Tony Smith (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's continued failure to deliver a fair Budget.

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

A budget normally tells you what a government believes in, a budget normally tells you a lot about a government's core beliefs and its values, but a budget always tells you a lot about a government. This budget tells us a lot about this government, but it tells us in a different way than normally, because this budget tells you that this government is desperate and that this Prime Minister in particular is desperate. It tells you that the most important value for this government is its survival and the survival of the Prime Minister in particular in his party room. That is what now drives every action and what drives this budget, and they will say and do anything to achieve that end.

The government is desperate to tell us that this budget is fair, but we know why. The member for Rankin, the shadow minister for finance, reminded the House yesterday why. The Liberal Party had to spend $200,000 on a focus group to tell them that they have to say that this budget is fair, after the 2014 budget and everything that followed. You should not need a focus group to tell you that a budget should be fair. We have been fighting for fairness against this government since 2013, and we have fought for it because we believe in it. We have not needed a focus group to tell us that fairness should be at the core of economic policy; it is at the very fabric of why we are here. That is why we fight for fairness. This government is coming very late to the party when it comes to fairness, and it is inspired by spin as it does so.

It underlines the point: when this Prime Minister gets up and talks about fairness, he does not believe in it. The people sitting behind him do not believe in it, and they do not believe in him either. If you want a party to defend Medicare, turn to the party that created Medicare. If you want a party to defend the National Disability Insurance Scheme, turn to the party that created that scheme. If you want a party to defend fairness, turn to the party that has fairness at its core in everything it does.

The government have finally dropped some of those zombie measures from the 2014 budget: making unemployed people wait longer for Newstart, cuts for families on less than $80,000 a year, or the infamous 'double dipping' maternity leave and parental leave measure, which they announced on Mother's Day. They have finally dropped these measures, but I looked in the budget papers in the lockup yesterday for the explanation as to why they have changed their minds. I thought, 'Maybe it says, "We accept we got it wrong," or maybe, "Our values have changed."'

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

Here's the page. Here it is.

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

I read the Treasurer's budget speech—and we see the measures there, Member for Jagajaga. Does it say why these measures are being dropped?

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

Up the top, the heading.

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

It does. It says, 'Decisions taken as a result of Senate positions'—that is, no change of values, no change of priorities, no change of heart; an acceptance of reality. We know what they want to do, because they admit it. They admit they still think these things are good ideas.

We saw its most spectacular example this morning when the Minister for Social Services came into the House and moved that they be discharged from the House. Now, for newer members of the House, that is a very rare thing. Only once or twice since Federation has a bill been discharged from the House. Normally, you get an explanation as to why this is happening. Not only did the minister not provide an explanation, but he did not even want to utter the words. It was like Harry Potter: there were words that could not leave his mouth. He could not say them. He sat there, through the entire debate, and would not even properly move that they be discharged, because, at its heart, this government still believes in those measures. Well, we are still opposed to them because we believe they rip away at the social fabric of this country. We are still opposed to them because we believe that they are bad policy motivated by the wrong values, and we will continue that fight.

I also want to detain the House briefly on the personal credibility of the Treasurer—I am sure the House will forgive me! Whatever credibility he started with at 7.30 last night was gone by eight o'clock, when he sat down. This is a Treasurer who came to the post talking the big talk. He told us what we was going to do. He told us what his priorities were. He was going to do so much better than his predecessor, whom he undermined and white-anted at every single opportunity, because he was going to deliver big personal income tax cuts. That was his big agenda, the Morrison plan. He told us all about it. I am not going to run through all the quotes, but I will give you the highlights: large personal income tax cuts, significant personal income tax cuts, big income tax cuts, very big income tax cuts, bigger income tax cuts, and strong income tax cuts. That is what he told us he was going to deliver. Remember, he also told us that he would not raise taxes either. He said that quite recently, on 17 February 2017, on The Ray Hadley Morning Show. Remember the Hadley show? Those were the days, when the Treasurer was on the Ray Hadley show. He addressed this on 17 February, when he said, 'We don't want to raise taxes, Ray.' Last night, the Treasurer raised taxes by $20 billion, including $8.2 billion, from almost every single taxpayer in this country, on the Medicare levy. Perhaps we need the member for Higgins to explain to us why a tax rise is actually a tax reduction. She should help the Treasurer out. The Treasurer was patting himself on the back in the last budget for modest income tax cuts, which he has taken back in the very next budget in their entirety in terms of the total tax take. We have seen the highest tax-to-GDP ratio since John Howard was the Prime Minister, and the highest increase since John Howard was the Prime Minister. Just last year, at the dispatch box, in his budget speech, the Treasurer said—and it was very moving:

This is not a time to be splashing money around or increasing the tax burden on our economy or on hardworking Australians and their families.

Apparently, that was not the time—this is the time! This is the time that we should be doing this; the next budget. And the Treasurer told us there was no revenue problem. I would hate to see what he would do if he thought there was a revenue problem. I knew last night when the Treasurer was saying something he did not believe in, because his lips were moving whenever that happened. This is a Treasurer lacking credibility entirely.

Then we come to the bank levy. I know a thing or two about bank levies, if I may share with the House. There are two treasurers who have introduced one: me and him. When we introduced the bank levy, when I was Treasurer, we were told it would be the end of Western civilisation and it would bring pestilence and locusts upon our country. It would curdle the milk, and the curtains would fade if we had a bank levy. The Treasurer explained this. He said, 'Oh, this bank levy's different,' and I give him some credit. It is different: it is 10 times bigger than the bank levy imposed when we were in office. And didn't you hear the backbench go wild last night as he announced the bank levy? They were very difficult to control.

So we have a Treasurer lacking in credibility, and in no area is that more stark than when the Treasurer is talking about fairness. When it comes to tax, he has increased tax—we have the bank levy, and we have the Medicare levy—but he has also reduced tax. On 1 July, somebody earning half a million dollars will receive a tax cut of $4,000, and somebody earning $1 million will receive a tax cut of $16,400. Now, the Prime Minister dealt with this in question time, and he said, 'Oh, well, that was the deficit levy.' Yes—and there is still a deficit and it is bigger than it was projected to be at this point. The government tell us they are making choices and they are: they are making the wrong choices. These tax rises would not be necessary if the government were not so insistent on a $50 billion corporate tax cut. These tax rises would not be necessary if we had a government that was not so insistent on giving a tax cut to people on over $180,000 a year. These tax rises would not be necessary if the government actually had the courage to deal with negative gearing and capital gains tax—if they had the ticker to engage in some reform.

These tax rises would not be necessary if we had a government that actually believed in fairness and was not inspired by a focus group but inspired by a vision for our country which involved every single Australian having some stake and ownership in the future of our country. They would not be necessary if we had a government that recognised that we are stronger when we work together and that, when we have growth that is inclusive, every Australian can share in that growth. We have a government which simply does not believe that.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I see before me honourable members representing the Australian Labor Party but, more so, members who represent tens of thousands of small businesses in their electorates. I am sure that those members opposite will rue the day when they did not support the government's tax cuts to small business. I am sure they are going to rue the day because their small-business owners and operators will tell them how disappointed they are that Labor members did not want them to get access to that instant asset write-off. Yesterday was a milestone day in the history of this parliament. The tax rate for small businesses was lowered to 27½ per cent. The definition of a small business was redefined to include businesses with up to a $10 million turnover threshold. That is significant because it assists tens of thousands of small businesses, many of them in Labor electorates, where the members did not support those measures. How sad that was.

We just heard the Shadow Treasurer talk about the fact that budgets are about choices, and I agree with him. Last night, the Liberal-Nationals budget chose fairness, it chose opportunity and it chose security for all Australians—Australians in the cities and Australians in regional Australia. It is a plan for a brighter future, for more opportunities and to create more jobs and higher wages for Australians. It is a blueprint for success. The government is getting on with the job by creating new opportunities to secure Australia's future.

I listened very closely to the Treasurer's budget luncheon address today and he spoke about the government being focused on making the right decisions. He emphasised again and again the fact that this is a budget about getting things done. That is what he said. He was right of course. Our economic plan outlines a vision with a responsible and fair pathway to get Australia back on track whilst living within our means. When our economy is strong, our small businesses are strong. When our regions are strong, indeed, the nation is strong. When small business does well, there are more jobs, more opportunities and higher wages. That is why this government backs small business.

Our choices respect future taxpayers, as Australians expect us to, and our budget is on a path and projected to return to surplus in the 2020-21 financial year. We have quarantined the Future Fund, we have stopped borrowing for recurrent spending and we are making sure that taxpayers' money is invested in infrastructure assets—good assets and wise decisions. Our plan makes the right choices to build an Australia for our children and our children's children. I have heard the Prime Minister mention, on many occasions here at the dispatch box and in speeches right across the nation, our children and our children's children. We want them to have jobs, we want families to have security and we want small businesses leading the way. Small business is central to our plan—to the Treasurer's plan—for fairness, for opportunity and for security.

Small business, not government, creates local jobs and new opportunities. I have really appreciated the input that I have received from small businesses on my national small business roadshow, where I have been going around the countryside. I see the member for Boothby here. I had a fantastic small business roadshow forum in her electorate. We are off to the Sunshine Coast and the member for Fisher's electorate just next week. And I am very much looking forward to going to more electorates or even indeed to some Labor electorates not only to talk to small business owners but, more importantly, to hear what owner operators are saying about our vision for success, our vision for the future because the lowering of the company tax rate and the additional access to the instant asset write-off have been welcomed. They are cheering in the streets of the member for Shortland's electorate today, I am sure, about those measures.

Every day more than 5.6 million Australians wake up and go to work in one of our country's 3.2 small businesses. Small business employs almost half the workforce. That makes a big impact on the economy. It generates $380 billion worth of economic growth and GDP—how good is that? That is why we have delivered tax cuts for small business and a budget which backs small business owners. While those opposite stood in the way, unfortunately—and they will rue the day they did that—I have been across the country to hear first-hand from small business owners and operators in more than 40 communities in 24 electorates just in recent weeks, in the parliamentary recess. I have seen the hard work and the pride of Australians in their small businesses. I have heard their plans for the future. I have heard their ideas. There are some remarkable stories, some truly innovative stories. They tell me that the tax cuts are going to provide more money in their pockets. What business small-business owners do is they generally reinvest in their business. They hire that young Australian; they hire that older Australia; they put on that apprentice, that trainee. They tell me that it also allows them to pursue their ideas to grow and expand their operations. I have no doubt that they are telling me the absolute truth because they want to succeed. They want to hire more people. They want to be on the pathway to success. They want to have jobs there for their children and for their children's children. Indeed, in these communities, I also heard how the instant asset write-off is helping small business owners upgrade and purchase new equipment. I have heard how it helps provide the necessary building blocks to support small businesses to grow and expand. Here is a quote:

It helped immensely. It was necessary for us to produce good food for staff morale and it actually was a chain reaction.

That is what Alana Laliotitis told me of the impact of her small business's new equipment thanks to the instant asset write-off that she utilised. 'It increased efficiency; it increased customers.' They are her words, not mine. Alana runs a successful Greek restaurant in Parramatta with her husband, Peter—they are great folk. They have very good food, very good coffee—I recommend them. I visited that small business with the defence minister Senator Marise Payne. As any Australia in any small business knows, Alana told me that the instant asset write-off helps her get through the busy days. She said that Mothers' Day was her biggest day. She said that without the capital equipment that she bought, she just did not know how she would have got through Mother's Day.

This will help small business owners invest in their business, improve productivity and expand their horizons. As I stand at this dispatch box today, I look out over this side of parliament and I can see many of my colleagues who understand small business because they have filled out a business activity statement. They have run a small business. Through the sweat of their own endeavours, they have taken a risk and they have backed themselves. I do see people who, like me, have filled out a BAS. From 1 July, the BAS is going to be simplified. Instead of having seven areas, it is only going to have three—GST on sales, GST on purchases, total sales—so we are simplifying what the BAS is. We are getting on with cutting red tape, cutting compliance. We are making sure that we are listening to businesses and acting on what they want, what they expect and what they demand. The budget last night did just that.

That is why we also know that small businesses do not stop at a $2 million turnover. When in question time today the Prime Minister was annunciating how good a policy this is—effusively and confidently and optimistically as the Prime Minister always is about small business—some Labor member yelled out, 'You are supporting rich people.' Some of these people are not rich people. Just because you might be turning over $5½ million in your business, it does not mean to say that you are 'a rich person' as the Labor member from the back yelled out scornfully in question time. Sometimes, these small business owners and operators take home less pay than the workers they employ. Just because you might have a turnover which goes up and down each and every month, you still have to pay the employee. You still have to pay them the wage.

When a small business gets the impetus that we gave them last night in the budget through the Treasury legislation amendments yesterday, they get on with the job of backing themselves, they take even further risks and they make sure that they try to turn a profit, because they want to succeed. It is in their best interest to succeed. That is why these many small businesses and family enterprises want to succeed. It is fair and reasonable.

The budget has already made sure that we are going to cut through even more red tape. We have cut through $5.8 billion in red tape, smashing our initial target of achieving a billion dollars in cuts to red tape annually. But we know there is more work to do. That is why we are getting on with the job. That is why I was so pleased that Treasurer Scott Morrison's budget last night backed small business all the way. I am so delighted with the tax cuts for small business. I am so delighted about the instant asset write-off. It was a fantastic budget. (Time expired)

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was so enjoying the Minister for Small Business's talk. In the early part of it he just sounded like he was reading out the press release. I have never heard a budget press release read more fluently than that. He was talking a lot about the instant asset write-off too. That is the instant asset write-off that Labor introduced that the Liberals tried to get rid of that we stopped them getting rid of. And now he is boasting about it. It is beautiful. I love the front.

What kind of government takes money away from schoolchildren and uni students to give a $50 billion big business tax cut? That is the heart of the question before us today. They are robbing our kids of $22 billion, taking it from their schools, and making sure that uni fees go up while spending in universities goes down. So that is higher fees for a worse product, at the same time that millionaires get a $16,440-a-year tax cut and big businesses get a $50 billion tax cut. That is the heart of this budget. We invest in education because we believe there is nothing better for our society and economy than a highly skilled well-educated worker in a great productive job. That is what we believe.

The $22 billion of cuts means that every school in this country will lose the equivalent of $2.4 million a year over 10 years compared to the Labor policy.

Mr Tudge interjecting—

The minister at the table says that it is not a $22 billion cut. Here is the government's own briefing paper, handed out to journalists on the day they announced the policy: 'Compared to Labor's arrangements, this represents a saving over four years of over $22.3 billion over 10 years from 2018 to 2027 compared with Labor's arrangements.' It is not me saying it. It is in their own briefing paper. What does this mean in practice? In practice it means public schools will be very hard hit.

Let's take the Northern Territory as an example; the nation's most disadvantaged schooling system with the most disadvantaged students gets the least help. I will give you this one example. A primary school in suburban Darwin—lots of Indigenous and lots of kids who speak languages other than English—by 2027, it will receive $4,232 per child. It gets an increase of just $554 over 10 years. They are addressing the overfunded schools, aren't they! Trinity Grammar School in Sydney—a terrific school—has fees up to $24,000 for primary school children. By 2027, it will receive $7,799 per child, an increase of $2,734 over that 10-year period. That is a five-times greater increase for that school than for the Northern Territory poor public school.

Good Shepherd Catholic Primary School, in the ACT, with fees around $3,300 a year, gets a funding cut—a cut—of $2.6 million over 10 years. Geelong Grammar School, one of Australia's wealthiest schools, gets a funding increase over the same period. Guess how much? $16.6 million. So a little Catholic school in Canberra gets a $2.6 million cut; Geelong Grammar, a $16.6 million increase. That is what they call fair. That is what they think is fair.

And look at university students. University students are paying more for their degrees, paying it back sooner than they had to, from $42,000 income a year, and getting less for it because the universities are seeing billions of dollars cut from their operating grants. So uni students graduating on $42,000 a year, not a high income, not like the million bucks a year you earn when you get your $16,000 a year tax cut, will be paying back more and sooner for a worse product as the universities have to absorb those cuts. That is what they think is fair: a $50 billion tax cut for big business, cuts for schools and cuts for universities.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is very interesting that the person who proposed this discussion is not here right now. He obviously does not have the courage of his convictions to hang around. He does not have the courage of his convictions to hear the truth. This side of the House is all about fairness. Over on that side, you think you have a licence on fairness. Well, I am here to tell you that you do not.

Just take for example what is going on in my seat of Fisher. Last night, the Treasurer announced $530 million for priority upgrades to the Bruce Highway in my seat of Fisher. I note that the member for Grayndler has come in this afternoon—the people's choice has come in this afternoon—to listen to the great infrastructure projects that are going on in Fisher, infrastructure projects that he did not deliver when he was the infrastructure minister. There is $530 million for upgrades to the Bruce Highway between Pine River and Caloundra roads, a fantastic result. There is another $120 million for an upgrade to the Deception Bay interchange. That is $650 million which is going to directly benefit my constituents. You did not do that when you were infrastructure minister, did you, Member for Grayndler? Not a chance.

There is another $182.6 million for safety upgrades up and down the Bruce Highway and another $4.9 million for local roads going to the Sunshine Coast Council. What this is going to result in is jobs, jobs and more jobs for Sunshine Coast locals, and it is going to mean that people will be able to get in their cars in Brisbane and drive up to the Sunshine Coast for the weekend without spending four hours in the car on the way home. It is a fantastic result for Sunshine Coast tourism and Sunshine Coast businesses.

But do you know what? We cannot start these works on the Bruce Highway until the state Labor government, the state Palaszczuk government, actually releases a planning study. The Palaszczuk government cannot provide this planning study, and we cannot start these works until that planning study has been done. We have called on the Palaszczuk government time and time again to get this planning study done. What has the result been? Nothing. Zip. Nada.

The next infrastructure project which is so important to Sunshine Coast locals is the $10 billion National Rail Program announced last night. This is a rail program that the state Labor government can bid for to upgrade and duplicate the rail line from Beerburrum to Nambour. The ball is now in the state Labor government's court to apply for this funding to build this rail. I am talking about the duplication of the North Coast railway line. I know it is north of Brisbane. I know that, living in Brisbane, it is a world that you cannot see. This is the North Coast railway line—the same line that you guys promised and failed to deliver time and time again. I am putting it fairly and squarely on the Palaszczuk government: come good. They should, because the people of the Sunshine Coast will never forgive them, now that they know that there is $10 billion in funding. It is now for them to bid for that $10 billion so my people—the people of the Sunshine Coast—can get access to that money.

But that is not all. The Treasurer announced last night a much smaller project with much smaller funding, but it is one that is very important. I know that everybody in this House would join with me on that. It is $5 million for the Thompson Institute for treatment and research into mental health. This is something that will save young people and help people with dementia. It will see research into suicide prevention.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call the member for Jagajaga, I will remind members over there that they are out of their places. The member for Shortland is not, but he has been making a lot of noise anyway. They are out of place and, if they continue, I will treat them accordingly.

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

I ask you all: what is the Liberal definition of fair? Their definition of fair is that a millionaire should get a $16,000 a year tax cut while, at the same time, they axe the energy supplement for age pensioners, disability pensioners, carers and the unemployed, so that a single age pensioner—

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

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

What?

An honourable member: Sit down.

This is relevant to the topic.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Jagajaga will resume her seat. I call the minister.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, you just made a very clear ruling about interjections when you are not in your place, and people are immediately breaching that ruling. I ask them to be brought to account.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I call the member for Jagajaga.

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

Let's just get back to the topic, which obviously the member for Minister for Human Services really does not understand, and that is that this budget is not fair. It gives a massive tax cut to millionaires and the largest corporations in this country, and says to pensioners, carers and the unemployed that they will lose their energy supplement. For a single person on the age pension, that is $366 a year, while a millionaire gets a $16,000 tax cut. How can that be fair? That is the Liberal definition of fairness if ever you wanted to hear it.

Of course, the other extraordinary unfairness in this budget that remains from the 2014 budget is that this government wants Australia to have the oldest age pension age in the developed world. They want to say to people, no matter how hard their working lives have been, that they are going to have to work to 70 before they will be eligible for the age pension. We will not be supporting that, I can tell you, because we understand just how difficult it is, particularly for those who have worked in very hard blue- and pink-collar jobs. Axing the energy supplement and keeping the age pension age at 70 while at the same time giving these massive tax cuts to the top end of town might be the Liberal definition of fair, but it is certainly not Labor's definition. So all those people that somehow think this is a budget that Labor would have had anything to do with: you are so wrong. These are not the sorts of choices that a Labor government would make.

None of us on this side of the House think for a minute that this Prime Minister would be doing this if he had a bit of certainty about his job. We know the member for Warringah, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, and even the non-talker, the Minister for Social Services, who was here all morning, might be after the job. The Prime Minister was asked, on Fran Kelly, why it was that he is getting rid of these zombie measures. The Prime Minister said, 'They can't be legislated.' Fran Kelly said, 'Are they bad? Are they bad measures?' The Prime Minister said, 'It's not a matter of good or bad. These were measures that we thought had merit.' Not to be outdone, the Treasurer, at the Press Club at lunchtime today, was asked by Tory Shepherd: 'Would you have preferred option A: the $13 billion zombie measures'—remember slashing into families, pensioners and all the rest—'to raising the Medicare levy?' That is what she asked the Treasurer. How is this for a defence? The Treasurer said, 'It's now moot. If you are practical you do not dwell on matters like that.' That is it. That is the defence: you just do not dwell on matters like that. Of course he does not want to dwell on it, because he was the one that introduced the cuts to paid parental leave, just to take one example— (Time expired)

Ann Sudmalis (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I reluctantly remind those in opposition that fairness is not in the minds of the listener; it is just a matter of fact. Prior to the election in 2013 the previous speaker, the member for Jagajaga, added mental health as a disability to the NDIS, yet it was completely unfunded. The myth of funding has gone on for many years, and now we have a remedy that many in our community have suggested themselves. We have delivered a fair budget. We are going to give every Australian a go. In Gilmore, contrary to the ill-informed infrastructure proposals recently announced by Labor for the next federal election to build half a bridge with a guesstimate amount of $50 million—

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

That is untrue. Why are you lying?

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Shortland will be quiet.

Ann Sudmalis (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

we will deliver a critical first-stage infrastructure investment of $13.8 million for the construction of the Far North Collector Road. Most people would realise that when you block off an intersection you need an alternative route to get the traffic around the blocked off intersection. I used to have some respect for the previous minister for infrastructure in the Labor government, not so today. Totally inaccurate!

There are three benefits to this infrastructure build. It will help traffic flow for the new, recently released subdivisions, it is ultimately a safety exist road in case of bushfire events and it is an alternative route for our local residents when bridge construction has commenced.

In addition to that, our local Meals on Wheels groups recently met with the Minister for Aged Care, the Hon. Ken Wyatt. We talked to them about all things about the social networking they deliver along with their meals. I am proud to announce that the federal government will provide $5.5 billion over two years to extend the Commonwealth Home Support Program and Regional Assessment Service. The funding arrangements will contribute to support services such as Meals on Wheels, not just in Gilmore but also throughout all our regions. This is a crucial resource that is in high demand. I congratulate my government on this achievement. I worked very hard for that.

Earlier in the year, after hosting seniors forums in Gilmore, I am proud to announce that the Minister for Social Services announced last night that the pensioner concession card will be reinstated for about 92,000 former pensioner card recipients—

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

Joe Hockey took it off them!

Ann Sudmalis (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Be quiet! This change will help our very deserving self-funded retirees in accessing discounts and concessions offered by the states and territories. As well as being able to access Commonwealth Hearing Services Scheme they will also retain the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card, to ensure they continue to receive energy supplements.

In health, we are increasing Medicare funding by $2.4 billion over the next four years. We will establish a guarantee fund to make sure that the same sorts of scare tactics that were used in 2016 cannot be used again. Proceeds from the Medicare levy, less the contribution for the NDIS, will be paid into the fund and topped up with a portion of personal income tax to make sure it covers the combined costs of the MBS and the PBS.

Since coming into government the coalition has listed more than 1,400 new or amended listings on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. We are providing additional support for public hospitals, with $7.7 billion worth of investment. People living in rural and remote Australia will now receive significantly improved access to psychologists under a new $9.1 million telehealth initiative, set to rollout later this year. We are also providing more than $50 million for mental illness prevention and support packages for serving ADF members, veterans and their families. Enhanced access to counselling for our veterans and their families will benefit their partners and dependents. This includes over 2,000 veterans and their families living in Gilmore. And we have a number of other initiatives from the DVA.

Another thing that I am very proud to list here is that we are delivering the first comprehensive review into the family law system since the Family Law Act in 1975, to better meet the needs of Australian families. We have numbers of families who are ripped apart by the legal system at the moment, by long waiting lists. We need an alternative way of solving problems for the families which are split because they no longer belong together. We cannot use our children as pawns or as emotional targets. We have to have a better system, and I think this review is long overdue—and so do many of the custodial parents or those who are disenfranchised from their children. This is a very fair budget.

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

In the words of Infrastructure Partnerships Australia, the peak industry body, this budget confirms the cut to real budgeted capital funding to its lowest level in more than a decade, using a mix of underspend, reprofiling and narrative to cover this substantial drop in real capital expenditure. They are onto them, less than 24 hours later. This is what Michael Pascoe had to say:

Morrison has got away with rehashing Hockey's infrastructure PR trick—think of a big number and keep adding years until you reach it.

…   …   …

Wake up, people! Spread over 10 years, the Commonwealth is only offering $7.5 billion a year, much of it already in Hockey's numbers and a fair swag of that dating from Labor government commitments. It's less than what the state of New South Wales invests annually.

When you actually look at the budget figures you get a different story: you get that this year alone there is a $1.6 billion cut in infrastructure funding, from the $9.2 billion they set in last year's budget. Last night, that figure for this year is now $7.6 billion. It drops to $6.2 billion, it drops to $5.1 billion and then it drops off the cliff to $4.2 billion. This is a government that is failing completely on infrastructure. They set up this Infrastructure Financing Unit in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet to find a solution to a problem that does not exist. There is plenty of capital available in this country—in superannuation funds, in the private sector—for projects that stack up. However, this government has actually cut the infrastructure funding from the Infrastructure Investment program in order to fund this new bureaucracy in the Prime Minister's office.

When you look at the budget—I follow the member for Gilmore—and you look at infrastructure investment programs and new investments, normally there are pages and pages of them. Last night there was one! One project: the far North Collector Road in the marginal seat of Gilmore—$13.8 million. I have to say, we thought it might have been in Collector, but it is not. It is this little local road near Nowra that they are funding in order to show that that is their only priority. The only road or rail line in the country that is actually receiving a cash payment from this government as a result of last night's budget is that one. The rest of it is smoke and mirrors. Where projects for Victoria previously had $1.45 billion in the budget, the government has given them $1 billion and expects them to be grateful. That is a cut of half a billion dollars. It is there in the budget papers at item 134, 'Victorian infrastructure investments'. I will read out the five-year plan: zero, zero, zero, zero, zero. That is what Victoria gets out of last night's budget.

The Bruce Highway was mentioned by the previous speaker. It is all existing funding, with not one extra dollar. The Treasurer had the hide to name all these rail projects last night but not deliver a single dollar for any of them. There was not a dollar for AdeLINK, not a dollar for Cross River Rail, not a dollar for Brisbane Metro, not a dollar for Melbourne Metro and not a dollar for Western Sydney Rail. It was a con. They came in here, mentioning projects and saying, 'There's this $10 billion fund.' But you look at the budget. There is nothing this year for this fund, there is nothing next year and nothing the year after, and the year after that there is $200 million, of which not a single dollar flows before the next election—not one dollar. This is a con. Projects like Cross River Rail and Melbourne Metro were already approved by Infrastructure Australia. We had money in the budget for those projects, and then we see 'Investing in our cities' in the glossy. Only Townsville, Launceston and Western Sydney are mentioned—no other cities. Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth—

Ms Chesters interjecting—

Bendigo? Nothing whatsoever. It is just a complete con. This is a government that does not have a plan for infrastructure; it just has one big con.

Andrew Broad (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is budget time—this document says 'Budget'. It is not Christmas time. I am told today is actually the birthday of the member for Shortland, and I am sure he would know a thing or two about Christmas time. I am sure, as a good local member, you have dressed up as Santa a few times. You have put on the hat and the wig. You have probably not had to put it in the padding, my good friend the member for Shortland. He has given away gifts. But, you see, after Christmas time comes payment time. This is a budget that is about delivering but also about paying down the debt and making sure we get the economy back on track. I heard the member for Jagajaga say, 'This is not the sort of budget a Labor government would deliver.' You are right. You are jealous of this budget, I know, because this is the sort of budget that is very popular with the Australian people. The phones in my electorate office have been ringing off the hook with people saying, 'You've got this one right,' and that must make you on that side very nervous. This is a budget that is about building, encouraging and providing. We are going to build an $8 billion inland railway. We have a $472 million regional growth fund. This will build stuff for my patch. We have Roads to Recovery. We have small business tax write-offs. That encourages those who are having a go. There is encouragement there for people who want to save to buy a house. The Treasurer was right: if a person can get a job and have a roof over their head, that is the first step towards a stable society. This budget invests in people by allowing them to save. There is a $4½ billion regional investment bank, which will drive productivity in regional Australia. But the budget is also about providing for our security. The budget makes provision for $27 billion in defence. As Australians, we value our freedom. It is there in the budget.

The budget also provides for our health and schools. At election time, in my electorate the Labor Party were handing out how-to-vote cards and they were saying, 'Health and education.' We found that if we stood next to them and said, 'Vote for us—health, education and lower taxes,' we would win people's votes. That is what we are delivering.

Do you know, member for Shortland, that across the electorate of Mallee there are 119 schools. Every one of those 119 schools and their 23,062 students will be better off. Can you believe that? Under our government, we are delivering on education. That is in this budget. Not only that, one of the things that has been very dear to my heart is the continuous glucose monitor scheme. A child came and saw me in Birchip and told me about his need for a continuous glucose monitor. That was our initiative. It is in this budget, on page 111, if you want to have a read. Fifty-four million dollars will be spent to subsidise continuous glucose monitors for children with type 1 diabetes. We are building, we are encouraging, we are providing, and this is just an example of what a government really can do.

I want to talk a little bit about the $472 million regional growth fund. This is where it really works well: when communities chip in a bit of their own money and then partner with the government, we see things built. We have seen things built right across the Wimmera and Mallee from these funds in the past. It is in this budget. I notice the member for Bendigo is always critical of us, but what has she got out of the regional growth fund? I think there is a runway about to be opened in Bendigo, delivered by our government. I think there is a sporting facility, if I remember correctly a tennis centre, delivered by our government. Isn't there an indoor basketball stadium? Oh, delivered by our government.

You know, it is not Christmas time; it is budget time. Bills need to be paid. This budget is fair, it is a winner, the Australian people love it. Those opposite are really, really worried about it because they know there is nothing to pick apart on this one. They know that this will win us the next election, and they are scared.

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

Yet again, what we have seen from this government is a budget that is fundamentally unfair. It might like to say it believes in fairness, that it has suddenly had some road to Damascus conversion. It is not because it actually believes in fairness; it is because it has had some focus group that it has had to pay to tell it, 'You really need to focus on fairness.' You would have thought they might have been listening to the Australian people for the last few years, that they might actually understand that the reason they got themselves in trouble, the reason they went down to the wire at the last election, was because their continued budget measures were unfair. It was not because of Labor's campaign tactics or Labor's messaging, but because of what they stand for and who they are.

No more so is that the case than when it comes to Medicare. What this government has done to Australia's Medicare system is, frankly, an absolute and utter disgrace. We have seen cut after cut to Medicare, and this budget continues the cuts to Medicare, with the government banking billions of dollars of savings to the cuts to the patient rebate for years to come. That is what this government has done to Medicare.

We also saw the very unedifying display this morning where the minister responsible came into this place to discharge certain legislation. Instead of him saying, 'Look, we can't get a number of measures through the Senate, so we're going to have to scrap those zombie measures, those walking dead measures, that this government has had hanging as a millstone around its neck', what did he do in that debate? Did he debate us? Did he say, 'We no longer think these measures are fair; we have actually seen the light and we do not think they are fair'? No, he did not. He said absolutely nothing, because this government, at its heart, is unfair. At its heart it does not believe in protecting vulnerable Australians. It does not believe in investing in a universal care system that lifts everybody up, that makes sure that all of our health is where it should be, that makes sure we contribute into Medicare according to our means and draw down according to our healthcare needs. This government does not believe in it.

This is what it has done in the budget. In its budget, it imposes a four-year freeze on the Medicare Benefit Schedule for GPs, for specialists and for allied health professions. Then, in 2016, it extends it beyond four years to six years and tells everybody this is the best thing it should do, this is going to make Medicare sustainable into the future and this is really the most important health measure we could have. So, in this budget, you would have some expectation, finally, after doctor group after doctor group and after nurses, patients and specialist groups across the country telling the government that this measure has had a huge impact on our healthcare system, that there has been a drop in bulk-billing for GPs—we have seen that in the last two quarters and I suspect that we are about to see it again in the next quarter—that the government would have learnt its lesson. After the election, Malcolm Turnbull got up and had a bit of a dummy spit on election night but said: 'We've heard the electorate when it comes to Medicare.' However, he has basically spent a year whinging about Labor's campaign tactics. So you would have expected that last night the government would have finally said: 'We will totally unfreeze the entire Medicare benefits schedule for GPs, for allied health professionals and for specialists.' That is not what they have done at all. It is a complete breach of faith with the Australian people and a breach of faith with our hardworking healthcare professionals across the country.

There was a pretty lukewarm reception to this measure last night, because we know that within this budget there are fundamentally billions of dollars worth of cuts to Medicare. We even heard the AMA President say:

We would've liked to have seen full indexation from 1 July this year.

They didn't get it. The Australian Medical Association (NSW) said:

[the] Federal Budget is a disappointment and that it won’t have an appreciable effect on people’s access to healthcare.

The association's president went on to say:

At this rate it will be many years before patients see an appreciable difference in out-of-pocket costs.

Malcolm Turnbull promised that nobody would pay—

Mr Hawke interjecting—

The Prime Minister promised that nobody would pay extra under this to see a GP.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Ballarat will resume her seat.

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

I corrected the mistake, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am reluctant to do this. I have let one or two of them go, but the member at the dispatch box is repeatedly referring to members not by their title—repeatedly.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Ballarat did correct it. I call the member for Ballarat.

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

The Prime Minister promised that nobody would pay more to see a GP under his government. This Prime Minister has made sure everybody will continue to pay more every time they go to see a GP.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sure that, as the nation looks on, it would be suggested that this is a very aggressive debate. It is budget time and we will have opposing opinions in this fiscal space—and rightfully so. As politicians, we need to own the image that we portray to the Australian public when a budget is put before the Australian people and the opposition is opposing it just for the sake of opposition. To state that this is an unfair budget and that all the measures in it should be repealed or voted against is just such an overreach.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I declare to you that in the education space every school in my electorate, some 71 primary schools and high schools, will be financially better off, not only next year but over the next 10 years. All Saints' School at Boonah will receive an increase of $71,900. This is a significant amount of money for a small community, where sometimes the biggest fundraiser is the school fete over the course of the year. It will have a one-yearly increase of $71,000 next year. Saint Mary's school will receive $109,000. State schools do not miss out. The Lockyer District High School will pick up $177,000. I will not labour the point by listing all of my schools, of which there are 71 throughout the electorate, representing no fewer than 23,200 students. This is a fair package. Every one of my schools goes up in funding. Every one of my schools is going to be better off under these budget measures. To say that this budget is unfair is either uninformed or an overreach; it is fair.

I also want to mention something else that I think is fair in this budget, and that is the removal of the $7½ thousand childcare cap. If you are a mum or a dad and paying a couple of hundred dollars a day or whatever the rate may be for child care—my daughter is 22 and is well out of that realm now; let's assume you are paying $200 a day—you would make a 50 per cent claim up to $7½ thousand. That cap has now been removed. So, if you are paying for child care, what you can claim up to is now unlimited. You will tap into that. To those sitting on the other side who say that is unfair and that working mums and dads should have that cap left in place, I beg to differ. And that is okay—within this place we can have differing opinions. But to say that it is unfair for our small businesses to be taking advantage of the reduction in company tax rate to 27 per cent is unfounded. For some of the businesses that will benefit from that in my electorate, which I will come to, it is significant, and, in addition to that, my businesses have told me, overwhelmingly, about the benefits of the instant $20,000 cash write-off. To those opposite who come into this place and say that those measures and provisions within this Appropriations Bill (No. 1) are unfair, can I say they are unfounded comments. There is a bolt of stuff in this bill that is fair. It is fair. I can only assume that, when the time comes, those who are claiming that this is unfair will walk into this chamber and vote against those measures. They will vote against my schools receiving their benefits. They will vote against the pensioners getting their support for that one off energy reform.

The budget makes record investments not only in my electorate but also in roads and rail right across the country. I will not labour the point of what some of them are, but some of the things that I think are fair on both sides of the House are the $500 million regional infrastructure package that will fund an additional round, round 3, of our Building Better Regions Fund, which those on the other side have been beneficiaries of, and the third round of the Stronger Communities Program. I challenge anyone to say that both of those programs were unfairly distributed right throughout the entire country. They are well thought out and should be supported.

We are creating up to $1.5 billion in the Skilling Australia Fund to help train up to 300,000 Australian apprentices and trainees in key trade skills. This will get more young Australians into work and help Australians grow into business. How can that be unfair? There are many provisions in this bill which are outstanding. We will support pensioners, veterans, schoolkids, teachers, small businesses, parents and child care, and we will be supporting the banks paying their fair share. This is a fair bill. I recommended it to the House and ask for Labor's support.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate has now concluded.