Tony Sheldon (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I share Senator Scarr's view in many respects. We do come at this from a different place, but many of us in this chamber, including Senator Scarr, have a strong view that we need to get the balance right. When you're preparing, drafting and presenting a budget, there are a number of tests. One of those tests is important because of what Treasury is saying about the veracity and the capacity of the budget, and what the forecasts are. When you look at this particular budget, you see the incredibly important aspect is that the Treasury has noted that the cost-of-living package, for example, is expected to directly reduce inflation by three-quarters of a percentage point in 2023-24. That goes to the heart of the discussion that has been put by those opposite, and this proposition that has been put forward by Senator Bragg. It's the independent advice and the governing advice for the country that's making comment about what should be happening, what will be happening and what's the desirability of us getting a budget right. They've hit the nail on the head.

We understand that for all of us here, and many Australians—and some feel it more than others—the cost-of-living package is an incredibly important aspect of the way that we approach the present pressures that on Australians at the moment. We should not only be looking at the package to get that balance right—because it is a task to get the balance right, deal with inflation and set up ourselves, our kids and their kids appropriately for the future—but also making sure that we get the appropriate support to our community. We've seen that in so many respects in regard to this budget, whether it be in pharmaceutical support, the tripling of the rebate for Medicare, or a number of important issues from 1 July with child care and early childhood education. Those aspects also have a productivity boost.

There is fee-free TAFE and that program's ambition for the coming budget period. We have the desire to say to so many of our young and those wishing to retrain that there is a future here and to say to our industries that there is a capacity to actually invest. What wasn't happening under the previous government was a package that actually delivered an outcome that said there was certainty about both trained and able staff being able to come in and do the work that needed to be done to make sure that we had productive, efficient and ongoing confidence in the performance of businesses and how they run their operations.

What's also critically important is what others say about the budget. It seems to me that probably the most important point of question time was that, in one narrow way, what was relied on by those saying that the budget wasn't up to scratch—in dealing with many of those issues that Senator Scarr and Senator Bragg raised before—was quotes from Westpac's Bill Evans. They were talking about Bill Evans's and Westpac's view with regard to the budget. I'll repeat this, because it was said earlier in the chamber. Mr Evans said, 'I think these policies were necessary'—again, going to these very important issues of how we make sure that we have proper safety nets for our community and proper productivity investment so that parents who require early childhood education and child care for their children and who would otherwise be at home have the capacity to go and work.

The skills area is also important, in getting the capacity to go out and make sure that we have a more skilled and agile workforce—not only a retrained workforce but also, critically, hope amongst the workforce and individuals within our communities that they will be able to get jobs. So Evans said, 'I think those policies were necessary, and I don't expect them to put upward pressure on interest rates in the near term.' This is a whole house of cards, from what those opposite have been saying. Those opposite are relying on comments by Bill Evans from Westpac, but, when you read Bill Evans's comments, they actually endorse the trajectory of getting that balance right.

So many more economists did the exact same thing and said that this is a projected opportunity for us to get the balance right not only to deal with inflation but also to put an incredibly important package forward to make sure that we give support to the most needy whilst also using that opportunity to take the pressure off the cost of living and invest in the right places—jobs, skills and training; and, from 1 July, child care and early childhood education.

Of course, when we start saying where those important areas are for us to be investing in, we're talking about our social infrastructure, which is critically important to the country. It's mums and dads, our parents and our kids out there who we are making sure are secure. It's our next-door neighbours. It's our brothers and sisters. It's our new Australians. It's our First Nations Australians. It's everybody. When we're talking about investing in social capital in the Australian community, it's everybody.

Part of that program is about looking at those important areas of how we also reduce costs, such as, of course, in the area of energy. This is a critical area to put downward pressure on those increases. What we've seen from those opposite is that they've done the direct opposite. The 'no-alition' is actually voting against putting downward pressure on energy, and we'll see what flippant comments come from them tonight, which we've certainly seen so far from those opposite, as comments have been passed with regard to this budget. I'm not including Senator Scarr because he had a thoughtful proposition about it being wrong, saying, 'It's not the right direction.' He's holding his ideological view, and I respect that. But, when you get the independent advice, it says the opposite of what Senator Scarr is saying. It's saying the opposite of what those on the opposite side have been saying. Of course, when you start looking at some of the issues like the 15 per cent wage increase for aged-care workers—a critically important part of the social infrastructure to make sure that our mums and dads, our grandads and grandmums, and all of us into the future get that service and protection—that is the social capital that we need.

Even the conservative commentary from The Australian is saying we're getting it right. The only people saying we aren't getting it right are those opposite. Whatever we do, they think that we should be doing 20 to 50 per cent less. And then, on our left, we have the Greens, whatever we do, saying we need to do 20 to 50 per cent more, so there is another reference about how right we are getting it. We're getting the balance right, as evidenced by that independent commentary, and even by the commentary coming from those with an opposite view on many of the initiatives we have taken to this budget. When we start looking at those questions about getting it right, it does go to that critical question of cost of living.

Cost of living is a substantially critical issue now and it will always be. The way to deal with cost of living is by making sure that we get wages right. We have had over a decade the previous government's intentional strategy to suppress wages—intentional wage decline. Every proposition we put forward to deal with the cost-of-living challenges that everyday Australians have now—the inflation problems that were unleashed under the previous government—those opposite turn around and oppose. We put forward proposals to have better, more secure jobs. We put forward proposals about a fair bargaining system. We put forward a proposal, which is always the real killer on this argument, and those opposite opposed it, which says it to a T.

Whatever your ideology is, this is the practical consequence of an ideology. When you turn around and say the poorest people in the country don't deserve a dollar-an-hour wage increase, you have just nailed your ideology to the wall for everyone to take pot shots at, because every ordinary, decent Australian in this country—I shouldn't say 'every', because there are a few on the opposite side in the Senate—would say that is a fair dinkum thing. I will tell you what, I'm confident that even on the opposite side there are some who reckon it is a fair dinkum thing, too.

When you start looking at what changes will come in the future, we have a proposition about how we deal with issues like wage theft. Decent companies put their energy into skilling their workforce to a more productive company. They work with their workforce and, heaven forbid—I will even say it—with their union representatives, duly elected, in tripartism to try and make a better system going forward.

Whether it be aviation or any other industry, we are dealing with companies that carry out wage theft, the ones that take the low road, the ones that turn around and decide that the best option for them is not to do better, not to build a better work community, not to build a better society, not to lead the way, but to pull the rug out from underneath hardworking Australians and the community they should be serving. And yes, they should be serving their working community and serving the broader community. And, yes, you can do that, and I can name umpteen companies that do that, that make a profit and a very handsome profit indeed, because they know how to generate decent wages for a productive workforce through good engagement—not without argument and sometimes even conflict, because sometimes having an argument across the chamber can come up with a better result—but simple opposition for opposition political point scoring does not get a better outcome for any of us.

We will see a whole series of propositions put forward this year to deal with the critical issue of wage theft. What I would really like to see from those opposite, when we talk about cost of living, is in relation to people working in casual jobs—an important area of the economy, an important option people do have—as permanents without job security, so companies can force them without a bargaining position, when labour hire companies are engaged and created by the same company that has agreements with its own workforce to undermine the workforce, such as BHP and Qantas. You have to start turning around and asking, 'Are you going to be fair dinkum and deal with the cost of living?'

When I've gone to the cost-of-living Senate inquiry, we have talked about raising the issue with the retailers that are amongst the biggest employers in this country, asking: 'What is your strategy to deal with cost of living with your workforce? How are you going to pay them more? Here are examples of things that are going wrong within your system. Answer that. Give us some evidence. Tell us about how you are going to deal with it.' That applies to some of the scoundrels like Aldi in particular. To see those in the chairs opposite at the Senate inquiry turning around and defending those companies is nothing but shameful.

What too many of them on the opposite side don't understand is that, when you start talking about industry plans, industry isn't the person who's the CEO of the company and a few well-paid executives. It is them, but it is more than that. It's all the people from the top—the person cleaning the bathroom—right down to the bottom—the CEO. It is everybody in the system that makes that a successful business. The employers that approach it that way, with that sense of justice and sense of humility, are the ones that succeed.

What they on the opposite side can't do when we talk about industry policy, whether it be the aviation industry or other industries, is understand it. So when we start talking about 'same job, same pay' that is an issue about opportunity rather than having companies gaming the system, rather than taking the Alan Joyce and Qantas board strategy of wiping out decent wages and conditions and job security. An industry that attracted people now has to find people because of the strategy that they adopted and that those opposite only encouraged when they were in government. When you encourage that in government and allow it to prosper, you see other companies following the exact same strategy. We saw that through the job security inquiry.

For those few who listen in to parliament or to question time, when you hear comments from Jack and Fred or whoever from the opposition, go to the job security inquiry and hear from the dozens upon dozens of people who were abused and abused under the previous government's policies.