budget, from $17 billion to $35 billion. That is on their watch. We know what this budget means for health. On budget night—last night—I trawled through the budget health papers. In the lead up, frankly, I was thinking that it could not possibly be worse than what they did in the last budget, but it was. By entrenching the $57 billion of cuts to public hospitals that will see emergency department times and elective surgery waiting times blow out, the services that are needed in public hospitals across the country will not be sustainable. Every time somebody tries to get a bed in a public hospital and cannot they will blame every single one of the members opposite.

Entrenched in the budget is the GP tax by stealth. They have had to reverse their several measures, their several goes at this, but the $1.3 billion indexation freeze on the Medicare Benefits Schedule, is already seeing bulk-billing rates in this country collapse across areas like Western Sydney, for example. Bulk-billing rates are collapsing and people are having to pay more to access the health services they need. Also entrenched in this budget is the $1.3 billion hike to the cost of medicines. When people are trying to get access to medicines, the prescriptions they need will be going up under this government.

And, of course, in a trick to the medical research community, they say the Medical Research Future Fund is still there and they are going to be funding $400 million over the course of the next four years. That of course is if they pass every one of the retrograde steps that they want to impose on patients across this country. They know the PBS hikes will not pass the Senate, yet they have included them in the figures for the Medical Research Future Fund. It is an absolute travesty that they have held this fund out to the medical research community off the back of substantial cuts to services to patients.

But we saw even worse in this budget: $2 billion of extra cuts in health funding. They come from the flexible funding program, which, for people in your communities who may not be aware, funds hundreds of not-for-profit organisations in every single electorate across the country. It funds important services such as drug and alcohol services, mental health services, rural health outreach services and not-for-profit organisations such as the Heart Foundation, the Consumers Health Forum and a range of other organisations. The Public Health Association called last night a blood bath for those organisations. They will have their funding cut.

We have also seen $125 million cut out of the child dental benefits scheme. We have seen further cuts to the adult dental benefits scheme in this budget as well. We have seen cuts to the health workforce programs. We have also seen $70 million cut from veterans dental schemes. So, on top of the huge cuts in last year's budget—cuts to prevention, cuts to dental health, cuts to public hospitals; you name it, there was not an area of health they did not see as worthy of a cut—the government have put $2 billion of extra cuts in this budget.

We have also seen the government starting to negotiate the new community pharmacy agreement with the Pharmacy Guild. The cuts to that agreement are not contained in this budget; so there are further cuts to come. Again, this government never saw a health policy or health program it did not want to cut. (Time expired)

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

I hardly know where to start here. It is almost a comedy. With one breath, those opposite talk about fiscal responsibility—getting a lesson in fiscal responsibility from that lot is absolutely farcical—and then, with the next breath, they complain about cuts. Anyway, I will not go there, because some of my colleagues have articulated very well the absolute hypocrisy of what those opposite are saying.

I want to focus on some of the great positives out of last night's budget, and I certainly want to start with small business. As the Minister for Small Business said in question time today, coalition MPs have 'small business running through their veins', because our background is small business. My own father ran an electrical business. He had to make decisions about when he would buy the van, when he would buy his capital equipment, when he would employ staff. It is just something that we grew up with. It is something that we understand because we have done it. I actually have some understanding of the other side: they do not understand, because how could they? When that side is simply full of political staffers, union officials and an occasional lawyer, what do you expect? Now, I am not rubbishing any of those occupations. There are places for unionists. There are places for lawyers. There are also places for political staffers. But, when that is the only gene pool you are drawing on, believe you me, you are in big trouble; and they keep showing us, time and again, the trouble they get into because that is the only thing they are drawing on.

Let us talk about the small business package last night. I want to talk about a few things but I am going to run out of time. Do you know why I am going to run out of time, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott? I am going to run out of time because there are so many good things to say about this budget that I will not be able to do it in five minutes. But let me have a go. I will talk about child care. I will talk about taxing multinationals in a fair way. I also want to touch on infrastructure, because the member for Grayndler is living in a strange world, when he talks about the Pacific Highway not getting any extra money in the budget. There is no extra money in there because we have put it all into completely finishing it. Anyway, we will get to that.

Firstly, there has been a lot made of the tax cut for small business since it was announced last night. The tax cut is great for small business. But I can tell you, from understanding small business—having run my own, my parents having run their own—and from speaking to some of my small-business constituents today, the $20,000 tax write-off when you invest in capital for your business is going to be massive. I have spoken to small businesses in my community today that are already planning capital investments and actually buying. They, as everyone wants them to do, are having a go, and we are encouraging them to because we understand, as many people on this side have said before, that small businesses, more so than big businesses, employ more people. They are the lifeblood of the economy. They are the massive employer in this economy.

It is very important to remember—and I like to say it a lot because sometimes I think the people opposite do not understand—that every public welfare dollar that you want, every piece of taxpayer money that you want to give away, has to come from a healthy private sector. We cannot say that enough, because I do not think the other side really understand that. I think activity is going to be picking up very quickly because of that $20,000.

There is a place for government to assist, to give back, to give rebates and to give tax advantages. We all know that for child care, for a working family if you have two or three kids or even one kid going to preschool before they start school, the costs are enormous. We have simplified the system; and, for the vast majority of people, child care, because of the budget, is going to become more affordable. How wonderful is that.

I knew I would run out of time, but let me cover these last two things quickly. Taxing multinationals: again, the other side talk about it; we are doing it. If you earn money here, we are going to tax you here. So there is going to be a great step forward there. In some ways we are leading the whole world—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

I think the other side is agreeing with me! Thank you for your support. Infrastructure: the member for Grayndler mentioned the Pacific Highway and that we did not increase funding to it. I remind him that we fully funded it and the whole cost of it is in the forward estimates, so we do not have to—because they wanted to withdraw funding of that. We maintained 80 per cent funding. So it is a good budget for my electorate. Thank you for your support. (Time expired)

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

Order! The discussion has concluded.

Opposition members interjecting—

Order, on my left! Interjecting outside of your place in this chamber is very disorderly! Order!

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We were being supportive!