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 increasing the cost of living on working Australians”.

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

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

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

Ronald Reagan once famously asked the American people to question whether they were better or worse off than they were four years before that. If that question were put to the Australian people, they would give an answer that was very clear: they are worse off; but, more than that, their government is making their situation worse off. Their government, on whom they rely, is making their situation worse off.

We have a nation where household debt is 200 per cent of disposable income—one of the highest in the developed world. We have a government which encourages this debt, because it refuses to reform negative gearing. We have had average weekly earnings in the private sector increase by 1.4 per cent over the year to May 2017. The Prime Minister asked us at question time to reflect on where most people work. He told us that most people work in the private sector. Yes, Prime Minister, that's where wages growth is so weak. The Prime Minister, with his own arguments, undermines his case. There's an important point about wages growth being at 1.4 per cent a year: it's less than inflation. It means people are going backwards. Some people are even in a worse situation. They are not just going backwards relatively compared to inflation; they're going backwards in absolute terms. These are the people who work on weekends, and this government thinks the answer to low wages growth is to cut their wages even further.

Of course, when it comes to health, we see, under the Liberals, costs are up by 20 per cent to visit a doctor and a consultation with a specialist is up by 25 per cent. We know that the government wanted to charge $7 a visit to the doctor. Instead, what they've done is freeze the Medicare system and seen these charges go up. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners noted late last year that 860,000 patients had delayed a visit to their doctor because of the costs. These policies have real-world implications. Of course, while we're on health, private health insurance premiums are up by 27 per cent since the Liberal Party came to office. In the last financial year, Australians paid $4 billion more in premiums than they got back in rebates. The government says that everything is working just fine from their point of view. The Minister for Health pats himself on the back that he has approved these increases. The member for Ballarat and this side of the House say: 'No. That's not good enough. We have an alternative plan.'

When it comes to energy, we see costs going up. The government told us months ago that they had a concrete plan when it came to energy costs. It is called the National Energy Guarantee. Since then, what have we heard? No details. No modelling. It's not a national policy and it's not a guarantee. But, of course, the government have worked this out. To give them credit, they know that they've got a problem on their hands. They know that people are hurting. So what do they come up with? We hear about it a lot. We are told: tax cuts. Whenever the government are in a bit of hot water, which is every day that ends in a 'Y', they trot out: 'It's okay. We've got tax cuts. We're going to give you tax cuts.' The Prime Minister and the Treasurer talk about them a lot. But what we don't have is any detail. We don't know who is going to get the tax cuts. We don't know how big the tax cuts are going to be. We are told they've worked so hard and so long on these tax cuts; it is such a concrete and developed plan; we just don't have details.

What we do have details on is their tax rise. That's what we have got details on. That's the one concrete policy we have from this government. We have a situation where people on $60,000 a year will be paying $300 more in tax, and people on $55,000 a year will be paying $275 more a year in tax. These are the government's actual policies—not their speeches, not their words, not their rhetoric. They want to increase tax. They want to take $1.7 billion more a year out of Australians' pockets. That's actually higher tax. Whenever Malcolm Turnbull talks about tax cuts—

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

Order!

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

The Prime Minister, I apologise. Whenever the Prime Minister talks about tax cuts, his policy is to increase tax.

I saw the Prime Minister on Insiders on Sunday. He seemed offended that he could possibly be asked: 'Aren't you putting tax up on the one hand? Won't your taxes need to be so big just to justify what you are taking off?' He seemed surprised to get this question. He was offended to be asked about this. Maybe he needs some help from the minister for revenue. Remember she told us negative gearing was going to send house prices up and down at the same time? Maybe she can help the Prime Minister explain why they are putting taxes up and down at the same time. She could ride to his rescue. She'd do a better job of explaining it than the Prime Minster has done. The fact of the matter is when Australians on an income of $60,000 will be $300 a year worse off that is a tax rise. They can call it a levy, a charge or an imposition—they can call it whatever they like—but they are increasing the personal income tax paid by those Australians.

Again the Prime Minster on the weekend was reminding us that they had actually introduced a tax cut. They had taken the threshold from $80,000 to $87,000. That's true. With our support that was passed through the parliament. That was a tax cut. What that did was give $5.1 billion back to the people who received the tax cut. What does the tax raise that they want to impose, the Medicare levy increase, take off people? They have given back $5.1 billion but want to take from people $8.2 billion over the same period. This just goes to show that whenever the government talk about lowering tax, they are misleading the Australian people because they want to increase tax. That's what they want to do.

The government don't believe in lower taxes; they believe in different taxes. They believe in taxing different people in a different way. They believe in a tax cut for high-income earners. I concede that point. I give them that. They do believe that somebody earning more than $180,000 a year needs a tax cut. That's what they delivered. They were happy to take the deficit levy off people who earn more than $180,000 a year, despite the fact that we are still in deficit. The situation is worse than when the deficit levy was put on and was projected to be, yet they've gotten rid of the one measure in the 2014 budget that actually impacted on high-income earners. They still believe in everything else. They still believe in everything that impacts on low-income earners and pensioners. They have gotten rid of the one measure that applied to people who earn over $180,000.

Of course, they got their $65 billion a year corporate tax cut, which they believe will trickle down. They say: 'Don't worry about penalty rates. Don't worry about the fact that average weekly earnings are going backwards. Don't worry about the fact that energy costs and health costs are going up. Don't worry about the fact that private health insurance premiums are increasing. Don't worry about the cost of living, because we have a plan.' The Prime Minister says: 'It's going to trickle down to you eventually, one day. In 20 years time you'll get some of that benefit from the corporate tax cut.'

The Australian people are awake to that. They know that there's a better idea. Maybe a better idea is not to cut penalty rates. Maybe a better idea is not to increase the tax on people who earn between $21,000 a year and $87,000 a year. These are people doing it tough. Maybe that's a better plan. Maybe a better plan is to actually deal with the private health insurance premium increases in a sensible way, like the Labor Party has suggested. Maybe a better plan, instead of talking about tax cuts, instead of trotting out the rhetoric at every opportunity and instead of treating the Australian people with such contempt and with such disdain, is to actually not increase their tax in the first place.

The Prime Minister would have more credibility when he talks about a personal income tax cut if he wasn't increasing personal income tax, because that is exactly what his policy is. He would pass it tomorrow if he could. He would pass it through the Senate tomorrow if he could. It's stuck in the Senate. Do you know why? Because this side of the House will not let him do it. This side of the House will stand up for those Australians earning between $21,000 and $87,000 a year and will block that tax rise with the support of other senators. There is one thing standing between the Prime Minister and a tax rise on those Australians who earn $21,000 a year and that is us. That's the only thing stopping the government doing it. You don't need to take my word for it. It is government policy. It's there in the budget. It's all laid out. They believe in increasing personal income tax. So every time they talk about a personal tax cut, they are being fundamentally dishonest. They are treating the Australian people with contempt.

We welcome this debate. We'll debate tax anywhere the Treasurer likes. We'll debate tax anywhere the Prime Minister likes. We'll debate it in this chamber; we'll debate it in the other chamber; we'll debate it at the National Press Club; we'll debate it in town halls in regional Australia, because we have better plans. We actually understand the cost-of-living pressures on ordinary Australians. We don't say, 'Don't worry; it'll trickle down to you some day.' We don't say, 'Look after the top end of town, and the rest will be okay.' We say that those Australians who are working hard on weekends in cafes and in hospitals deserve not to have their wages cut, and they don't deserve a tax rise—both of those things that this Prime Minister wants to give them. The minister at the table is responsible for penalty rates. He should say to his electorate why he supports people in his electorate—and every other Australian who does so as well—being paid less when they work on the weekend, and why he is supporting increasing their tax at the same time. (Time expired)

Craig Laundy (Reid, Liberal Party, Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You know what, Deputy Speaker? I have to give it to the shadow Treasurer: his heart was almost in that. We see him in this chamber normally, at his best, yelling and screaming. At times, and I don't know how he does it, he gets very red—although, having seen him on the treadmill this morning, I now know! What I would say to all Australians is that the Fair Work Commission is a body set up by the Labor Party and staffed by the Labor Party. It was charged with independently four-yearly reviewing modern awards at the behest of the now Leader of the Opposition, who, when they changed penalty rates for some awards in 2010, whilst in government, made no reference to the quality of that commission or the need for it to be changed. When, in some restaurant awards in 2014, Sunday penalty rates were reduced from 200 per cent to 150 per cent, Brendan O'Connor, the shadow minister responsible at the time, said:

We've always said that employment conditions should be considered properly and should be considered by the Fair Work Commission. People should submit reasons why you should seek to make changes to the employment conditions of Australia.

The reason that the shadow Treasurer's heart isn't in it is that he is a member of the once-proud New South Wales Right of the Labor Party. Members of that party historically must be rolling their eyes today. I don't know if you like The Rocky Horror Picture ShowI do; I'm a particular fan.

Mr Husic interjecting—

The member for Chifley is one step ahead of me. We are stuck in a time warp. We've had the jump to the left, and the shadow Treasurer cannot get in a step to the right. He cannot get in a step to the right. This is the biggest hoax of all time in a campaign by the union movement, who are the puppeteers of those opposite. The shadow Treasurer, in his defence, is being dragged there. He's not a willing marionette, but—I tell you what—the opposition leader and the shadow minister are.

It's not hard to see, when you look at time lines. We've heard. What are the issues? Penalty rates and casualisation of the workforce. Penalty rates I've spoken about. They talk about them when it suits them. Why? Because the union movement isn't happy with the committee, independent of government, which they set up, dealing with unions at the time in 2007, and launched in 2009.

Casualisation—where did this thought bubble come from? Twenty-five per cent is the rate of casualisation today in the workforce, the same as it was two decades ago, but the Labor Party will have you believe it's a problem. No.

An opposition member: What about labour hire?

'Labour hire,' the member from South Australia yells out. It is two per cent, the same as it was 10 years ago. Independent contractors are nine per cent—again, another pet thing of the union movement—the same rate as it was 10 years ago. Where did this come from? You start to see a trend here.

On 28 July last year, Sally McManus urged the ALP to support amendments to the National Employment Standards to provide greater protection for casuals, including the right to request permanent part-time status. Lo and behold, six days later, on 4 August, Brendan O'Connor, the shadow minister, said:

It's about recognizing that the labour market today does not look anything like the labour market of 30 years ago …

Brendan, bad news: it does. It looks identical. But there we go; Labor Party adopting.

Then, on 26 December, we get Sally McManus saying:

The issue of casualisation, the casualisation of jobs, is going to be a key focus of the whole trade union movement next year in 2018.

On 26 December—the same day this time—the member for Gorton said:

We are examining the conversion. We do believe employers get an opportunity to employ people and see if that works in their workplace, we accept that.

Casual work is the backbone for this economy for the people that need it. It gives them the flexibility.

Melissa Price (Durack, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Uni students.

Craig Laundy (Reid, Liberal Party, Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Uni students. I've got two almost there. There are people that have caring responsibilities. It has a leave loading lodged into it, which the opposition always manage to conveniently forget.

But then—surprise, surprise!—on 30 January the Leader of the Opposition said in his National Press Club speech:

So why are big companies keeping workers' wages low? … It's the same reason they try to turn every job they can into a casual job.

What a load of rubbish! So something from Sally McManus's mouth on 28 July, which was a falsehood to start with, is echoed as official Labor Party policy on 30 January this year.

Then we get the living wage thought bubble, which, to her credit, Sally McManus front-ran again, on 2 November. Then Brendan O'Connor again, on the same day, welcomed the suggestion. Then—surprise, surprise!—on 30 January 2018, Bill Shorten said in his National Press Club speech:

The minimum wage is no longer a living wage.

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

Order! The minister will refer to people by their—

Craig Laundy (Reid, Liberal Party, Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the Opposition—sorry, Deputy Speaker. I do note that I have it on good authority from, I hope, a reliable source in the media that, at the National Press Club conference—probably a sign of how far to the left he was being dragged, to his credit—one notable omission was the shadow Treasurer.

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

Wrong.

Craig Laundy (Reid, Liberal Party, Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You were there? I apologise if you were there. I was told by a journalist you weren't. Were you at the speech?

Mr Bowen interjecting—

Oh, okay. Sorry. I apologise. I do say, as I said yesterday, that there is a clear and frank left-leaning agenda that has permeated its way through the leadership team of the Labor Party. It is so clear that there are those who are responsibly economically minded and don't want to be there.

Then there's the last piece of the puzzle, the piece that for me, as the new minister responsible, makes it make sense: the claim that enterprise bargaining is dead. Again, the Fair Work Commission—the commission put in place by the Labor Party and staffed with Labor people between 2007 and 2009 to consider matters of the workplace, independent of government—is supposedly not coming up with decisions that the Labor Party's union member puppeteers like. We've heard a lot about the EBAs falling away. Last year, the number of EBAs that were contested upon termination in this country was three per cent. Ninety-seven per cent of the EBAs that were terminated last year were not contested. I don't understand, if there is a problem with three per cent being contested, why you would need to completely overhaul something that is quite clearly working. Ninety-seven out of 100 is a pretty good rate. Ninety-seven out of 100 was a pretty good mark when I was going through school. It would have been good if I'd got it too!

The system is not broken. It is the unions that want more power. They want more access. In the party opposite, as I said, historically some genuinely right-wing, reforming and economically minded Labor politicians have managed to come up with sensible, centrist economic policy. I can say this loud and clear: those days are long gone. Those opposite are again being dragged so far to the left, under the guise that things are broken. It is their system. They put it in place between 2007 and 2009. It is working the way that it has worked, independent of government, for the past 10 years. It is making decisions that it considers on the basis of fact, with submissions from across the working portfolio, from employers to employees and from unions to employer organisations—you name it. You have the ability in this country to put your best foot forward in that commission. In the matters that are considered there, the decisions that are made are made in good faith by people, based on fact. However, over the past two to three years the facts haven't suited the union movement in this country. So what have they done? They have moved in and strongarmed a weak and feeble leader who is in need of their support to garner and save his own leadership. Formerly a member of the Right side of the party, he is a leader who has now worked so far Left away from everything that could arguably be named a significant Labor reform and has dragged them—some still with economic sense—kicking and screaming back to a place that this party hasn't seen historically. The time warp has gone back to the 1970s—a time that we have walked so far away from. The shadow Treasurer is today not at his 'zippiest'. I get that, but I know why. It's because I don't believe his heart is in it.

Cathy O'Toole (Herbert, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australian's living standards are going backwards, and it's no wonder when we are led by a back-to-the-future government. Recent ANU analysis shows that living standards are declining for the first time in a generation. Cost increases have outpaced income growth by 3.8 per cent since 2013 when this government came to power. Under the Turnbull government it now costs you more to see the GP, more for your private health insurance, more for your electricity bills and more for a house. This government is only interested in representing millionaires.

Under this Prime Minister, anyone earning up to $87,000 pays more income tax. There are more than two million Australians that will get a $300 tax hike under this government next year. Under the Turnbull government's plans to increase the Medicare levy, millionaires get a tax cut of $16,400, while someone earning $60,000 gets a $300 tax increase. Under the Abbott-Turnbull governments, costs are up 20 per cent for a visit to the doctor and up 25 per cent for a consultation with a specialist—all because of their unfair Medicare freeze. That is, of course, if you can get in to see a doctor. Right now, there are 12,000 people on waiting lists to see specialists and some are deferring because the costs are so high.

And then there is the absolute rort of private health insurance. Ten years ago only 8.6 per cent of health insurance policies contained exclusions. It's now 40 per cent. Families are paying an average of $1,000 more since the Abbott-Turnbull governments came to power. Whilst workers', families', veterans' and pensioners' health bills continue to rise, so do their electricity bills.

Instead of the Turnbull government delivering relief for the real Australians, they are giving big business a $65 billion tax cut. Big businesses and millionaires don't need relief. In 2014-15 there were 48 millionaires who paid no income tax in this country, not even the Medicare levy. In the same year, 678 corporations paid no tax. The richest one per cent of Australians own more wealth than the bottom 70 per cent of Australians combined. Profits are going up by 40 per cent, and wages are increasing by less than two per cent. Real wages have grown by 72 per cent for the top 10 per cent. In 1975, the top 10 per cent of earners earned twice as much as the bottom 10 per cent but by 2014 they earned nearly three times as much. If low-wage earners had enjoyed the same percentage gains as the highest paid, they would be $16,000 better off a year. When the facts are laid out plain and simple, it is pretty easy to see where the inequality is lying, and it is certainly not with the top end of town.

The Turnbull government is doing nothing to stop the inequality or the cost-of-living burden on workers, pensioners, veterans and families. The Turnbull government is so out of touch with workers, pensioners and families that they have no idea what it actually costs real Australians to simply survive. I wonder if anyone in the Turnbull cabinet can tell me the price of electricity bills in Townsville or the cost of a loaf of bread on Palm Island or how much the Townsville City Council is in debt because of our water crisis. I'm pretty sure the answer is no. But I'll tell you. Stuart is from Kirwan. His electricity bill for the last quarter was $960.77. A loaf of bread on Palm Island has been as high as $7. It cost the Townsville City Council $35,000 a day to pump water. So far, that has put our council more than $2.8 million in debt. There would not be one member of the government who would have known the burden of these costs, even though they have Senator 'Gold card' Ian Macdonald's office in Herbert.

While the Turnbull government prefer to be in their ivory towers in Sydney and Canberra, I'm out on the ground fighting for regional    Queenslanders. I know how hard it is for families to pay for their groceries when wages are stagnant, because I'm on the ground standing with workers, fighting for their wage increases and stopping the penalty rate cuts. I know how hard it is for pensioners to pay their electricity bills, and the effects of the Turnbull government's cut to the energy supplement, because I am on the ground meeting with pensioners and fighting for them, so they don't have to penny-pinch to pay their electricity bill. I'm on the ground fighting against the Turnbull government's $66 million outstanding bill to the Townsville Hospital and Health Service. I'm on the ground meeting with families and local organisations like the Upper Ross Community Centre about the detrimental impact of the Turnbull government's $14.8 million cuts to Herbert schools. Labor has always stood up for, fought for and delivered for the underdog. Only Labor has committed $100 million towards long-term water security infrastructure for Townsville, addressing our drought issues and jobs. (Time expired)

David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party, Assistant Minister for Children and Families) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The best thing we can do to help with the cost of living is to keep people in employment and get those who are unemployed into a job. The great news from the Turnbull-Joyce coalition government is we have had a jobs bonanza over the last couple of years: 403,000 new jobs in the Australian economy in the last year, and 75 per cent of them are full-time jobs—not part time; full-time employment. That is the best thing we can do for Australian citizens so that they can afford the cost of living. We have done so many things to improve the lot of the Australian citizen who is working hard, trying to get ahead, paying their mortgage off and wants to know they have a secure job and a future for their kids.

We have major reforms and improvements from July 2018 in child care. That's one of the biggest costs for a family, along with health insurance, electricity bills and their mortgage. We're helping on all fronts. The amount of child care will increase, because the cap is being moved up to $10,000 from $7,600. For example, a family with two people working full time, earning $80,000 in income, like many of the people in my electorate, with two children under six years old in long day care, will be $100 per day, or up to $8,000 per year, better off in their childcare rebate. That means they can work more, they can save, they can get ahead.

In the Lyne electorate we had a North Coast jobs and investment package announcement last week: $2 million in targeted investment for established companies that want to grow but need capital. These targeted investments will lead to, at the estimates of the companies who are the recipients, over 200 long-term jobs during construction and as the businesses grow. We have that on top of all the infrastructure we're rolling out around the country: a $75 billion spend. In the Lyne electorate we've had over a billion dollars in roadworks and major employment growth in civil construction. Jobs are the best thing that will help with the cost of living—but not just that: electricity. The National Energy Guarantee will lead to a reduction in costs of at least $115 per year. It will make more gas available, increase the capacity for base load so that we don't have the disaster they had in South Australia, where they had no base load to kick in when the fuse blew on the extension cord from Victoria, because of the storm.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Because of the storm. I think you just undermined your own argument.

David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party, Assistant Minister for Children and Families) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But they had no black start capability. The National Energy Guarantee will bring more gas into the market and will guarantee that the retailers and the generators get the electricity where it's needed. In South Australia they closed Playford B Power Station and Northern Power Station. Victoria closed Hazelwood, and what did we have in TheHerald Sun the other day? AGL are putting their prices up in Victoria by 15 per cent.

We've given tax cuts to the average worker. We've addressed bracket creep. The Treasurer already announced over a year ago that tax brackets will be lifted about $7,000 to address that very thing for people in the second-lowest tax bracket. We have done many things to make housing more affordable. We've got a register of Commonwealth land that's available. We're making the grants to the states to improve housing affordability and reach KPIs. They don't just get the money: they have to deliver on housing supply targets. We've got a new Housing Finance and Investment Corp to give cheaper interest rates to low-cost housing providers. It goes on. We have made it easier for first home buyers with the Super Saver initiative. That means you can put up to $30,000 into your super account at a preferential rate to develop your first home deposit. We're letting downsizers, at the other end, make non-contributory $300,000 contributions if they downsize from their family home. So we're helping both ends of the spectrum, but the best thing we can do to make costs of living affordable is to keep people in a job, get more people in a job and make the economy stronger, and we're delivering in spades. (Time expired)

Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's good to see everyone back after their break, but it's very easy to identify those who spent little time in their electorates over that Christmas period, because those people are not in this debate. When you think about it, if they were out there talking to constituents, they would know that average working families are hurting at the moment. They would know that. Hence, that's why they're not participating in the debate today. Constituents also resent the fact that we now have a government whose signature policy is giving a $65 billion tax cut to big business—$65 billion.

This is all based on this concept of trickle-down economics. Those opposite have taken their eyes off working families in the belief that, if we give the rich more, they're going to feel obliged to hand that down to workers and down the line, and eventually everyone is going to be living in utopia. As the saying goes, pigs might fly. You can see the very notion of this being conjured up as people are sipping their gin and tonic in the local yacht club—maybe around Point Piper, but maybe not—and talking about what's good for working families. They would say, 'Yes, a tax cut for the top end of town—and meanwhile can we now talk about investment opportunities, maybe around the Cayman Islands, and a few other areas and how we can best provide for our ongoing superannuation.' Yes, you could just imagine that.

The electorate I represent is very colourful. I'm very proud of this electorate. It's one of the most multicultural electorates in the country. The colour, vibrancy and diversity are on display day in, day out, and it's something we're very proud of. But, sadly, it's not a rich electorate. We have significant pockets of disadvantage. As a matter of fact, the average household income in my electorate is just a tad over $60,000 a year. What do you think these people think when they see company profits going up 20 per cent, yet they are not seeing any wage growth—being flatlined or, at best, two per cent. So much for Tony's tradies, the way they're going about looking after them.

Now we've got the government deciding to freeze the family tax benefit, but at the same time as they're doing that they're giving those wealthy people—millionaires—a $16,400 tax cut. Yet, if you're on a household income of $60,000 and you have two children around primary school age, you're going to be over $400 worse off. What do you think the people in my electorate think about that? Bear in mind, $60,000 is the average household income in my community. If this government can't afford to look after families, how is it that they think they can afford to look after the top end of town—the multinationals, the big businesses, the very profitable health insurance companies? They can do all that but they can't look after working families. We see this is a government that won't stand in the way of stopping the cuts to penalty rates. And, by the way, there are a lot of people in my community that rely on penalty rates, and I'm sure those opposite, if they looked and if they were around over Christmas, would know that as well.

This is a government that has all its eggs in one basket: trickle-down economics. We shouldn't be too surprised about this, somehow. We have the advice coming from the Deputy Prime Minister: if you're in housing stress in Sydney, Brisbane or Melbourne, just sell up and move to Armidale—great advice from the Deputy Prime Minister! But just put this in economic terms. The Prime Minister made it very clear at the outset of his leadership, when talking about housing issues, that you need to have rich parents—at least rich like him. The then member for North Sydney, the then Treasurer, Joe Hockey, made it very clear: you just get a better job. Now we have a Deputy Prime Minister adding to the debate by simply saying, 'Get out of town.' That's great economic advice for people that are doing it tough! What it shows is that they don't care. We see the real value of people's pay packets going down. Things like electricity and private health are skyrocketing. We're in a housing affordability crisis, household debt is at record levels, and we have record underemployment and job insecurity, and they are basking in the glory of trickle-down economics. (Time expired)

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

It gives me great pleasure to be able to stand and talk about some of the achievements of the coalition and how we are working to make the cost-of-living pressures on Australians more affordable. The best way we can give a break to an Australian is to make sure that they have an honest, reliable, stable job. The coalition has delivered in this space in absolute spades. If you go back and have a look at our record, we are shifting more people from the unemployment queues, from those that are on welfare, into full-time jobs. I will outline what those achievements have been. More than 400,000 jobs were created in 2017. It was the strongest calendar year on record. The Australian economy is creating, on average, around 1,100 jobs every single day.

So how is it that, when a coalition government gets into office, we're able to create an environment of positiveness with the small business sector for those jobs to be created? The vast majority of these jobs have been full-time jobs, and 75 per cent have been in the private sector. In the private sector, I look at projects like the Bromelton Industrial Park just outside Beaudesert in my electorate, with a transport intermodal rail hub—over 1,200 jobs during construction.

During the election, you would have heard the Prime Minister and the coalition team banter on about jobs and growth and jobs and growth, and people were sick of it. They were sick of hearing 'jobs and growth'. But what I want to say in this debate is that we delivered the jobs, and we will continue to deliver the jobs. We were able to deliver the jobs because we got our economic settings right. The number of new jobs created last year represents nearly five times the job growth of the last year in the previous Labor governments—jobs and growth, jobs and growth. We will continue to banter on about that. We're working to build a stronger economy with more and better-paying jobs for Australians. It is those better-paying jobs that are actually helping cost-of-living pressures.

We're doing it through fairer taxes. How we've done it is by creating confidence and creating incentives. We've cut company tax rates for more than 3.2 million small businesses and reduced income tax for 500,000 middle-income Australians. That's how we're doing it. We're putting money back into their pockets. We'll fight Labor's plan for 150 billion new dollars in tax increases on pay packets, homes, electricity and enterprises. Company tax rates will be at the centre of our debate moving forward. Company tax rates, for us, are about creating those jobs, creating that opportunity and leaving the principles of demand and supply to take their place.

Affordable and accessible child care is also critical to parents who are balancing work and family responsibilities. From July 2018, we will remove the $7,613 annual rebate cap for families on incomes up to $185,000 a year. That's 85 per cent of families using child care. Families earning more than around $185,000 will also benefit from the increased cap of $10,000. That's how we're doing it. We're increasing the childcare subsidy from around 72 per cent to 85 per cent for more than 370,000 families earning around $65,000 or less. Almost one million families will benefit. That's how we're reducing the cost-of-living pressures.

The government has also announced an extra $440 million to extend the existing preschool program into 2019 to ensure that all children have access to 15 hours of quality early learning in their year before school. That means that over 2,000 of the little learners in my electorate of Wright will have the best start to their education, with a $2.85 million boost. That's how we're reducing cost-of-living pressures.

During the six years of Labor government, electricity prices doubled. Federal and state Labor policies have continued to increase pressure on prices. They have shortages in gas supply, unrealistic renewable energy targets and open hostility to reliable base-load power. The coalition government understand that we need reliable, affordable base-load power, and we're fixing this mix. We have stated over and over again that, for us as a coalition, base-load power will be part of our energy mix into the future. Our new Energy Guarantee will cut prices, ending subsidies for energy which are passed on to all customers, creating a level playing field that will ensure that all types of energy are part of the Australian mix into the future.

We're reducing pressures on housing affordability. There are clear differentiations as to which government is creating downward pressure on— (Time expired)

Susan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think most parents would hope that their child will have at least as good a life as theirs and hopefully a better life than theirs, and that is pretty much what's happened, generation after generation, in Australia. While we are far from an equal nation, the statistics do show that parents have been proud to see their children better educated, better remunerated, better travelled, living longer—having a better standard of living.

But something has changed. I now see people my age expressing real concerns about how their children will fare independently in the world—how this next generation, and the one after it, is going to go. It seems to me now that we would probably settle for our kids having the same standard of living as ours. We have lost that expectation that they should have a better standard of living. That is a real change in psyche for Australia.

When you unpack it, it's because of the cost of going about your daily life, the things like going to a GP, paying your rent or saving for a home, paying for your electricity, keeping your phone connected or your internet on, covering the childcare costs, putting kids through school, keeping your car on the road or paying for your public transport. All those basic costs are eating up so much of your income that, for many people, there really doesn't seem to be very much left over. Young people, working people—we're talking working people here—young families, families with teenagers, older people, self-funded retirees and pensioners all tell me that it is harder to keep your head above water.

Now, anecdotal evidence is one thing. The conversations we have back in our electorates are one thing. But I do like to know that perceptions are backed by fact and data. So I wasn't actually surprised to see the reports this week that new research shows that it is costing more for us to stay where we are and that people's wages are not growing at the same pace, so the gap is widening. In other words, our standard of living is falling.

The Australian National University research points to the fact that we have the weakest wage growth on record. You can't bank on getting an annual pay rise that will keep pace with the increased cost of stuff that you have to pay for. The take-home pay of the average Australian who works for a private business grew by just 1.4 per cent over the year to May 2017. That's less than inflation, which means that you are going backwards when it comes to paying the bills. The slow wage growth isn't because business isn't doing well. Record profits in recent years simply haven't come through to workers in wage rises. What's happened to them? They've gone to share buybacks, higher executive pay and bonuses for executives. They haven't—funnily enough—trickled down.

The cuts to weekend penalty rates come on top of this. For people who work on a Sunday and public holidays to provide for their families, this government is certainly not helping them. If you're on the minimum wage, which 3.2 million people are in their awards, it is actually no longer a wage you can live on.

If you speak to people about the day-to-day grind you have to wonder why anyone would think that taxing people on the middle and lowest incomes more would be a good thing. Why would you tax those people more? Yet that is what this government is doing—call it a tax or call it a levy. If you're a multinational, this government wants to give you a big tax cut. If you're a millionaire—and they don't seem to be doing too badly—this year you get a tax cut of $16,400, while someone earning $60,000 gets an extra tax bill of $300.

When there is this sort of gap between how much you earn and how much you spend just to cover the basics, I think the real damage is done in the area of health. In the Blue Mountains my upper-mountains constituents tell me that it is almost impossible to find a bulk-billing GP, unless you're a pensioner or have a health care card or a child. GPs have been absorbing the Liberals' ongoing Medicare freeze for five years under this government and they can't do it any longer. The rent's gone up and their staff's wages have gone up. So health is where people are being hit. The cost of living is not just costing people their pockets; it is costing them their health.

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

It gives me pleasure to speak on this matter of public importance, because it is indeed a matter of public importance. I represent an electorate that is not a rich one. I'm a worker. They talk about workers not being on this side of the chamber, but I would like to point out that there are workers on this side of the chamber—and I enjoyed getting on the tools over the weekend. While I've sat quietly here in the chamber and not interjected, I have listened to no answers. There have been lots of criticisms and lots of attempts to try to make the Australian people feel that their lot in life is tough, but there have been no answers. There is no doubt that there are people struggling out there in Australian society, people who are working hard and paying their bills and trying to provide for their families.

But looking at the history of Australia, we enjoy a prosperity that many generations of Australians have not enjoyed, and I think that needs to be stated. It needs to be stated that we are a very prosperous nation. The prosperity is there because of the hard work of Australians. Money does not grow on trees, and the wealth of Australians results from the individual pursuits of people. They get up, they get out of bed early and go to work, they work hard, they pay their taxes and they contribute to the society. That is ultimately what creates wealth. When you create individual wealth, you ultimately create a wealthy Australia. What we've heard from the discussions today is attempts to knock those who have created individual wealth. This appears to be a great strategy of the Labor Party, but it ultimately undermines the pursuits of individuals. Let me say that again: it is the pursuits of individuals that collectively creates the wealth of Australia.

I want to see more people become wealthy. I want to see people who get out of bed and work hard be rewarded for that. I want those who work hard to pay less tax, and that's why we're proposing a tax cut, hopefully, in the future. I want to see the people who take a risk and invest receive the benefits of that. We should not be a society that knocks those people. We should not say: 'Oh, they're earning too much money. We've got to take the money off them and give it to someone else.' We should say, 'Good for you,' and if we do that, it means you pay a little bit more tax into the pot, meaning there is more money to fund the things that we need to fund in our society, such as welfare.

We hear a lot of talk about the cost of living going up. I have got to say that the responsibility for a lot of those cost-of-living bills—the bills that come across households—still sit with other governments. I think of rates, sitting with our local governments. I think of electricity, predominantly the management of electricity in Victoria by the Victorian government. I think of car registration, which is something that people struggle to pay, which is the state governments. I think of health administration, the money that we, the federal government, give to the states, and the states collect tax and administer health. That is a cost on people and it is largely run by state governments, and many of the state governments in Australia are Labor governments.

I also think that the discussion here isn't putting much forward thought into the implications that Labor are proposing for future generations. I heard the previous speaker talk about how people are concerned that their children haven't got as much opportunity. The best thing we can do to ensure the opportunity for the children of Australia is to not leave them with a national debt—to not leave them with the liability to pick up the tab for the current people who are running this country. When the Howard government finished in this place, they finished in this place with a surplus—money in the bank. We then had years of Labor, which left us with a deficit, and it has taken us quite a while to start to curb off the trajectory. Eventually, we will get back to surplus.

In contrast, there was not one savings measure suggested on the other side of the chamber in this whole matter of public importance debate. So, ultimately, what we're talking about here is an attack on people who want to get out of bed and work harder. It's an attack on the future children of Australia. The only answer they have to restore wage growth, the only answer they have to restore prosperity, is to borrow more money to put more debt on future Australians. I am not the sort of politician who can do that. I am responsible. People on my side are responsible. Do not trust them on the other side. They have no answers. They have talked all this afternoon—not one suggestion on how to make things better.

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

Before I call the member for McEwan, I might remind the member for Lalor that I have just checked the new seating plan and she is out of place. She might be disorderly if she is interjecting.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will say this very clearly for the member for Mallee, who claims to be a Victorian but is in the government that has cut the guts out of funding for Victoria.

Mr Broad interjecting—

I will speak slowly so you can keep up. You have a choice: $65 billion in tax cuts for big businesses, or you can use that money to fund pensioners, to fund people on low incomes, and you wouldn't be putting an extra $300 tax on every worker earning less than $87,000. It's about choices. You made it quite clear that in your view of the world the people who get rich are the ones you worry about. In our view of the world, society depends on how you treat your most vulnerable. While you want to leave them to the scrap heap, we actually want to encourage people and help them grow. Think about the long break over Christmas. On the north shores of Sydney, while flouting the boating laws, the 26 Newspolls-in-a-row losing PM was enjoying his Cristal and stogies. This year he had a little bit extra to celebrate. Do you know what that was? This year he gave himself a $16½ thousand tax cut. This is a bloke who stores millions of dollars overseas so he doesn't pay full taxes in Australia. And now, 'Captain Cayman', as he's commonly known outside, the Prime Minister, comes back to Canberra and continues his hardline assault on Australian families and Australian workers.

Under this government, Australian living standards are on the decline for the first time in a generation. When we look at this fact, since the Liberal government came in in 2013 the cost-of-living increases have outweighed income growth by 3.8 per cent. The incompetency of this government becomes crystal—or Cristal—clear, we might say. What is the government's response? Let's give big businesses a tax cut. Big businesses get a $65 billion tax cut while Australian workers earning under $87,000 get slugged with a $300 a year tax increase. That is before they get slugged with these outrageous health insurance increases. That's before they get slugged with the energy prices. And I did laugh at the member opposite talking about energy; they won't pull the gas trigger, because of the issues they had with the dual citizenship of the now Deputy Prime Minister, which means Australians are paying more for gas than they need to.

More than two million Australians will have their taxes increased while the PM celebrates his $16,000 windfall. Just think of that for a moment. That's nearly the same cost as a pensioner. A pensioner earns about $20,000 a year. That is all they have to live on. Yet the multimillionaire merchant banker gives himself a $16,000-a-year tax cut. When we talk about opportunities and things we can do to address issues, there is one: don't go giving millionaires tax cuts and putting the tax up on ordinary Australian workers. Go the other way around. Support the people who are struggling to make ends meet, and those with plenty of money can support themselves.

I tell you, for those who weren't here yesterday, you missed an absolute ripper of a day. We often hear those opposite talk about how wonderful they are and they've all been in business—blah, blah, blah. We had the rich daddy's club yesterday. Rich daddy No. 1 talking to rich daddy No. 2, who was talking to rich daddy No. 3 saying, 'I was in business.' 'How were you in business?' 'My rich daddy gave me a job.' That's not how it works for most of us. Most of us have to get out. While they're all celebrating their ability to go and work in the family business—if you look at a lot of Liberal philosophy it always is getting ahead off other people's hard work; that's how they get to here—

Nicolle Flint (Boothby, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As opposed to being a unionist.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Please—that's the banker lady there. What we've consistently seen from this government is that we watch national debt get bigger—that's more. With debt, there's a little minus sign in front of it. You sit there and talk about what great economic managers you are, but what you've done is increase deficit, increase debt, increase cost of living, cut wages, cut support for pensioners, cut support for families, cut education funding and cut health funding, and you congratulate yourselves.

We heard Treasurer Morrison today saying, 'There are greater times ahead.' Five years in government and all we've heard is, 'gonna, gonna, gonna'. The best way that we can help Australian families and Australian workers is to get rid of this mob opposite and put a government in that actually values people, not big businesses. They want to give big businesses like the banks a tax cut. We want to give them a royal commission. There are stark differences. We want to support people on low incomes. They want to crucify them. The choice is very clear. (Time expired)

Nicolle Flint (Boothby, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition are doing a range of things to reduce cost-of-living pressures for Australians. Let's start, for example, with our record on bulk-billing—85.9 per cent of doctors' visits are now bulk-billed. That is something that helps everyday Australians with their cost of living. We have record federal hospital funding. We have tax cuts for businesses, which helps businesses earn and generate income, reinvest, purchase goods from other businesses and, most importantly, employ Australians. We have tax cuts for 500,000 Australians who are on middle incomes.

I can tell you what we're not doing. We are not abolishing the private health insurance rebate, which assists something like 13 million Australians who have private health insurance cover. At the Press Club in the past week, the Leader of the Opposition refused to rule out abolishing the private health insurance rebate, which, as I said, does assist some 13 million or so Australians to cover themselves and be responsible for themselves and their health insurance.

We also have record jobs growth. After four years of coalition government, we have over 918,000 more jobs for Australians. In 2017 alone employment increased by 403,000 jobs, and around 75 per cent of these jobs were full-time jobs. These are the sorts of things that we're doing to help with cost-of-living pressures, because when you have a job you can afford to do a range of things. You can afford to make the choices that you want to make for your life that are good for you, good for your family and good for your community.

Coming from South Australia, of course, I have to talk about one of the biggest cost-of-living pressures in my home state, which is the cost of power. We know the result of Premier Jay Weatherill's 'big international experiment'. I want to read the Premier's statement about his power policy in South Australia, because it does bear repeating. We need to remind everybody what the Premier has done to my home state of South Australia. He said:

We are running a big international experiment right now. We have got a long, skinny transmission system and we will soon have 50 per cent renewable energy, including a lot of wind and some solar. We want to get as close as possible to 100 per cent renewable power. We know there are challenges. But with big risks go big opportunities.

I can't see many opportunities that have come for the people of South Australia, apart from paying some of the world's highest electricity bills, and that is not an opportunity that I want for my residents in my seat of Boothby, nor anyone in my home state of South Australia.

We have families, individuals, pensioners and elderly people who are suffering. We have people who won't turn the air-conditioner on because they do not know if they will be able to meet the cost of their power. This is a result of the failed energy policies of not just the state Labor government but also those opposite. During six years of federal Labor, we saw electricity prices double under the failed Rudd-Gillard-Rudd regimes. Both federal and state Labor policies have continued to increase pressure on prices through shortages in gas supplies, for example, unrealistic renewable energy targets, and open hostility to reliable baseload power through gas and coal. In South Australia, after 16 years of the Labor government, we've seen the closure of the Playford station and the Northern Power Station, the disastrous 50 per cent Renewable Energy Target, which I have already touched on, the terribly unreliable power in the state and the highest prices in the nation and in the world.

What is the coalition government doing? We are doing everything we can from the federal level—even though it's not really our responsibility; this is a state government responsibility—to bring down this cost pressure on South Australians and all Australians. We don't want to see these mistakes repeated in other states. Through the National Energy Guarantee, we are looking at gas. We are making sure that there is enough gas available for Australians through the Domestic Gas Security Mechanism. We are working on Snowy Hydro 2.0, which will provide a fabulous new source of renewable energy that is completely and utterly reliable, as the Snowy has been for a couple of generations now. We're looking at what the retailers can do to reduce retail prices and also a range of other mechanisms to help everyday Australians with their cost-of-living pressures.

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

Order! The discussion has concluded.