Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This budget reminds me of something that was once said by the Irish playwright George Bernard Shaw. He remarked, about the first night of a play that he had written—it had gone down very badly and the reviews were terrible—that the show was excellent but the audience was poor. The same could be said of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer; they think that their budget is excellent and that the Australian public can't see its brilliance. That's the trouble in relation to this budget.

We've got a situation where the budget is neither fair nor responsible. The unemployment rate has gone up to 5.6 per cent, and is much higher in parts of the country, particularly in working-class and middle-class communities. We've got a situation where the ABS data shows that wages are stagnant. We've got a situation where, according to the latest data, wages are only growing at a rate of about 2.1 per cent per annum. Profits are going up much higher and, indeed, the government wants to give big business massive tax cuts. It seems strange and inconsistent to the Australian public that that's the case. We've got a situation where wage rises for the Public Service in the December 2017 quarter were 2.3 per cent, compared to 3.2 per cent in the December 2016 quarter. So, wage rises are not going up, despite the fact that the budget is quite optimistic about wage rises. In fact, wage rises are diminishing.

The government is optimistic, thinking that the budget will deliver big revenue increases in terms of tax revenue to the budget, when in fact wage rises are abating. They're presiding over consistently low wages growth, but they've got no plans to seriously deal with the problem except support the taking away of penalty rates for 700,000 of the lowest-paid workers in the country. It's a government that doesn't understand dwindling bargaining power and doesn't understand the challenges that working-class people face each and every day in the country.

The government, when they were in opposition, said that they would deliver a surplus in their first year and every year thereafter. They talked about a one per cent surplus. They have failed to deliver that. Having not tackled effectively the challenge to the economy of illegal tobacco, they're optimistic that they are going to bring in more than $3 billion in revenue from a crackdown on illegal tobacco and that that's going to provide for a surplus in years to come. So from a start where they're bringing in virtually no revenue they say they're going to raise an enormous sum of money that way.

This government talked about a debt-and-deficit disaster, but that's not the case, according to them now. They never talk about it. Why not? It must be because they're embarrassed. They must be. We've got a new record for gross debt in this country, which is now $528.3 billion. That is an increase of $255.3 billion under this government from 2013 to 2018—that is, across their tenure on the treasury bench. Do those on the other side of the chamber ever talk about a debt-and-deficit disaster now? They do not—not at all. This is a government which has failed monumentally. Those opposite trumpet jobs and growth. They talk about a billion extra jobs, without actually acknowledging, like respected economist Stephen Koukoulas, that it is in fact population growth that has created this jobs growth. According to this budget, we will have to elect this Prime Minister and this government not just once, not just twice but perhaps three times before most of the tax cuts that they laud in the budget are delivered. This is a government which seems out of touch with the needs of working class Australians.

Those opposite talked about the net debt—not just the gross debt—plenty of times. Net debt for the coming year is double what it was when the government came to power. I will be interested to hear during this appropriations debate speeches from those on the treasury bench about debt-and-deficit disasters, or about debt and deficits at all. We will probably not hear anything from the government, because it has failed monumentally.

Like family budgets, government budgets show the priorities, values, ethics and choices that that government makes. What is the government doing? It is continuing the cuts it has made in the past. It has locked them in once again. What are we seeing? There is $17 billion in cuts to schools. We see the Catholic education system up in arms across the media today. We are seeing $2.2 billion in cuts to universities. I was at the Ipswich Show in my electorate on the weekend, doing a mobile office across three days. I thank the Labor Party campaign workers across Ipswich and the Somerset region who were there with me. I was with the state member for Ipswich, Jennifer Howard, and the member for Ipswich West, Jim Madden, and their staff. I talked to Geraldine Mackenzie, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Southern Queensland, which has a campus in my electorate in Springfield and one in Ipswich. I talked with her about the concerns that the University of Southern Queensland has in relation to that and the challenges it faces.

Then there are the cuts of a billion dollars to the health and hospital services system in this country: cuts to Medicare and the keeping for another year of the rebate freeze on specialists. In my electorate there is TAFE south-west, with its great campus at Bundamba. There has been $270 million in cuts to TAFE and apprentices. And, of course, $80 million has been cut from that beloved institution in Australia the ABC. There has been $1.5 billion in cuts to remote housing, ending a national partnership agreement. It's simply not good enough. As a local federal MP I've got to say that the cuts of $3 billion to aged care that have been locked in are part of the cruel hoax that has been perpetrated upon the aged care sector. Of course, they're onto it now. It took them 24 hours, but they're onto it—the fact that they have funding for 14,000 new in-home aged-care places over four years but all the money comes from within the aged-care budget. There's no new money at all. As in infrastructure, which falls off a cliff in the next few years, there are 3,500 places a year. Not even the government can keep pace with the demand. The waiting list grew by 20,000 in the last six months of last year. Of course, the government want older Australians to work until they're 70 years of age, and they cut the energy supplement of $14 from these older Australians, who should be respected and supported. The cuts to Queensland health, of $160 million, continue. Emergency department visits, cataract extractions, knee replacements and birth assistance are all at risk from this government. We see Medicare statistics showing it costs more to see specialists and GPs.

So this is a government which is out of touch with working-class and middle-class Australians. They should be looking to address these issues, reversing their cuts to public hospitals, reversing their cuts to schools, ending the Medicare rebate freeze and fixing the private health insurance affordability crisis which so many people acknowledge and recognise. Once and for all, they should scrap the tampon tax. It's critical that this government look after older Australians and the health of all Australians, but this government is not doing anything of the sort.

When it comes to income tax, the government are reducing the progressive nature of income tax in this country. The Grattan Institute makes it crystal clear that more than half of the tax cuts the government are proposing go to the top 20 per cent of income earners. Their tax cuts are not skewed, as the ones that Labor proposed in the budget-in-reply speech are, to middle- and working-class Australians.

In the portfolio that I represent as the shadow minister for immigration and border protection, we have seen cuts to the department: $256.3 million over five years. And guess what: it's really interesting because, having—as the secretary of the department said today—created this mega-department, this behemoth department, five months and one day ago, they have actually now decided to put $7 million towards a review of the department they created, which was about the security of the position of one man, the Prime Minister, and not the security of the country. No security agency has recommended to this government that it should create the Department of Home Affairs. So this strategic review of this mega-department was announced in the budget. We've seen inquiries and reports from the Auditor-General, and the department's own RAND Corporation report, criticise the establishment of the department in terms of their efficiencies and effectiveness.

There's no money, of course, in the budget for cybersecurity, despite the fact that the cyber-resilience of the department has failed again and again and we've seen audit report after audit report in relation to it. They've failed to maintain cybersecurity standards since 2014 in the Department of Immigration and Border Protection and now the Department of Home Affairs, and there's no money in the budget in relation to that. It's beyond belief that they tolerate this monumental level of incompetence displayed by the minister and the department secretary on this critical national security issue. Cybersecurity should be at the absolute forefront.

On top of that, the government's been locked in an ongoing dispute with thousands and thousands of Immigration and Border Protection employees over pay and conditions for over four years. They praise the frontline workers, but they won't pay them fairly, and these people have suffered real wage cuts at the hands of this conservative government. We have seen at the same time that internal staff surveys have shown that ABF staff have a deep-seated dissatisfaction with senior management in the department. We are fundamentally concerned with the safety and security of the Australian community. Australia's security and intelligence agencies are amongst the best in the world. We acknowledge that, but we have a minister in the portfolio of Home Affairs who is failing, and the department is failing.

It is not just that. There is also skilled migration. In the member for Aston's answer to the last question to him, what he didn't talk about was the fact that in the budget they've cut $270 million from the Skilling Australians Fund, having got rid of the national partnership. That is all about the fact that they've seen a huge reduction, tens of thousands of apprentices fewer in this country. We have about 150,000 fewer apprentices than when this government came to power. How can you deal with the challenge of skilled migration? How can you deal with the challenge of employment by cutting yet again on top of billions of dollars of cuts to TAFE and tertiary education? On top of that, the government cut another $270 million in the budget. I mean, we actually had to force this government, and they backflipped, to agree to labour market testing. For the first time in my 11 years in this place, the government finally agreed with Labor on labour market testing. We had to drag them kicking and screaming to agree to that in the last week of parliament, but they failed on skilled migration.

What the government are doing here is creating the Skilling Australians Fund. Their primary source of funding for apprenticeships and traineeships is deeply, deeply flawed and insecure because of its reliance on visa levies from overseas workers. They are saying the number of overseas workers is going to reduce but, at the same time—like a magic pudding—they are going to increase the Skilling Australians Fund with the money, so the money goes up but the number of overseas workers goes down. They are increasing levies on business. This is an out-of-touch government when it comes to this issue, completely out of touch. They are not fighting for local workers. They have finally agreed to proper labour market testing but they have not cracked down on the rorts in the migration system. They have failed to invest in skills and training. They have to do so much better in this area.

This government have failed in the budget. I just want to tell people before I finish that, finally last week, we got them to agree to backtrack on their assurance of support to those persons in those communities who apply for visas, which is so important. They tried to surreptitiously get it in, but we put pressure on and they finally backtracked. They moved the goalposts in this. They made these changes without any warning. Labor stood up to them, and they backflipped on that last week. I am pleased about that. It is great to see they finally saw a bit of sense in that area.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australia, Victoria and the Goldstein community have much to celebrate in this year's federal budget. It's a budget that builds on our vision for Australia as a forward-looking modern liberal nation with unparalleled living standards. This budget can be encapsulated in three words: opportunity, security and responsibility—opportunity by delivering three stages of tax cuts by increasing the bracket from $80,000 to $87,000, lifting it to $90,000 next year and then to $200,000 from 2024 to 2025; security by increasing the number of home aged-care packages by 14,000 over four years to give Australians the freedom to choose how they retire and age at home with dignity and choice; and responsibility by introducing a 23.9 per cent tax cap on government spending and delivering a surplus next financial year to start paying back Labor's debt legacy.

Frankly, this has been the best budget since returning to government in 2013. It provides the framework to advance our values through legislative action. The end of the frustrating incremental return to surplus is now in sight. The deadline to start cutting debt has been brought forward a year. Next year, we will finally reverse Labor's debt legacy. We are talking tax relief, better childcare, increased home care for retirees, funding for schools and huge investment in infrastructure. First and foremost, the budget continues to tackle the rising costs of living for households, including in the Goldstein community. While maintaining fiscal discipline and fast tracking our national surplus, we are tackling major tax reform. The budget's bold reforms bring us closer to an ideal setting where taxes are lower, simpler and more consistent for the whole of the Australian community. Indeed, 60,799 taxpayers in the wonderful Goldstein electorate stand to benefit from low- and middle-income tax relief. That the means a hairdresser on 50 grand will have an extra $530 in their hip pocket, increasing to $3,740 over the seven years of this plan.

Cost-of-living pressures are also being relieved as the new childcare system comes into place on 2 July: 4,019 families in the Goldstein electorate will now benefit from more accessible and affordable child care. We know that child care hits the hip pockets of families, but that it also particularly aids and assists women and professional women in the electorate to be able to make choices themselves. And as the government's National Energy Guarantee is implemented, and decades of policy deadlock are finally put to rest, families can also start to benefit from more affordable electricity and gas prices.

But this budget is also backing the 22,112 local businesses in the Goldstein electorate. Business tax cuts will help them to invest, to employ and to pay their workers more. Over a thousand small businesses in Goldstein have previously benefited from the instant asset write-off, and that measure has now been extended for another 12 months.

When business conditions are optimal, the dividends speak volumes in employment, in profits, in opportunity and in investment in communities. The Turnbull government has now delivered more than one million jobs, nearly 1,100 per day. The most recent Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows strong growth in full-time work, and that's particularly important for those returning to work or seeking out their first step on a rung on the ladder of opportunity. We're giving a fair go to those who may not have had one previously. We're giving people the chance to turn their human capital and intellectual capital into economic success and progress.

This budget also addresses the challenges we face as an ageing population. It gives retirees support to keep living in their own homes or helps them relieve financial stress by converting some of their housing equity into an income stream. There are an additional 14,000 places for in-home care, as well as new measures to enhance quality of care and transparency. The Goldstein electorate has 26,314 people over the age of 65; they all deserve dignity and security in their retirement, and as they age throughout their lives.

Australia's cities are developing at a rapid pace and it's the duty of the government to plan for the future. That's what's included in this budget. Investment in nation-building infrastructure is also at record levels. Our population growth rate is about 1.6 per cent a year, but to make sure that we meet the challenges of that growth rate and to make sure that it's sustainable it must be backed up by the investment and infrastructure needed to support a healthy, growing population. When growth is preceded by planning and investment it does wonders for economic prosperity, liveability and social mobility, and for the security of every resident.

Through the Infrastructure Investment Program, $9.7 billion is being rolled out in Victoria alone. It includes $5 billion for the Melbourne Airport Rail Link. Hundreds of constituents in the Goldstein electorate have regularly raised with me their concerns about the absence of an airport rail link and their capacity to be able to connect, whether for business or for pleasure, directly to Melbourne's major air route and hub, to reach not just the rest of the country but the world. This $5 billion investment in the Melbourne Airport Rail Link finally delivers a piece of infrastructure most Victorians believe should have already been delivered many decades ago. It's been in planning for decades and, ultimately, the state government has had to be dragged kicking and screaming to support it by the federal government putting down this $5 billion in matching funding.

There has also been $1.8 billion committed to the North-East rail link, which will deliver benefits, of course, to large parts of Victoria—particularly the northern and eastern suburbs, and connecting out to other areas of the state as well. There is $475 million for the Monash rail project, which, critically, will connect parts of the CBD through to Monash University—the Caulfield campus and then to the Clayton campus as well. I say that with a bit of nostalgia, because many moons ago, when I was a younger gentleman, I served as the president of the Caulfield campus of Monash University. During that time, one of the projects that I actually implemented with university management was to build a bus route directly connecting the campuses. It's nice to see that after many years, that project has gone from an idea to something that was adopted, and from a bus project now to becoming, ultimately, a rail project as well. That's the consequence of legacy and the consequence of leadership, and full points should be given to the Turnbull government for recognising that opportunity.

As well, there is $225 million for the Frankston to Baxter link, which is critical, of course, to the member for Dunkley but also to the people who are part of the growing corridor across the south-east of Melbourne that goes to the different parts of the Mornington Peninsula. Frankston is one of the major hubs that connects to further inland parts as we progress down the peninsula. There is $50 million for the regional rail program and an additional commitment of $132 million for the completion of the duplication of Princess Highway East. There is $3 billion for the East West Link, if that could ever be delivered, because we have the intransigence and obstruction of the Andrews government who have consistently undermined the potential for the development of that important transport link. When you look at a map of Melbourne and see where the road networks are connected, the East West Link is the most critical part of our infrastructure and is completely absent. It stops freight movements and it clogs up roads, which undermines transportation by road across Victoria and particularly across the congested roads of Melbourne.

We pray we will one day see a state government that puts people first, Victorians first, and actually builds this needed road. But, instead, what we have seen consistently is a state government that would rather pay out big corporate interests to not build one. The $3 billion for the East West Link that was committed by the Turnbull government is a recommitment of an important piece of infrastructure that our state desperately needs. There was $295 million as part of the Victorian congestion package to help ease the bottlenecks that sit all across our state. Because the state government is not tackling the bigger challenges in big infrastructure and big roads, these congestion packages will help ease the burden so that parents can get their kids to school easier, they can get from school to work easier and people can go about their business on a day-to-day basis. The increasing burden of congestion along major arterial roads on weekends has now become so bad that the $295 million is absolutely essential.

Locally, the Roads to Recovery Program will assist the Bayside City Council with upgrades to Outer Crescent in Brighton. There have been some other significant capital investments in the Goldstein electorate under this budget, including the upgrade to the Glen Eira Adult Learning Centre, the Caulfield South Community House's hall renovation, upgraded training lights at the Jack Barker Oval, renovations to the Sandybeach community centre and an upgrade to the Alma Park toddler's playground as part of the Stronger Communities Program, which has invested more than $378,451 in the Goldstein electorate.

The budget shines light onto some shadows that are in desperate need of illumination, particularly in dealing with some of the great social challenges that undermine our cohesive society. One in five Australians experience a mental health condition in a given year. Anxiety and depression cause distress, impacting on functioning and relationships on a day-to-day basis and leading to poor physical health. The budget's $92.4 million investment in frontline mental health services includes $33.8 million for Lifeline, $10.5 million for beyondblue and $2.2 million for Defence Force reservists. There's also $125 million assigned for research through the government's Medical Research Future Fund. That's on top of our ongoing commitment to important youth mental health services, particularly the enduring contribution of headspace. We have a headspace centre in Moorabbin.

As Liberals, our vision is to maximise opportunity for every Australian. That means preparing our national accounts for any external economic shocks that threaten job security and opportunity. This budget recommits the majority of new revenue from a strengthening economy to paying down our national debt. That's it. It's the volcano of debt that could erupt unless we continue on our path to surplus, not in 2021, as has been stated in the past, but in 2019-20 and beyond. For the first time in a decade, the government is being very serious about making sure that we no longer borrow to pay back everyday expenses. With the budget back in the black, government services can continue to deliver better health care and education outcomes but, more critically, provide the economic security that every Australian needs. When we have global economic shocks that sometimes are outside of our control, it's the resilience that we build within our budgetary framework in making sure we have flexibility that provides us security into the future.

What we cannot afford to do is be complacent, as those on the opposition benches would have us do. They would have us sit and think it's okay to accumulate debt and the costs of simply financing it without anything to show for it—to borrow from tomorrow to live it up today. It's a form of intergenerational theft, where money is taken from the future to fund our lifestyles today. It's not just that it's unjust; it is immoral and is a position that we should never stand for.

The return to surplus by the Turnbull government is one of the most critical and significant achievements of this government, and it's the biggest gift that it can give to future generations. This budget is a forward-looking, responsible blueprint for a modern liberal Australia. The Goldstein community has consistently voiced concern over the rising costs of living, the lack of infrastructure investment, particularly by the state government, job security and the challenges of an ageing population. But, more critically, it has consistently raised concerns about the challenges facing our budget and wanting to make sure that a government—their government; the nation's government—is prudent and responsible, exercises spending with caution and seeks to minimise expenses that are unnecessary, to return to a position of surplus so we can start to pay back Labor's debt legacy. That is what this budget does: it delivers opportunity, security and responsibility for our great nation. As a government, we have listened and we have acted.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are occasions in the government's life when a particular budget epitomises everything that they stand for and what their priorities are. We saw such a budget in 2014, when those opposite were first elected to government under former Prime Minister Abbott, and we well remember the legacy of that budget—and so we should because so much of it still exists in the budget we're confronted with in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2018-19 and the related appropriation bills today. The budget had at its heart unfairness and it did not pass the test not only of this parliament but of the general public's opinion of what it was trying to do. This budget is exactly the same as that previous budget. Plainly on display are the priorities of the government. I'm sure people will excuse me for borrowing the analogy of the member for Gilmore last week—and the member for Gilmore might be surprised to know that most members of the public probably consider that, if the horse is the government, the jockey would be considered to be the Prime Minister, not herself. You can change the jockey on the horse, but, if that horse is running the same race, you're not going to have any different outcome. That's exactly what is happening with the budget that is before us now. The priorities, the wrong values and the wrong approach to the challenges facing the nation that were encapsulated in that very unfair, discredited 2014 budget are still there in all their tarnished glory in the budget that was announced this month by the Prime Minister. It is both sneaky and unfair, and I want to address some of the most significant concerns that I have with the budget.

The first thing that it puts in headlights before the Australian people is the fact that the government are committed to an $80 billion tax cut for the big end of town. That is their immovable priority; that is what they are determined to have encapsulated in this budget as reflecting their values and their priorities. I would suggest that that is not shared by the vast majority of the Australian population, particularly when you consider that, within that $80 billion, is $17 billion that will go to the big banks, who have hardly covered themselves in glory in recent expositions coming out of the royal commission. It's particularly important to note, if you look at that $17 billion that the big banks will get as a tax cut under the priorities of the government, that that's exactly enough to put back on the table the $17 billion that the government have cut from our schools.

So here you have a contrast between those of us on this side of the House, who believe in investing in the things that make us a fairer, more dynamic country for the future that includes an opportunity for our children to be part of that story, and those on the other side of the House, whose priorities seem to be that big banks, who have been exposed as having not exactly exemplary behaviour and who are also, I have to say, making record profits, desperately need $17 billion in tax cuts, but our kids in our schools who actually need, as my colleague the member for Whitlam has outlined to this House, the investment in their schools, because they're working away in demandable classrooms across my region—they need investment in literacy and numeracy programs and work to be done in programs that ensure that young people in high school are well positioned for TAFE and university study when they leave their school.

All the programs that I've seen across my electorate and I know were happening across electorates around the country were built on the back of the original Gonski agreement, which was needs based and sector-blind funding. This government has rolled up a shonky version of that which is not needs based and sector blind and which cuts $17 billion from schools across the nation, and they have tried to claim that they are actually doing the right thing by kids in our schools. I don't think parents of those children, their families, their carers, the communities they live in or the teachers who spend so much time and energy working to make sure they position them well will agree that that is a reasonable priority for a government to have. And certainly I know that in my electorate many people would share that concern.

There are so many issues in this budget that I want to cover, and I'll take the opportunity to cover them in a number of contributions to the chamber, but, like many of my colleagues, I'm very excited to hear my new colleague's first speech, so I'm only going to take a few minutes to—

Ms Kearney interjecting—

Please don't apologise; I'm absolutely thrilled to have this dilemma. So I just want to make a few points about what my concerns are in particular. One I've already spoken to the House about is the pea-and-thimble trick that's been played in the aged-care sector. Indeed, I've had many locals in tears on the phone to me about access to home-care package places. There are 105,000 people across the country waiting for a home care package. We got 14,000 in the budget. That's not even going to keep up with increasing demand. That's not even going to manage the demand that grew in the six months since they last tried to do something to address this problem. Those families are under great stress and waiting up to 12 months. Somebody who's been assessed as needing support in their home is waiting 12 months. What does the government think the families are doing in the meantime? This is an enormous pressure and this is a particularly cruel trick—not to mention the fact that, as our shadow minister has highlighted, they also didn't actually put extra money in; they funded that by taking money out of residential aged care, which is also under a lot of pressure.

The second area I'm really angry about is TAFE. I'm very disappointed that the Prime Minister not only made an incorrect claim about the level of debt under the Labor government when they took control but also failed to engage and talk about TAFE. I think the government's record on vocational education, on skills, on providing apprenticeships and on filling the skills shortage which should be addressed by training our own people is that they have been cutting and cutting away at the heart of vocational education every single budget and midyear economic statement. Not a single one has passed where they have missed the opportunity to make another cut, and again and again they tout their Skilling Australia Fund, which they can't actually show has delivered anything in terms of apprentices. There is so much that's wrong. There's so much that goes to the heart of the priority for a government that is completely out of whack with where the community is, what their needs are and what we should be doing as a nation.

This budget, as I said at the beginning, puts their priorities the up in headlights, and I'll tell you what: if they were my priorities over my head, I would be ducking for cover, and I think many of those opposite should be doing the same. You can't prioritise $80 billion to big business with $17 billion to the banks while cutting away at the heart of school, TAFE and university, making sure we won't have the investments that we need. I'll continue to fight, as I know all of my colleagues on this side will, against what are very unfair and poor budget decisions by this government.

Debate adjourned.