Senate debates

Monday, 5 February 2018

Bills

Productivity Commission Amendment (Addressing Inequality) Bill 2017; Second Reading

10:08 am

Photo of Malarndirri McCarthyMalarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this private senator's bill, the Productivity Commission Amendment (Addressing Inequality) Bill 2017, and from the outset I'd like to welcome all senators back. It's good to be here. I'd like to also commend my colleague Senator McAllister for her tireless efforts in producing this bill. Primarily this bill seeks to require, among other things, the Productivity Commission to undertake research on inequality and its effects on the Australian economy and community and to report to the minister and to mitigate the negative effects of inequality on the Australian economy and the Australian community.

This bill is a simple yet powerful measure that will ensure that the Australian government, by way of the Productivity Commission, has an easily accessible institution to measure inequality in our country. Many might ask why the Productivity Commission is best suited to perform this function. The Productivity Commission is more than just an advisory body. Its work sets the national agenda and provides a basis for substantial change—as seen, for instance, with the reliance by the FWC on the Productivity Commission's report into last year's despicable penalty rates decision. As stands, the Productivity Commission is not required to take inequality into account. Although its enabling legislation currently requires it to have regard to a wide variety of factors, such as the need to promote regional development and to ensure that development is ecologically sustainable, there is no reference to inequality. This is a problem because there is an emerging consensus that increasing inequality not only has social justice implications but also has macroeconomic consequences. Inequality restricts access to social, economic and other opportunities, which limits intergenerational mobility and imposes society-wide cost through lost economic opportunities.

Inequality influences patterns of consumption and demand in ways that restrict economic growth. This bill aims to correct this by expanding the Productivity Commission's mandate to explicitly include consideration of inequality. It does this by requiring the Productivity Commission to consider the importance of mitigating the negative impacts of inequality on the Australian economy and the Australian community when exercising its functions and requiring the Productivity Commission to produce a report on the extent of inequality and its effects on the Australian economy every five years on the same timetable as the Intergenerational report.

In determining the merits behind this bill I would like to inform the Senate of some alarming trends currently faced by our nation. Australia's inequality level is the challenge of our time. Inequality in Australia is at a 75-year high. Wealth is growing more quickly at the top. Over the past four decades, real earnings for the top 10 per cent have risen nearly four times faster than they have for the bottom 10 per cent, and the trend of increasing inequality will continue unless we arrest it. Extreme levels of inequality are incompatible with how we as a nation see ourselves. Almost three-quarters of Australians agree the differences in income are too high. Australia doesn't have the extremes of inequality that we see in other countries such as the US, but it is below the OECD average. Two and a half million Australians live below the poverty line. Inequality is a drag on economic growth and a destabilising force. The OECD has estimated that, from 1985 to 2005, inequality reduced growth amongst member states by almost five per cent. Rising inequality in leading nations has been named as one of the drivers of the financial crisis. High wealth concentration was a destabilising factor in extremely deregulated financial markets.

We should talk more about inequality and we should do so armed with the numbers. An inequality report would do three things. Firstly, it would establish measures for economic inequality in different dimensions such as geography, gender and age. The government can't respond effectively if the problem is not measured, and the community may remain unaware of the extent to which inequality is connected to social and other outcomes. Secondly, it would access the effects of economic inequality on the economy and on individuals. It would ask, 'How mobile we are?' and 'How is inequality affecting people's life chances?' You only have to look in the remote regions of the Northern Territory and the rest of Australia to see how people struggle. Accessing the effects of existing government programs on economic inequality is a critical part of the policy development cycle. And, thirdly, it would access personal struggles with inequality—in particular, as I said, in the Northern Territory. The poorest regions in the Territory also have very high inequality. These are the vast regions that encircle the Darwin area, called Daly, Tiwi, West Arnhem and East Arnhem. Of course, there are regions with varying income levels that also have relatively low inequality ratios—for example, the region of Molonglo in South Canberra.

I have to talk about the gap in child mortality. The target to halve the gap in child mortality by 2018 was certainly not on track last year, and the target to close the gap in life expectancy by 2031 is not on track. Interestingly enough, we're coming up next week to the Closing the gap report on life expectancy, health and education for first nations people in this country. The attendance rate for non-Indigenous students remains steady at 93.1 per cent, but progress will need to accelerate for that target to be met. Halving the gap in employment by 2018 is not on track. As our shadow finance minister, Jim Chalmers, outlined in his recent book, Changing Jobs: The Fair Go in the New Machine Age, it's certainly a remarkable achievement that Australia has maintained a record quarter-century of uninterrupted economic growth, especially when this period contained the greatest global downturn since the Great Depression. However, the gains of this growth are increasingly flowing to the top end of town. We see this way too often.

In the Northern Territory, as a Senator for the Northern Territory, I travel to our remote regions and towns. Equality is absolutely necessary in terms of transportation and access. At this time of year, with the wet season, half of the Northern Territory is impacted quite dramatically by heavy flooding, as we've seen with the evacuation of residents from the Daly River region last week to Darwin. Huge thanks, obviously, to the Northern Territory Emergency Service, Red Cross and other personnel involved with the evacuation.

Again, the measuring of inequality is certainly quite critical for the constituents of ours in the Northern Territory and the remote regions of Australia. I am certainly confident that this bill is a step in the right direction. I commend the bill to the Senate.

10:16 am

Photo of Jane HumeJane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Productivity Commission Amendment (Addressing Inequality) Bill 2017, a private senator's bill introduced to the Senate by our colleague from New South Wales Senator McAllister. I'm very pleased that Senator McAllister shares the coalition's passion for decreasing inequality in Australia so that all Australians can have a fair go—after all, Australia has long been heralded around the world as the land of the fair go. But what is less pleasing is that Labor would once again commission yet another study into the problem of inequality rather than tackle it head-on.

You see, the Labor Party so often seeks to appear to be taking real steps to solve today's pressing issues, but in reality the Labor Party is unashamedly just sitting on its hands. By contrast, the coalition government is addressing inequality with policies to boost economic growth, general employment and income for hard-working Australians, while targeting assistance to those who need it most. We don't just want to be seen to be doing good; the coalition is actually doing good.

Before I address the substance of this bill, allow me to first highlight what some might view as a glaring flaw in the bill itself. I wish to draw the Senate's attention to the fact that Senator McAllister's bill links the timing of the reports to the intergenerational reports that are produced by the Parliamentary Budget Office every five years. An inequality report must be tabled, according to this bill, within 15 sitting days of the tabling of an intergeneration report. However, the intergenerational report is produced by Treasury, not by the Parliamentary Budget Office, which is a significant flaw in the bill that we are discussing today. So this bill can't have any effect, because the PBO won't be producing the intergenerational report. Although, undoubtedly, the intent of the bill is sound, it would appear that it was potentially hurriedly prepared—and, let's be frank, it's a politically motivated piece of legislation that would in fact have very little effect.

Australia's tax and transfer system overwhelmingly directs assistance towards those who need it the most. According to the ABS household expenditure survey, the poorest 20 per cent of households, on average, receive welfare payments and social services worth more than eight times that which they pay in taxes. This is evidence of how our social welfare net is working effectively to assist those Australians who need it the most, ensuring that conditions are available for them so that they too can prosper and grow as contributors to our nation's great economy.

Recent data has supported the notion that income inequality outcomes in Australia have in fact continued to improve since the dark days of the global financial crisis, and that's thanks to a strong and resilient economy. For example, the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey—the HILDA Survey as we know it colloquially—released in June 2016 found that the percentage of Australians in both relative and absolute poverty has in fact fallen since the global financial crisis around 10 years ago. Absolute poverty has in fact decreased substantially, from 12.9 per cent to 3.9 per cent, and relative poverty has similarly decreased from 13 per cent to 10.4 per cent. Furthermore, the HILDA Survey shows that, thanks to a robust economy that facilitates social mobility rather than fosters inequality, most 'poor' households are not persistently poor, and this is particularly important. Half of those who experience poverty over a 10-year period remain in poverty for only one to two years.

In keeping with these findings, the government took steps in the 2017-18 budget to encourage greater workforce participation, and it also protected the welfare system for those who need it the most. Meanwhile, in stark contrast to our own track record, those opposite are talking. They're prevaricating, they're equivocating and, rather than developing a policy, they are commissioning yet another study. I can't believe that the opposition has not learnt from years gone by, and I remind those in the chamber of the years of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. In the lead-up to his campaign he promised study after study after study and, as his term as Prime Minister showed, the people of Australia dismissed this as window-dressing. The people of Australia do not want that kind of do-nothing government, big on announcements but devoid of outcomes. Rather, what Australians expect of their government is a government that gets things done, working in a methodical, logical and timely manner to improve the lives of everyday Australians. Alternatively, the coalition government, on the other hand, is doing exactly what coalition governments are expected to do and what they have done since time immemorial—what they have always done. The coalition government is getting on with the job. Our priorities and our policy agenda are to secure the essentials that Australians rely on and to work to reduce the cost-of-living pressures in this country.

I am thankful for the opportunity this private senator's bill provides me to speak a little about the Turnbull coalition government's program to reduce income inequality in this country. One of the coalition's flagship policies is of course the enterprise tax plan. It was justified by a recently released journal study, courtesy of The American Economic Review. According to that study, titled 'Do higher corporate taxes reduce wages? Micro evidence from Germany', higher company taxes in Germany actually led to reduced wages and thus to greater inequality. The study I cite is particularly useful in the Australian context, given the similarity of our labour market to that of Germany. The study finds that workers bear about half of the total tax burden, a figure that is congruous with the 50 per cent corporate burden often quoted by Treasury. Examining administrative linked data from the 18,000 tax changes across 10,000 municipalities in Germany between 1993 and 2012, this study found that higher company taxes in fact reduce wages most for those who need our help most: low-skilled workers, women and younger workers. The study also noted that higher-skilled employees are not affected at all.

All of this points to a simple fact: cutting company tax rates improves inequality.

In spite of this, the Labor Party continue to meet our enterprise tax plan with downright hostility, stubbornly dismissing it as trickle-down or neo-Liberal Reaganomics. As the aforementioned study demonstrates, those who the Labor Party purport to look out for the most—women, young workers and low-skilled workers—are those who stand to benefit the most from our enterprise tax plan. That's right: contrary to the member for Maribyrnong, the Opposition Leader, Bill Shorten's assertion that our tax plan is a cut for the top end of town, it is in fact women, young workers and low-skilled workers who are the main beneficiaries of our corporate tax cut. As per usual, the Labor Party are all talk. They pretend to look after the little guy, but, when push comes to shove, all they want to do is bash job-creating companies and look after union cronies. So artificial, in fact, is the Labor Party's concern for hard-working Australians that they refuse to support legislation to ease the tax burden for those who need it most. When will the Labor Party learn that higher taxes of any kind are not the answer? We cannot tax our way to prosperity.

Furthermore, the coalition government's budget repair measures are designed to reduce debt and deficit—a symptom of the addiction to spending that is solely attributable to the Australian Labor Party; an addiction for which all Australians are now paying dearly. Our measures reduce the debt and the deficit; they increase the ability of the government to respond to economic shocks in a way that supports economic growth and employment—two factors that are key in reducing income inequality. As the most recent round of job figures showed, the coalition's policies to increase employment and grow the economy are working consistently and are working effectively, with a record of more than 400,000 jobs created in 2017, of which, I remind the chamber, 300,000 were full-time. And, furthermore, in addition to our strong jobs growth, we have seen rising profitability and a gradual tightening in the labour market as companies are finding it harder to find skilled workers. As such, all the primary drivers of wages growth are now in place, and we expect, as do many prominent economists such as Chris Richardson and Saul Eslake, that the so-called income recession will now come to a rapid end. Attendant on the expected wages growth is swifter budget repair and an end to the crops of debt and deficit sewn and grown by Labor over those six fateful years.

In addition to creating jobs, the government has introduced a range of measures to rein in spending and improve the sustainability of Australia's social safety net—a social safety net of which we are immensely proud—all whilst ensuring that the welfare system remains one of the most precisely targeted in the world. With the support of the Senate, more than $37 billion worth of budget repair measures have already been legislated, including measures from the 2014-15 budget that comprise part of the omnibus savings bill that passed with the support of the opposition, and for that we thank them.

Our 2017-18 budget, building on the success of the omnibus savings bill, seeks to grow the economy to secure more and better-paying jobs—the kinds of jobs that are required, that are necessary, that are fundamental to a 21st century economy. The budget, as expertly put together by the Treasurer, the Hon. Scott Morrison, also guarantees essential government services that Australians rely on, such as Medicare, hospitals and schools, all in spite of the scare campaigns that emanated from those sitting opposite.

Our budget tackles cost-of-living pressures, many of which are the result of the disastrous former Labor government, and, contrary to our predecessors, ensures that the government lives within its means. All of these measures, working in concert with one another, are about continuing to redress inequality and ensuring that there isn't a single Australian who cannot access the assistance that he or she needs, while fostering the prosperity and growth of all Australians.

One of the core features of this coalition government's agenda has been guaranteeing the essentials, protecting and boosting essential services that Australians rely on. As we have endured the so-called income recession, Australians have come to place even greater faith in the government's range of essential services. And so it should be, for the first duty of a government is to protect and keep Australians safe and ensure that critical services they rely on are guaranteed. These services include health care, housing, disability support, education and, in particular, employment. This coalition government is, most importantly, guaranteeing Medicare, making funding fairer for students and sharing the responsibility of our higher education system.

Our essential services give Australians the security and confidence they need to seize opportunities as they arise. First and foremost, this government is tackling the cost-of-living pressures on Australian households. The 2017-18 budget eases the cost-of-living pressures on Australians and their families particularly in the areas of energy, housing and childcare costs. On the energy front, the National Energy Guarantee, unveiled by the Minister for the Environment and Energy in October last year, will further ease cost-of-living pressures on Australian households, with expected savings of up to $400 per year on their energy bills. The government's energy security plan will help provide reliable and affordable energy for Australians, with practical reforms designed to meet immediate challenges and lay the foundations for our future energy needs.

Hardworking families have faced increasing childcare fees, with costs growing by 51.7 per cent between 2008 and 2016. This has placed a significant strain on household budgets and presents a hurdle for Australians considering returning to the workforce. To assist around one million hardworking Australian families, the government is investing $37.3 billion over five years through its Jobs for Families Child Care Package, which will help ease the cost-of-living pressures and provide more affordable access to quality child care.

Australians will also get a better deal from our financial and banking system, with the government giving consumers access to free, fast and binding dispute resolution services—making banks and their executives more accountable and giving consumers greater access to and control over their banking data, empowering them to seek out better and cheaper services. All of these measures are real, genuine and productive steps in making sure that Australia continues to improve on measures of inequality.

Finally, as part of our commitment to ensuring that all of our older Australians are able to enjoy a comfortable and dignified retirement, the government will reinstate the Pensioner Concession Card for those impacted by the asset test changes introduced in January this year. This will allow an extra 92,000 people to access the discount offered to holders of the Pensioner Concession Card, including subsidised hearing services, offered by the Commonwealth. Furthermore, these people will continue to be able to access discounts offered by the states and territories.

So it becomes clear that this coalition government is working to redress inequality by guaranteeing essential services, and the most important essential service is Medicare. Contrary to the despicable 'Mediscare' ad campaign run at the last election by the Australian Labor Party, this coalition government can assure all Australians that not only is Medicare here to stay but also it will be significantly strengthened in the future. The government is guaranteeing vital healthcare services, with Commonwealth health funding expected to increase from $75.6 billion in 2017-18 to $82.6 billion in 2020-21.

The Medicare Guarantee Fund was established on 1 July last year to secure ongoing funding for the Medicare Benefits Schedule and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, guaranteeing Australians access to these services and affordable medicines into the future. The fund provides transparency around the cost of running the MBS and the PBS and guarantees the government's commitment to funding affordable health care that all Australians rely on. Not only is Medicare guaranteed but it will be made stronger under this coalition. The government will provide a billion dollars to lift the freeze on the indexation of the MBS, to encourage GPs to bulk-bill children under the age of 16 and concession card holders. Bulk-billing incentives will also be indexed from 1 July 2017.

When the Gillard government introduced the National Disability Insurance Scheme to parliament in November 2012, there was only one small problem—it was not fully funded. As they are wont to do, the Labor Party came up with a piece of legislation and passed that legislation but conveniently forgot that it must be paid for at some point if it was ever to become functional. Fortunately now, though, for those Australians who rely on the services provided through the NDIS, the Turnbull government has acted to fully fund the NDIS scheme. If my memory serves me correctly, I also think it was Mr Shorten, who is part of the party which now rejects the true Gonski funding that excludes unfair and special deals for particular education sectors. The Gonski program is also now fully funded.

The only failures, I believe, are those of the Labor Party, who have wrecked and resisted at every step of the way the government's economic plan to repair the budget, grow the economy and create jobs. Our achievements in implementing the national economic plan stand in stark contrast to those opposite, who show no sign of waking up to the economic challenges facing hardworking Australian families and Australian businesses. I thank the chamber for its time.

10:36 am

Photo of Helen PolleyHelen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader (Tasmania)) Share this | | Hansard source

I'm pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate on the Productivity Commission Amendment (Addressing Inequality) Bill 2017. If you needed any more clear or stark reinforcement of why we on this side, and the Australian people, say that this government is out of touch, you only had to listen to that speech or take it off Hansard because, obviously, the government is living in a different community than we are in Tasmania or in Australia. They just don't understand the difficulties. The reality is that there is greater inequality in this country—much greater than there was when they came to power over four years ago.

I support this bill and I'm very proud to be in a party that is so evidently committed to addressing inequality, one of the greatest social and economic issues facing the nation. The bill amends the Productivity Commission Act 1998 to expand the general policy guidelines for the exercise of the Productivity Commission's function to require consideration of inequality. This bill and fighting inequality are things Labor wholeheartedly supports—unlike those opposite—and, unlike those on the other side, we even acknowledge it. Last year, the Treasurer, Mr Morrison, said inequality hadn't got worse. But it's time to come back to reality. Under the Turnbull government inequality is thriving. Wage growth is at an all-time low. The cost of living is paralysing families. Thousands of vulnerable older Australians can't access care, and the government's health cuts are bankrupting families. Homelessness and housing stress are national crises. Where is the Prime Minister on all of this? He is busy obsessing over his own political woes; he's obsessing about whether he's able to keep his own job. When it comes to the recent polling, we note that No. 26 was rung out this morning—so there are only four more before he reaches Tony Abbott's 30 negative polls, which this Prime Minister used to knife that Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister is so preoccupied he has failed to fulfil one of the biggest obligations that a Prime Minister of this great country has, and that is to know and understand what's happening in our community. He has failed to listen, failed to act and failed to understand what Australia's most vulnerable people are struggling with. Those opposite have taken the low road one too many times, and even their most loyal supporters are turning away. If you were to say to me, Senator Bilyk, that Malcolm Turnbull had a bit of a tough time in 2017, I would give you an award for the understatement of the year, because 2017 was an absolute shocker for the Turnbull government. After a particularly tumultuous year you might have expected them to bunker down and re-emerge in the new year with a resolution to be better and to be different. But 2018 started the same way for the Liberals as 2017 ended—in a complete shambles. From their divisive Trump-style comments about gang violence in Victoria to the delay of the GST report to the revelations that our broadband speeds are now lagging behind Third World countries or the clumsy tirade on China's Pacific affairs, we're seeing more of the same old disorderly government. They've kicked off this year with no direction, no plan and, above all, no narrative.

As a former investment banker, you'd think that Mr Turnbull would have the economic nous to manage the economy and address the cost of living that's paralysing families in this country, in particular those on very limited incomes, such as older Australians. But his elitist approach to economic issues such as tax and housing affordability has created an us-versus-them culture. People are switching off and feeling disenfranchised. In Mr Turnbull's first speech of the year last week he vowed that 2018 would be a year of delivery and that families could look forward to cheaper energy prices and lower childcare costs. What a load of bunk and rot from the Prime Minister.

Last week's Productivity Commission report confirmed that childcare costs continue to skyrocket under the Liberals and that it won't get any better under the government's changes, which won't take effect until 1 July. The Liberals don't support early education or our early educators who do such a critical job. Next month, childcare workers will walk off the job in a bid to raise the industrial-law award wages. This will be the third national walk-off in 12 months, but, again, the Liberals aren't listening. It's not like these early childhood educators want to take these measures, but they are left with no choice. Parents support them; this government ignores them. This says everything about this government's priorities. While Australians have suffered record low wages, it has pursued penalty rate cuts and tax hikes for low- and middle-income earners while cutting tax for millionaires and big business. That's what this government prioritises.

Mr Turnbull is an elitist and the Liberals are so out of touch with the Australian people that it's not funny. From that speech, the first speech in this chamber this year from a Liberal, they've demonstrated very, very clearly that this government still doesn't get it. This government still doesn't understand what's happening in its own community. You might recall on Q&A last year when Mr Turnbull condescendingly asked an audience member to explain how he had disappointed her. How disingenuous can you be? That's the level and mentality of our Prime Minister: too worried about his own job and too big an ego to listen to what's happening in the community. Mr Turnbull has spent most of his life within the top one per cent of wage earners in this country. How can someone who has lived a very privileged life relate to parents who will be trying to balance their family budgets as they buy new school uniforms, school shoes, books and lunch boxes for their kids as they go back to school this week in Tasmania? It's no longer a question of whether Mr Turnbull can relate to the majority of the population, because we all know he can't. The magic number, as I said, of 30 Newspolls has arrived, and no amount of smoke and mirrors can hide the fact that he can neither lead and govern nor close the gap of inequality in this country.

This is a government with the wrong priorities and the wrong vision for Australia. The Prime Minister needs to understand the heartbeat of the country's people. The Prime Minister needs to understand the hardship that's been experienced by so many—too many—in this country. The Prime Minister needs to understand the heartache of parents having to say no to their kids when they can't do music lessons, when they can't do swimming lessons and when they can't dance with their friends. He needs to get real and start showing some heart for Australians who are less fortunate.

Those opposite think that if they give a tax cut to the big end of town, to big business, who do not pay their fair share of tax already, there will be economic growth and jobs created. I'd like to ask the Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, to explain to me and the Australian people when in history tax cuts for big business have stimulated job creation and caused wage growth. I know he can't answer that, because it hasn't happened. The drivers of an economy are the people. How about you focus on them, Mr Turnbull, just for once?

Last week, Mr Turnbull said that life in Australia was good as a result of the coalition's economic policies and that his government are committed to defending the fair go. That is absolute nonsense. It's rubbish. We heard from a government senator just before I began to speak saying that everything is all right, that they've got everything on track. The problem is that they don't understand and they aren't listening to the Australian people. I don't know who these government senators and members are socialising with or visiting or who the constituents they see in their offices are. Obviously they're very different to the people who have contacted me or the people who have talked to me in the supermarket or around a barbecue over the new year.

The government can never defend the fair go until they change their priorities and policies. They are an arrogant government who are so far out of touch it's not funny. Comments from the Prime Minister that everything's all right and that he's going to defend the fair go reinforce the fact that he just doesn't get it. He doesn't listen or understand what is so evident. He doesn't understand the struggles happening in our suburbs and for the rest of us. The Prime Minister doesn't understand the pressure Australian households are under, and he doesn't care that one in four parents are going without food so that their kids have enough to eat. Instead of focusing on big issues like stagnant wage growth, the rising cost of living, access to affordable health care and housing affordability, we've seen a government fixated on itself. It's comments like those from the Prime Minister which reinforce that the government don't understand and that they haven't been listening.

There are so many people in our communities who have legitimate concerns. Most Australians are focused on putting food on the table, paying their bills, paying their mortgage or paying their rent. But this government is too preoccupied with satisfying millionaires and the big end of town. There are single mums and single dads who are trying to make ends meet by having two jobs. They are also many, many two-income families who are still under increasing financial pressure, and that puts enormous pressure and stress on these families and individuals. Mothers and fathers have lost their jobs because industry is under pressure and government has not reacted fast enough.

And then there are the older Australians, the people forgotten by those opposite. We know the crisis confronting older Australians in this country. It's financial, but it's also about care. It's about the 100,000-plus people who are still waiting to get a home-care package, to get assistance to stay in their homes. Let's face it—we all know that the best place for older people to age is in their own homes. It's also a lot less expensive for every government to have people stay in their own homes. Let's not forget that. They still pay their rates. They still have to pay their own hydro bills and their heating and energy costs. So the least that this government can do is to ensure that older Australians who need assistance to stay at home, to live safely and have the dignity and respect they have earned, get it. But this government has failed.

It's not just this government. We remember the Howard days. They were in government for 11½ years and, even though people thought that John Howard was a man of the people and the man of the poor, he always failed to deliver for older Australians. And this government is no better. There are older Australians in my home state of Tasmania who are forced to wait in ambulances or in queues at emergency departments because there are not enough beds in the hospitals. We know that, in Tasmania, older people have been left on the floor in accident and emergency departments. Why? Because the Liberal state government and the Turnbull Liberal federal government have cut funding to health. The Tasmanian health system is in crisis. Only last week, the head of surgery at the Launceston General Hospital resigned because he couldn't reach an agreement with the minister and the government of the day. He left because they took away all his power to make decisions. That's the calibre of Liberals when it comes to health care in this country.

There's never been a more important time for government to be actively promoting equality of opportunity than now. It's in our national interest. The people are sick of hearing those opposite bang on about their sterile, unrealistic slogans, such as 'jobs and growth' and the 'innovation agenda' and the empty rhetoric of trickle-down economics. I don't have an economics degree, but I do know maths and I do know the numbers. I know the number of people who are still trying to get jobs in this country and the number of people who are doing it really tough in this country, and trickle-down economics will not change our economy for the better for those people who need it most.

We need a renewed debate on the role of government in reducing inequality—something that the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, continued last week. This brings me to the contrast between Labor and the Liberals. Of Australia's two viable governing parties, only one has a policy approach that will defend opportunities—the Australian Labor Party. Last week, the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, outlined Labor's vision for 2018 for a fairer, stronger and more inclusive Australia. The contrast between Mr Shorten's and Mr Turnbull's first speeches for 2018 couldn't be more stark. Mr Turnbull used his speech last week to cement the fact that he is the ultimate hollow man of Australian politics. As my colleague Mr Chris Bowen said, 'Malcolm Turnbull talking about income tax cuts is like the English cricket team bragging about winning the Ashes.'

Malcolm Turnbull, in his Toowoomba declaration last week, bragged that he will cut taxes for Australians, when he's increasing the taxes of seven million Australians. The fact is that Malcolm Turnbull is increasing taxes for seven million Australians so that he can cut taxes for multinationals and millionaires. He wants a medal for saying that he might cut taxes, when we know that he is, in fact, increasing them. Under Mr Turnbull's tax increase, someone earning $60,000 gets a tax hike of $300 a year. Meanwhile, he's giving millionaires a tax cut of $16,400 a year and big businesses a tax cut of $65 billion. If Mr Turnbull was really fair dinkum about tax, he would drop his tax increases. All his talk and jibe about tax increases when all this government wants to do is increase tax through the Medicare levy is just hollow rhetoric.

Fact: this is a government that wants to increase income tax, and the Labor Party stands against it in this place. Fact: the only thing stopping Australians earning less than $87,000 a year paying more income tax today is Bill Shorten and the Labor Party's opposition to this government's ridiculous policy. Fact: the Liberals are so delusional and out of touch they think that, if they give a $65 billion tax cut to big business, who do not pay their fair share of tax now, there will be economic growth and jobs will be created.

I could go on and on about the inequality in this country and the fact that this government is still out of touch. Inequality in Tasmania is already impacting many households, as I said earlier. We in Tasmania already experience high levels of inequality and underemployment. In fact, nearly 40 per cent of Tasmanians receive some form of government benefit. This is well above the national average. We know that Mr Turnbull doesn't like Tasmania because we didn't support him; we didn't vote for him at the last election. But he still has to respond to the desires and ambitions of all members of this country, including Tasmanians.

Most income in Tasmania is generated from wages and salaries. Other income is produced in the form of pensions and child payments. However, all income is then further reduced by taxation and other increasing costs. Any impact on our income stream, such as the Turnbull government's cut to penalty rates further, reduces our ability to support normal basic living costs, education and health. Clearly with this low wage growth any rise in unemployment in Tasmania will lead to defaults on mortgages and consumer loans and could have catastrophic results for our state. We have already lost 4,700 jobs in the last 11 months. We cannot afford for this to continue under Malcolm Turnbull or the Liberal state government of Tasmania. We need action. We need leadership. I know I'm asking too much when I ask to have leadership from this Prime Minister, but the Australian people deserve nothing less.

10:56 am

Photo of Claire MooreClaire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | | Hansard source

In December 2014 this Senate brought down a report with the title Bridging our growing divide: inequality in Australia: the extent of income inequality in our nation. It was a very concerning report, for the very reason that we had seen that the issue of inequality—we're talking about 2014—had been discussed both in our own community and internationally and that a range of recommendations and issues had arisen that focused on exactly what the issues around inequality were. As you know, our process of developing reports includes taking evidence from a range of experts across the nation and, most importantly I think, having the opportunity to visit communities all around our nation and to listen to people who genuinely care about their lives, about their communities and, in this case, about what they perceived as genuine inequality—a situation in which our nation was actually not responding to fairness, not actually going forward with equality but identifying a clear danger that the inequality would impel our society and our community as we knew it.

Well, the report came down, and a number of recommendations were made. I know many people in this place made contributions to the debate, and several months later the government responded and said that in fact there wasn't inequality in Australia. The government's response to that was particularly concerning because it went back over so many of the arguments we've already heard in this place, which were simplistic, and came up with simple answers, saying things like, 'Well, it's not as bad as it used to be' and 'If we get the budget right it will improve' and various other things. I'm not trying to verbal the government, but I'm trying to encourage people who are interested in this topic to go back and have a look at the build-up of evidence, community concern and personal stories showing how people feel about their lives and whether or not they believe that things in fact are equal and whether it's getting better.

So, this report came down. Within that report was a particularly worthy piece of documentation provided by Professors Peter Whiteford and Andrew Podger, which was a graph—and we had many, many graphs in this report—showing results of selected studies of inequality in Australia. It didn't go back to Federation, although it possibly could have. Nonetheless, it took a time frame and gave us a bottom line about which we could have our discussions and look into what we should do next. It began with the Bradbury study in 1992 and then went through over 30 studies up to Bray in 2014. It gave a synopsis about whether or not these reports indicated growing inequality. The reports all looked at our community—not the world, not the international aspects, but what was happening in our own communities. They consistently said that there were serious concerns. I will quote from the ABS's Survey of Income and Housing—and it's a long one which sounds like economics, which is not my strength, but I'm going to put it on the record:

While the mean household net worth of all households in Australia in 2011-12 was $728,000, the median (i.e. the mid-point when all households are ranked in ascending order of net worth) was substantially lower at $434,000 … This difference reflects the asymmetric distribution of wealth between households, where a relatively small number of households had high net worth and a relatively large number of households had low net worth …

This was then illustrated in a series of graphs that came after. The survey went on to focus clearly, and I have deliberately made that quote because we're looking at people who had income, who had strong income, as I noted. We weren't talking about the gap between the wealthiest and least wealthy—those who are very poor in our society—which is sometimes where this debate focuses, showing that great gap. It talked about people who were already in income-solid families and showed how that inequality had increased. However, it went on to show stats, which I know have been quoted in this debate, that over 1.2 million households, which is 14 per cent of our community, had net worth of less than $50,000, with 114 of those households having negative net worth—one per cent of all households. That's where it really hits home, where, despite many protestations made over many years, there is clear acknowledgment that there are people living in our community, who are our neighbours, who have not only limited income but negative net worth.

Discussions around inequality and income often degenerate into a war of graphs and statistics, and I'm not saying that that is always bad. It's important to understand the statisticians' information, and that we have very clear data—and I'll come back to that later. In the Australian context, we have a range of academic institutions that look carefully at what's happening in our communities and a number of universities have very strong research areas that follow the economic inequalities and livelihoods of Australians.

The key Australian Bureau of Statistics data came out of two surveys: the Household Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey, the HILDA; and the Survey of Income and Housing, the SIH. These surveys provide ongoing statistics that look at what is happening in our community, and it's on that basis that Treasury also make statements about income such as the one I read earlier.

The whole reason we're having this discussion about this piece of legislation is that we want the Productivity Commission, which is an economic based organisation that lives and breathes statistics and how the economic process impacts on our community, to have a more regular high-profile role in looking at exactly what's happening in inequality in Australia, and putting it to the forefront so that not only does it review these issues but, as often with productivity reports, they come back consistently to the parliament so that parliamentarians are able to discuss what the recommendations and findings of those reports are. The core issue is then to turn that into effective responsive policy. So, where we identify inequality, we're able to consider the reasons for the inequality and access the information that we have across the board. We can then look at how we can develop policy that identifies where people are in need and where people are not benefiting from other advances that are going on in our economy and respond to that. That is the job of policy development, and Senator McAllister's bill makes sure that we have that front of mind and integrally linked to the development of all policy that comes from what's happening in our community.

We know that we have data. We know that we have information, but I'm particularly keen for people who may be interested in this issue to have a look at Senate committee reports such as Bridging our growing divide: inequality inAustralia and many others that have come here. We have talked many times about individual areas that are disadvantaged and the particular problems some of our community have with getting solid financial security.

Beyond the statistics are the kinds of issues about which Senator Polley was talking. They're the people who have actually had the courage to come and talk with their parliamentary representatives about what's important to them and—sometimes with absolutely admirable courage and devastating honesty—talked to us about the terrible things that have happened in their personal lives and in their communities which have caused them to have the serious inequality issues that have brought them to talk to us. Whilst the 2014 report does not in a final report give a lot of data from communities and from representatives, when people who are interested go into the parliamentary records, read the submissions that people have provided and read the Hansard records of the public hearings, that's when the faces, the families, the immediate impact of financial insecurity and the growing inequality—and I state clearly that it is growing inequality—in our community become most real.

Senator Polley listed a number of gut-wrenching examples in her contribution. I refer meanwhile to the 2014 report, where we have the particular identification of sectors of our community who are most vulnerable. At the moment, one of the areas that is causing a great deal of distress for many of us is ongoing discussion with people who have disabilities and the impact of the absolutely clear evidence that shows that, for people with disabilities, the whole range—their income earning capacity, their livelihoods, their ability to have effective housing and education—is negatively impacted. The contrast between those families that are working with disability and those that are not is a clear area where there is need for effective policy to respond to that and acknowledgment that that is an area of need.

Chapter 4 of the 2014 report looks at particular areas. I want to pick up on one area about which I have spoken many times in this place: people with mental illness. The National mental health report 2013 said:

2-3% of Australians – around 600,000 people – have severe disorders …

…   …   …

Another 4-6% of the population (approximately 1 million people) have moderate disorders, and a further 9-12% (approximately 2 million people) have mild disorders.

The committee recommendations go on to say there's a strong correlation between homelessness and poorer health and wellbeing, especially in relation to mental health. The rates of labour force participation are impacted, and Mr Fear went on to say we know that only about 38 per cent of people with mental illness work full time, compared to 55 per cent of the rest of the population. He goes on to talk about the issues with Newstart and Centrelink. We have much more in terms of other areas, particularly regional disadvantage.

Many years ago there was a report put out that Wayne Swan was involved in which looked at postcodes. If you look at postcodes across Australia, you can zero in and see significant contrast between various postcodes in our community with regard to financial security, access to health and access to employment. That is a clear sign to all of us in this place that we have to acknowledge that inequality exists. We need to acknowledge that not everyone has been advantaged by the statements that have been made about the strength of the economy over many years. We do acknowledge there has been increased wealth, but acknowledging there's increased wealth does not remove the reality that there are people who have not been benefiting from these advances. We shouldn't run away from that, we should try very hard not to allocate blame about that and we should look at how we, working as a parliament, can respond to it most effectively.

At the moment there are a number of issues pulling together that give us in Australia, in our parliament, a very clear encouragement and opportunity to respond to the recommendation from the 2014 Bridging our growing divide: inequality in Australia report. It called for us to take the issue seriously and look at having a report to parliament about what is happening in our community. That's what Senator McAllister's private member's bill has done in recommending the Productivity Commission amendment.

Also, internationally—and I've spoken about this many times in the parliament—the world has made an agreement, across all continents and in all countries, that we can identify inequality in our own areas and then work together to respond to that. The Sustainable Development Goal: Agenda 2030 looks at reducing poverty and, most importantly, at how our communities can ensure absolutely—and this is the theme that we should all hold dear to our hearts—that no matter what policies are introduced or what happens in the economies, we are going to leave no-one behind. This, to me, sums up the debate around inequality. If we had genuine commitment to effective policy development in our country as we moved our policies forward, as we looked at responding to the various pressures that impact on our nation and if we genuinely made a commitment that we would develop policy that would leave no-one behind, we would not only be ensuring that inequality would be reduced but we would also be acknowledging that people need to have that security—that we can, in fact, have a 'leave no-one behind' agenda.

There are 17 Sustainable Development Goals, but the first one is to end poverty in all its forms everywhere. I know that's a challenge, but if we're looking at genuine equality we would be looking at removing poverty. The subclauses of goal 1, to end poverty in all its forms, go through the various things that were defined four years ago when we were looking at the evidence around developing the inequality report. We were looking at ending hunger and ensuring food security. There is devastating evidence in the 2014 report that talks about hunger in Australia and the impact that we're having in terms of food banks and kitchens which are being developed to ensure that people in our streets, in our communities, are not going without meals. I'll refer anyone who's interested in this situation to the evidence that was received there.

I think that sometimes we become very comfortable. In our own lives, we become extremely comfortable. When we hear about world poverty, we immediately think of something overseas—devastating malnutrition and things in our Pacific neighbours' countries, as Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells would understand. We don't think about our next-door neighbour in our own street in our own community, but the evidence we have from people who work in food kitchens and food banks indicate that there is poverty in Australia. If we're going to make an international commitment on the world stage to end poverty, that should mean everywhere. We should be looking at the data, the information and the people who are suffering from poverty, malnutrition and a lack of security in our own communities. In looking at that part of the Sustainable Development Goals, immediately we have a responsibility domestically as well as internationally. If we are to respond effectively to the Sustainable Development Goal: Agenda 2030, to which our country has signed up and about which we're going to make our first report back to the UN this year, we need to ensure that the data collection, information and education processes within Australia are addressing the identified issues of inequality, which are the same here as they are overseas.

They may well have lesser impact here. I'm not making a claim that Australia has the same desperate poverty as places that are suffering drought and famine, like central West Africa. I'm not making that claim. But I'm saying there is genuine inequality in our communities and we need to identify and address that, and then, as part of our genuine commitment to ending poverty in all its forms—to leaving no-one behind—we address openly what's happening in our own communities, using the data sources that we have. We have enviable data sources. In fact, the Australian Bureau of Statistics is seen as an international expert in looking at data collection, and one of the things we're going to be doing as part of the 2030 agenda is sharing our knowledge in this space with other countries. So let's use that effectively within our own community: address hunger, address homelessness, address housing shortages, address health shortages, address the environmental impacts of disasters and address what is happening in our own community overall—which is causing people to feel they're not respected and that they are not sharing the increasing wealth of our nation.

That's the hint of inequality. We have the opportunity to do something about it. We shouldn't dismiss it. We shouldn't pretend it doesn't exist or make comparisons showing that everyone is doing better so, therefore, everyone is okay. That's clearly not the case. When you hear people talking about their own experiences, they don't feel as though everyone is doing okay, and we have the capacity, as a nation, to respond.

11:15 am

Photo of Catryna BilykCatryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I'd like to start by thanking Senator McAllister for introducing the Productivity Commission Amendment (Addressing Inequality) Bill 2017 to the Senate. The provisions in the bill go to the heart of Australian values. There's no doubt that Australia is a prosperous country, but we're also a country that prides itself on compassion and egalitarianism. The principle of equality of opportunity—that old 'fair go' as most Australians call it—is a core Australian value.

This bill would ensure that the Productivity Commission, one of the key drivers of public policy development in Australia, takes account of this core value when it provides advice to government. The bill will achieve this in two ways. Firstly, it will amend section 8 of the Productivity Commission Act 1988 to add:

… the need to mitigate the negative effects of inequality on the Australian economy and the Australian community.

That would be added to the Productivity Commission's policy guidelines. This will ensure that as well as important considerations such as economic growth, industry performance, employment and regional development, the important Australian principle of the fair go is taken into account in the commission's work. The inclusion of inequality in the commission's policy guidelines has a great deal of potential to guide Australia's response to the issue. After all, while the Productivity Commission is an advisory body, their advice is given significant weight when it comes to devising public policy.

An example of that, as we have seen recently, is the Fair Work Commission's reliance on the Productivity Commission's report in their recent decision on penalty rates. It would be an interesting exercise to consider how the Productivity Commission's advice on penalty rate cuts for some of Australia's lowest-paid workers might have looked had they been required to take inequality into account.

The bill will also require the Productivity Commission to publish a report every five years on the extent of inequality in Australia. And this five-year cycle will be the same as that for the intergenerational reports produced by the Parliamentary Budget Office. We only have to look at the contribution of the intergenerational reports to public policy debate to get an idea of the potential impact these reports could have on shaping government's response to inequality.

What is proposed in this bill should really be uncontroversial, yet we have heard from senators on the other side of the chamber who speak in opposition to this bill. I really am a bit perplexed as to why they do that. On the airwaves, we heard the Treasurer, Mr Morrison, and the finance minister, Senator Cormann, deny that there has been a growth in income inequality in Australia. I am not sure what planet they are on, but it surely is not the same as the planet I'm on. Do those opposite truly and honestly believe that inequality isn't growing? If they do, surely they wouldn't have an objection to an independent report from a respected body like the Productivity Commission that could confirm this and settle the manner once and for all—unless of course they don't actually believe it. The fact is that those opposite know; they know that inequality is growing in Australia. And they know that the policies of their government are contributing to that, but they're obviously embarrassed to admit it.

The government's denial of growth in income inequality is contrary to the recent evidence. In October last year, the International Monetary Fund said that Australia was among the countries with the highest growth in income inequality. And the latest Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia—or HILDA, as we commonly refer to it—report, released in August last year, shows that following the election of the Abbott government, household incomes started to decline in real terms. The HILDA survey found childcare costs were soaring—I think most of us know that!—particularly for low- and middle-income families, and stated these may be 'acting to increase inequality'. It also found that mortgages for young Australians aged 18 to 39 had more than doubled since 2002. And no more starkly has Australia's growing income inequality been laid bare than in a recent report from Oxfam Australia.

Over the decade since the global financial crisis, the wealth of Australia's billionaires has grown by 140 per cent—140 per cent!. But at the same time, average wages have increased by 36 per cent and household wealth by only 12 per cent. The top 10 per cent of Australians own more than half of Australia's wealth, whereas the bottom 10 per cent own only 0.2 per cent. We also had a report in December last year from the Victoria University Centre of Policy Studies, which found that not only had wages growth hit record lows but the wages of the lowest-paid workers had not grown at all. A report in August last year on the Australian Digital Inclusion Index found there was a growing divide between the digital inclusion of people in high- and low-income households.

It's a matter of national shame, I believe, that in a country that is one of the most prosperous in the world in terms of average incomes we have three million Australians, including more than 700,000 children, who live below the poverty line. How can anyone deny that there's a problem with inequality in Australia when we have the 12th highest GDP per capita yet so many Australians living in poverty? But those opposite continue to bury their heads in the sand and deny that there's a problem when it comes to inequality—either that, or it suits them to deny there's a problem because it's their regressive policies that are contributing to the growing divide between the haves and the have-nots. Those on this side of the chamber, when we stand up for equality and fairness, often get accused by government senators of waging class warfare or the politics of envy. If there's one thing those opposite can be trusted to do and do well, it's to turn supporting fairness into a negative.

I want everyone to understand: the term 'class warfare' is just a clever way of ascribing a negative connotation to what is no more than advocating for a more just and equal society. That's what we on this side of the chamber do. Labor believes in fairness, believes in egalitarianism and believes these are values that Australians also hold dear.

As I've said time and time again in this place, the real class war is that being waged by the Turnbull government. It's being waged against the vulnerable and the disadvantaged on behalf of big business. And yet when Labor stands up for disadvantaged Australians it gets accused of starting the so-called class war that those opposite have been perpetuating for decades.

We have seen time and time again the government use their policies to target people on low and middle incomes. Just last year, the government cut $1.5 billion in family tax benefit part A, affecting 600,000 families. They have implemented changes to child care, which will make 279,000 families worse off from July this year. And, in a dodgy deal with the Greens, they made cuts to pensions that see some pensioners worse off by up to $14,000 a year. And this government also, through their so-called Gonski 2.0 education funding changes, will rip billions of dollars out of schools, including $68 million from schools in my home state of Tasmania over the next two years. This is on top of the billions the Abbott and Turnbull governments have already cut from education and health. Australia's access to affordable health care has been further exacerbated by the government's Medicare rebate freeze, which is making it harder and harder for low- and middle-income Australians to even see a doctor.

It's also worth mentioning the sustained attacks by the Liberals on superannuation. Under Labor a 12 per cent superannuation guarantee was due to commence in 2019, yet under this government the superannuation guarantee remains stuck at 9.5 per cent. Now it's going after the governance of industry super funds, despite those funds providing substantially better returns for Australian workers.

Sadly, while this government continues to attack low-income earners with its policies, it looks after its mates at the big end of town. Mr Turnbull has given a $16,500 tax cut to millionaires, and he's going to give away $65 billion of tax cuts to big business without any evidence that it will have a commensurate economic benefit.

We also have the consequences of inequality, which this government has failed to take any action to address. We have falling rates of home ownership amongst young Australians, who are finding it more and more difficult to get into the housing market. We also know that wages growth has slowed to a crawl, and this is eating into the incomes of ordinary Australian families. Wages growth is now at its lowest level in 20 years and has failed to keep pace with growth in the economy or company profits. Labour productivity has grown by 20 per cent over the last decade, but at the same time there has only been a six per cent growth in real wages—that is, less than one-third of the growth in labour productivity.

As an aside, there are a number of people in this room at this moment who have worked in the union movement—and I think we're all proud to have been union industrial officers or organisers or whatever role we held there, even though those on the other side tend to think there's a negative in that—and it's interesting to note that stagnation in wages growth appears to come at a time when the number of enterprise agreements is falling. But what do we get from the other side? Instead of trying to strengthen the enterprise bargaining system, we've got a government that's doing the bidding of its mates in big business and attacking trade unions at every single turn.

It's bad enough that more and more workers are being stuck on award wages, but many are also being exploited and underpaid. It reminds me of the rip-offs in the 7-Eleven, Pizza Hut, Domino's Pizza, Caltex, Bakers Delight franchises—and the list goes on—all the areas exposed by Four Corners.

We all know this government has done nothing—not a thing—to address sham contracting or the use of labour hire arrangements to undermine the pay and conditions of workers. The government has stood by while a pay cut of up to $77 a week has been delivered to 700,000 of Australia's lowest-paid workers.

Late last year there was an opportunity to restore these penalty rates. Mr Christensen had promised he would vote to restore penalty rates, but, sadly, he reneged. He did this spectacular backflip and, amazingly, he voted against a Labor amendment that echoed the provisions of his own bill. Unlike those opposite, Labor will continue to fight for low-paid hospitality and retail workers and the penalty rates that they rely on.

The other issue I'm reminded of, as I speak today about the policy failures of this government in regard to tackling inequality, is of course its lack of action when it comes to multinational tax avoidance. I've said this several times in this place before: not only has this government failed to take real action on multinational tax avoidance; when they came to power they set about reversing a number of Labor's reforms. Our legislation to plug loopholes in Australia's transfer pricing rules and anti-avoidance provisions and to crack down on companies overvaluing assets in international transactions was wound back by this government, handing back more than a billion dollars to multinational companies.

While this government has been crying about their own anti-avoidance laws, the Australian Taxation Office confirmed in the last round of Senate estimates that those laws had not netted a single dollar from multinational tax dodgers. In fact, much of the money that has been clawed back by the tax office was thanks to anti-avoidance laws introduced under Labor, which the Liberals of course opposed. It's pretty shocking, I feel, that more than one-third of large firms and multinationals pay no tax whatsoever, according to the most recent data.

Another failure that we've debated extensively is the failure of the government to crack down on bad behaviour by Australia's banks and financial institutions. I don't know how many years and how many hundreds of stories of inappropriate lending, loan fraud, bad advice and unfairly declined insurance claims the government had to hear before they finally—quite belatedly but finally—backflipped and accepted the need for a royal commission into the banks. They were dragged kicking and screaming into accepting that there was a need for a royal commission into the banks.

Yet another area where the government has failed to act is the use of discretionary trusts to split income and minimise tax. This is a mechanism used mostly by affluent households, and something which Labor has plans to address. Our policy is quite well targeted, in fact, and will not affect charitable trusts, deceased estates or people who work in or run a small business.

It's clear that Labor is serious about tackling inequality, while those opposite are not. While tackling growing inequality is a worthwhile end in itself, we should also recognise that there are other benefits. Often the debate around income inequality is framed as balancing it against the need for economic growth, but that is a completely false dichotomy. Analysis conducted by the OECD back in 2014 found that countries where income inequality is decreasing have faster economic growth than those where it's increasing. This is a view backed up by Nobel Prize winning economist Professor Joseph Stiglitz, who explained that low-income earners tend to spend a larger proportion of their income, thereby stimulating the economy. Inequality, Stiglitz argues, leads to lower consumption and weaker aggregate demand. This argument overturns the whole theory of trickle-down economics that we keep hearing from the other side, to which conservative governments tend to subscribe. Really, there's no proof that it works, but it suits those on the other side to use this process.

Of course, the other positive outcome of addressing inequality is improving people's access to economic opportunities. My colleague the shadow Assistant Treasurer, Dr Andrew Leigh, looked at this in 2009 as a researcher. Dr Leigh and his associates found that, in the 10 countries they studied, social mobility and equality of opportunity went down as income inequality went up. Social mobility and equality of opportunity decrease as income inequality increases. To be honest, this isn't rocket science. It stands to reason that the more resources you have, the more opportunities you have to further yourself. If child care is available and affordable, you can afford to take up regular employment. If primary health care is affordable, you're more likely to avoid the consequences of chronic health conditions. If education is affordable, you have more opportunity to further your career prospects.

As I've said, this bill should not be seen as controversial. It makes sense, if the Productivity Commission is going to take into account such things as ecological sustainability and regional development, that inequality should also be on that list. We know how important the work of the Productivity Commission is in providing advice on driving industry productivity and improving the performance of the economy as a whole. But—and this is what people really need to think about—without this legislation, put forward by my colleague Senator McAllister, we are relying entirely on the private sector for advice about inequality in Australia, because there is no mechanism that compels federal government to routinely examine inequality. This bill provides such a mechanism and makes it far more difficult for any government to avoid the uncomfortable question of whether income inequality in Australia is getting better or worse. This question, of course, is one that would be particularly uncomfortable for the present government, which explains why they are so opposed to this bill. The government, through their actions in some areas and inaction in others, are contributing to worsening inequality in Australia. It is therefore hardly surprising that they oppose measures that would help put a spotlight on inequality. This is just another sign of a government that is becoming increasingly out of touch with the concerns of ordinary Australians.

What those opposite don't like about this bill is, if the Productivity Commission advice for tackling inequality were to be added, it would place public pressure on the government to actually address the problem. Taking serious action to address inequality goes against the philosophy of those opposite. They hate to admit this, of course, because they know it's not a view shared by most Australians who believe in the fair go. The Liberals believe it is the responsibility of the individual, not society, to further themselves. Rather than it being your circumstances, your resources and your opportunities that influence your outcomes, they believe it is your own personal failure if you can't achieve success in life. This is a party that subscribes to the flawed notion of trickle-down economics, and its members honestly believe tax cuts to millionaires and big business will drive job creation and economic growth rather than just line the pockets of already wealthy executives. (Time expired)

11:36 am

Photo of Deborah O'NeillDeborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Innovation) Share this | | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution to Senator McAllister's private member's Productivity Commission Amendment (Addressing Inequality) Bill 2017. Inequality is rife in Australia. On this first occasion following the Christmas break, we have to talk about that very expensive and very colourful shirt the Prime Minister wore to a Christmas event in Sydney. The Prime Minister, lit up like a Christmas tree, showed up in a shirt that cost over $700 to feed the most marginalised and most disadvantaged. I think we're going to struggle to find an image in the course of 2018 that shows more powerfully how completely and totally out of touch with the Australian people this Prime Minister is. And it's not just the Prime Minister; the entire party that he represents is in a permanent mismatch between the lived experience of ordinary Australians who are struggling under the burden of increasing inequality and themselves, which is a hallmark of this government. Private members' bill debates, let's face it, in the Senate, do not always attract a great deal of attention. But this bill is actually a very important piece of legislation that, if enacted, has the potential to readdress a very significant flaw in the way in which the Productivity Commission looks at the plight of Australians, and that's why I applaud it.

Senator McAllister's bill would require the Productivity Commission to take inequality into account in the exercise of its functions. It is very important that it does, given the nature of our current society. The reality is, at the moment, it's impossible for it to do that because it is simply not enabled by the current legislative frame. The bill would also require the commission to undertake work to regularly report on the extent of inequality in Australia and its effects on the Australian economy and community. I want to endorse and echo all of the sentiments that were expressed by Senator Bilyk, in particular, her comments around the bifurcation that exists with those who are running businesses getting an advantage from driving wages down and increasing inequality. We know Henry Ford a long, long time ago doubled the wages of his employees so that they would have sufficient disposable income to be able to go out, save, and envision that they might too buy a model T Ford and that's exactly what happened. The reality is people have been cut to the bone in the amount of money they have at their disposal to purchase in their local community.

As a senator who lives on the Central Coast, who is happy to represent the whole of New South Wales, I will speak to the reality of families I met over the Christmas break on the Central Coast who were talking about how difficult it is to get their kids in uniform and back to school because they are so stretched. Energy costs, under the government of the Liberal Party at both federal and state level, have left New South Wales residents in a terrible state. The financial burden of those costs is making it very, very difficult for them to even get their kids off to a good start at the beginning of school—and I hope that I'll have sufficient time to make some remarks about the terrible cuts to school funding that are entrenching inequality into the future. But let me be clear: this issue of inequality should be at the forefront of economic debate, because inequality absolutely adversely affects economic growth and the quality of life of all Australians.

Senator McAllister's bill embodies core Labor values and reflects what would be the priorities of a Shorten Labor government—to deal with the reality that confronts ordinary, hardworking Australians, not the privileged few who have friends in the top end of town and can afford shirts that are worth $700. It is the Australian Labor Party that is committed to tackling the most significant social, moral and economic problems of our time, and inequality is right at the heart of a core problem for this nation.

Australians, perhaps in the course of this year, or certainly in the year following, will have a clear choice: a Labor Party that understands and accepts—and is willing to make policy to address—the growing gap between the rich and the poor in this country, a Labor Party that's committed to closing the gap, a Labor Party that contrasts with an out-of-touch Liberal government that doesn't see the inequality that it is itself creating and doesn't see inequality as an issue at all. We need a party that is committed to helping all Australians, not just the top end of town to the exclusion of all others.

Just last week, both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, delivered speeches that set the scene and revealed their priorities. The contrast between the two could not have been any clearer. Not once in his major address last week did the Prime Minister mention the word 'inequality'—not once. He doesn't see it. He doesn't get it. This is despite the fact that inequality on his watch is rising to levels that we have not seen in around 75 years. The Prime Minister didn't mention cost of living either, and only once in his entire speech did he discuss wages. This is despite the reality that Australia's record low wage growth is now at around two per cent and despite the latest cost-of-living figures showing that the cost of essential items is crushing Australian families.

I mentioned electricity, for example. The latest figures from the ABS tell us that electricity costs grew around six times more than wages. No wonder people on the coast and across the great state of New South Wales are feeling the pinch in their pocket, while the Liberal Party continues as if nothing is going wrong. This means that Australians are struggling to keep the lights on. Instead of recognising this reality, the Prime Minister stated that he will 'continue to put downward pressure on energy prices'. If he's going to continue what he is doing, he should at least be honest about what he is doing, which is putting upward pressure on prices. A failure of policy in this area is impacting every hardworking Australian. Take fuel, for another example. Fuel costs grew more than five times the growth in wages, and that means Australians are struggling to pay for petrol for their cars. The situation is not much better for health and education. The cost of hospital services and secondary education grew by more than double wages. Australians are struggling to pay for necessary health treatments and to send their children to school.

I visited rural New South Wales last year, where families in Cobar were speaking about the extraordinary cost of putting petrol in their cars to get to the health services that they need to access. As a senator for Western Australia, Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle, you know more than many this reality for people in regional Australia. The cost of health in the city is already a very big barrier for people, who are trying to get to a doctor just down the road, where they might be able to get public transport. Add to that, in the regions and the remote parts of Australia, the additional cost of putting petrol in your car—a cost that's risen at five times the rate of wage growth—and we've got a burden that's growing in an extraordinary way in the parts of this country that are supposed to be represented by the National Party, who are meek and mild here in the parliament and do not stand up for the people whose voice they claim they have. They do not fight for fairness for those from the regions.

Instead of discussing the struggles of everyday Australians of this kind, the Prime Minister's speech was focused on spruiking his $65 billion handout to multinationals and big business—$65 billion—while he's cutting funding from health and education and watching on and doing nothing about a failure of wage growth that's impacting every family pay packet that will be going home this week.

In 2018, the Turnbull government has learnt nothing. They're still fighting to protect that well-worn trickle-down economic agenda that they have so wedded themselves to. Policymakers worldwide know it's not working. Giving money to those who have the most and waiting for it to trickle down to the poor is a lovely notion that's been totally discounted by all economists worth their salt. Yet this government and a Prime Minister wearing that shirt on Christmas Day, insulting the group of people whom he was meeting that day, are completely out of touch with what's going on.

In contrast, Bill Shorten was focused on inequality, and Labor promises to deliver better wages for working Australians. This is because Labor's listening. Labor's heard time and time again from hardworking Australian men and women that they're struggling with record low wage growth and rising cost-of-living pressures.

Just yesterday, with regard to private health insurance, Labor made a very, very important announcement that we will cap the premium increases at two per cent in the first two years and also task the Productivity Commission with the biggest review of the industry in 20 years to improve the quality, value and affordability of private health insurance. It might not mean much to someone who can afford a $700 shirt, but most Australians are not getting the value from putting our money into private health insurance that they once were. Labor understands this, and that's why we want to take some of the pressure off families.

The reality is that, under Prime Ministers Abbott and Turnbull, average premiums have risen by 27 per cent while we've got the lowest wage growth in 75 years. So, families now, under this Liberal government who says they're looking after ordinary working Australians, are paying over $1,000 a year more than when the Liberals were elected—$1,000. That's a lot of money in any person's language. But, for the people in the seat of Robertson where I live, $1,000, I know, is a life-changing amount of money that I'd rather see in their pockets than in private health insurance.

According to Oxfam last year, Australia's 33 billionaires increased their wealth by $38 billion while the growth in wages for hardworking Australians hit record lows. And this is what we've seen under the Abbott-Turnbull government: time and time again, millionaires, billionaires and multinationals continue to increase their wealth and their profits while the ordinary hardworking Australian misses out.

Australian men and women are struggling to make a decent living. They're tired of the anxiety that's associated with insecure work and the rise of casualisation, and more so than ever. This is certainly not their fault. Australia has been described internationally—and we still hold onto this view of ourselves—as the land of opportunity, but fighting for equality of opportunity and social mobility is a fight that must continue every day, and it's certainly a fight that Labor is willing to take up to this government on their watch.

Research by the McKell Institute tells us that where you live is more likely than ever to determine your income. I grew up in an Australia where it was about how much passion you had to get out and use your talents and abilities that was going to give you opportunities. It used to be that you could get an education at any school across this country and you had a chance. But not under this government. Access to health services and education services and opportunities are dividing us like they have never divided us before. The rich are getting richer and richer by the day; those who are at the edge are being forced and forced and forced downwards.

Location—not your level of education—playing a large role in determining your income is not the sort of Australia that I want to be a part of. Under the Turnbull government's watch, there is no longer an opportunity for people to make their way out of difficult situations. There have been $65 million tax cuts for multinationals, billionaires and the banks. We know that there was a $16,400 a year tax cut given to millionaires. Instead of helping Australian men and women gain secure work, earn a decent wage and retire with dignity—as well as being able to afford a house and get a world-class education—the Liberals have decided to do what they can to help those who are doing just fine.

They're cutting funding from education, creating barriers to our world-class education system. Almost 10,000 students this year will miss out on a place in Australian universities because the Turnbull government has cut $2.2 billion from that sector. Our best and brightest, who need an opportunity for a proper education, have been cut away from that opportunity—further increasing the inequality that seems to be the passion of this government.

Under the Turnbull government, there are now 730,000 Australians unemployed, and, of concern, there are almost 1.1 million unemployed Australians who are looking for work and unable to find it—1.1 million of our fellow Australians, and the Turnbull government think they're doing a good job. They celebrate the unemployment figures, ignoring these nearly two million Australians. For our young people, the situation is even worse, with the proportion of young men and women working full-time continuing to fall in a stubbornly downward trend. That's since the GFC. Importantly, nearly one in five young people in the labour force want to work more but cannot. Again, that is something this government is ignoring.

The under-utilisation of our labour market is bad for the economy. Our economy will not be as productive as it could be unless people are spending, saving or investing. Beyond this, insecure work can cause, or be caused by, mental illness and mental ill-health; beyond earning an income, work is a source of social interaction and a way to gain a sense of purpose. This is particularly so for young people, and insecure work and unemployment—which we know is the hallmark of the world in which they are seeking work—can have a devastating long-term consequence on their education, on their employment, on their physical and mental health and on their capacity to contribute over a lifetime to the great nation we call Australia. Beyond not recognising the issue of insecure work, again, the Turnbull government fails to mention these sorts of issues in any of their speeches. Certainly, it was absent from the Prime Minister's speech last week. Australians need, want and deserve better wages, but the Turnbull government is doing nothing about that.

I want to, particularly, put on the record my concern about this absence of policymaking for middle Australia. We really shouldn't be surprised, because it does reflect the ethos of a Liberal Party to govern for the top end of town. They always talk about how close they are to business, but decent businesses—small businesses that are employing people on the ground—are paying good value for good workers. Sadly, they're not getting the support of this government.

I want to put on the record in the short time that remains to me that it's not just this federal Liberal government that has this attitude; Liberal governments across the country are embodying this same sort of out-of-touch approach to governing by no longer rewarding hard work with decent wages and by continuing to choose big business and the top end of town over middle Australia. Take, for example, the New South Wales Liberal government and their transparent desire to short-change 9,000 Sydney and New South Wales trains employees. These are dedicated workers who are seeking basic working conditions and fairer wages to simply support themselves and their families. For more than six months, the Liberal government—the sister to this government here in the federal parliament—have failed to make a fair and reasonable offer that the workers there can accept. When the New South Wales Liberal government have openly said they look forward to the day when their transport system is driverless, it is easy to see they have no respect for their workforce. It's been left to the Rail, Tram and Bus Union to fight to ensure that the men and women that they represent are not left behind and have the capacity to earn a decent wage under fair working conditions.

It's also an opportunity for me to put on the record that, as a Labor senator, I stand in solidarity with those workers, who, since having their whole workforce decimated by the Liberal government in New South Wales to the point where a new timetable has come in, are now being forced to work 13-hour shifts for 13 days in a row. They are trying to stand up for the New South Wales residents who use that transport system. There are issues of safety. Do you really want someone driving a train in the 13th hour of their 13th consecutive day? That's what New South Wales has been reduced to because of the cost cutting of the Liberals: essential services put at risk because of a lack of understanding of the need to deliver equality for all workers and for all Australians.

In closing, can I say it's left to the Labor Party and unions across Australia to deliver for those most in need in middle Australia, and it's exemplified today by Senator McAllister's bill.

11:56 am

Photo of Jonathon DuniamJonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Happy New Year, Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle! It's good to be back and engaging in some interesting debate. But I have to say, it is disappointing to come in and listen to contributions like the one just made. I have a lot of respect for Senator O'Neill, but some of the things that have been given to her to read out today don't quite stack up. Often, and over many years, this country's been referred to as the 'lucky country' and—as I think Senator O'Neill said herself—a land of opportunity. People have come here from distant lands over many, many years to make the most of what is on offer in this country, to take advantage of the wonderful opportunities and the level playing field that I thought we had in this country. Everyone has a chance to make a go of it here, no matter what sort of a background they come from.

Recently, we celebrated Australia Day, when many of us have the privilege of representing the minister for immigration and citizenship and reading out the minister's message at the Australia Day citizenship ceremonies. People come from wherever they've come from, countries that don't have the same nature and system of opportunity that we have here in Australia, and they seek out these opportunities that our country provides and offers to them. You talk to these people and you hear their stories about the countries they've come from and the conditions they lived under—often squalor and fear. Many of these people, under certain regimes in different countries, couldn't get ahead no matter what they did. And so they were looking forward to the opportunity to make a go of things here. These people often come here with nothing. Some people have sought refuge here as asylum seekers. Often they are at a disadvantage to those of us who were blessed enough to be born in this country, because they don't speak the language. So they start from way back there. Yet these people will take any opportunity that is thrown their way. I don't hear them complaining about it. They are grateful to have the opportunity here to be able to do these things.

My own mother-in-law came from Albania. She couldn't speak English. They had nothing with them when they came here and sought political asylum. They worked three jobs. My father-in-law, who trained as a cardiologist in Albania, came here and worked as a cleaner for an extended period of time at the Greenslopes Private Hospital in Brisbane. They did not take a cent of welfare. They've worked very, very hard since they've been here. They were at a disadvantage, compared to the situation that those of us who were born in this country started our lives with. But they made a go of it. They've done very well. And that's because this country presented to them opportunities that they did not have in their home country of Albania. They were not allowed to choose their line of work. They were not allowed to live in the town they wanted to. That is the difference.

Listen to Senator O'Neill and some of the other contributions from those opposite and you'd be tricked into thinking we're in some awful dictatorship where people are forced to work against their will at ridiculously low wages, where they don't have a chance to do what they want to do and improve the life of the next generation of their family coming through.

It's about equality of opportunity, which I was so pleased to hear Senator O'Neill mention, versus equality of outcome. We have opportunity. We have the chance to do something: to start a business, to study, to go and do something out of our comfort zone that may well yield a benefit, that may result in a profit or a promotion at work or a new job or something like that, something to improve our lives. In my view we should be nurturing that, not equality of outcome, where no matter what you do, however little you put in, you're guaranteed to get as much as the person who busts their guts over here and risks everything—mortgages their house—to start their business, to employ the 13 or 14 people that they employ in their small business. We should be rewarding those who want to put in, who want to make a go of things, who actually want to do something not only for themselves but also, through paying tax, for this country.

We talk, or at least Senator O'Neill talks, about these business people as if they're big moguls who sit in smoke filled rooms plotting to undercut workers in this country. It's madness. We have small-to-medium business enterprises in this country that make up a huge portion of our economy. They employ a huge number of Australians. They're the ones we're talking about. They're the ones we need to help out.

So I was pleased that Senator O'Neill talked about equality of opportunity, which is important, and we should protect that at all costs. But the rest of the rhetoric, the rest of the baseless claims that were made in her address, didn't stack up with that. They were all plucked out of thin air and they all pointed to the usual Labor stance of equality of outcome, which is the wrong thing to aim for. We should be aiming for and protecting equality of opportunity. We should be empowering Australians—young Australians, older Australians and new Australians. We should be motivating and encouraging them, not shaming them. This debate is all about shaming people who do well. It is talking about profit as a dirty thing. As I said before, people who run a small business, who have started up a business for the first time and have mortgaged or sold their home—maybe they're renting because they haven't been able to afford to buy one yet—are the ones who've risked everything to set up this enterprise which employs other people.

I commend and applaud that. I applaud those people who take that risk, who contribute to the economy, who aren't looking to government to sort their life out for them. They are taking matters into their own hands, and that's what we should be fostering. We should not be shaming these people into thinking they are doing something dirty and something wrong because they have done well in business and can afford to buy a nice car, send their kids to a good school and take their family on a holiday. This sort of debate is all about shaming those who actually want to do well, and that's what annoys me about this. It is something I'm ashamed of, that we in this country have this sort of attitude towards people who take risks, who put everything on the line, who have skin in the game, and—

Photo of Carol BrownCarol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Disability and Carers) Share this | | Hansard source

What schools would those be?

Photo of Jonathon DuniamJonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

There are many, many good schools, Senator Brown, and I will send you—

Photo of Cory BernardiCory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | | Hansard source

Ignore the interjection, Senator Duniam.

Photo of Jonathon DuniamJonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I accept your admonishment, Mr Acting Deputy President. I'm sure that Senator Brown, as a representative of the great state of Tasmania, agrees with me that we need to be fostering this attitude of reward for effort, encouraging rather than shaming people who wish to make a go of things in this country.

I take issue also with a couple of the things that Senator O'Neill mentioned in her speech—namely about people who can afford to buy $700 shirts. I don't know many, if any, people who would go down to the shop and pick up a $700 set of threads. If they do, good on them. This outrageous example of pointing to someone who buys a $700 shirt and then grouping everyone who is a small or medium business operator with the big end of town as nasty business people—this talk of billionaires and millionaires—who are trying to undercut the worker is madness. The people we are talking about here—people who run businesses, who employ other Australians—are not in that category at all. To inject all this rhetoric into this debate and try to paint a picture of a society in Australia where you've got lots of people drive around in Bentleys and everyone else having to hitchhike is just ridiculous.

So I don't accept the points that Senator O'Neill made in that respect. It is just that: rhetoric. It is just trying to make this debate more emotive than it needs to be. We need to be real about it and we should get real about this sort of stuff. Getting out into our regional communities, where there are lots of small-business people—farmers and the like—you would understand that this $700-shirt business is not real. It is just part of this flourish that they're putting into this.

If I can turn to Tasmania for a moment: I've been observing the state campaign in Tasmania. We're in a state election campaign. One of the Labor Party's candidates in Tasmania, a fellow by the name of David O'Byrne, who was a minister in the last government in Tasmania, penned a—

Senator Polley interjecting

I beg your pardon—I missed that interjection.

Photo of Helen PolleyHelen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader (Tasmania)) Share this | | Hansard source

The last good government!

Photo of Cory BernardiCory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | | Hansard source

Order! Senator Polley, interjecting is not helpful.

Photo of Jonathon DuniamJonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I will take that interjection, because Senator Polley says it was the last good government in Tasmania. Of course, there's another minister in this chamber who was part of that government, but I'd have to invite those in the gallery and anyone listening—the seven people across the country listening today—to go and check the scoreboard because, frankly, it was not a good government. It was one that left us with a mess in our state, and the last four years have been about fixing that mess.

I want to turn now to Mr David O'Byrne—the Hon. David O'Byrne, because he was a minister and has apparently earned the title 'honourable'. He penned an opinion piece for the Mercury dated 31 August 2017, 'Fighting to reduce inequality is the Labor Party's main task'. About two-thirds of the way through his opinion piece, he says in relation to Tasmania:

Inequality is represented by the one in every two Tasmanians who cannot read or write properly.

He's right about that. That's right. We do have a system which has, over many, many years, failed to support young Tasmanians—to teach them the basics. Our education system has not delivered what it should've done. We've been off experimenting with all sorts of different types of curriculums and learning systems. But I find it a bit galling when Mr O'Byrne decides to pen an opinion piece of this nature, having sat in government as a minister around the cabinet table as part of a government that wanted to close 20 schools in regional communities. He signed off on that and now has the gall to write an opinion piece saying that inequality is represented by these one-in-two Tasmanians who cannot read or write properly. If that is the case, in terms of fighting inequality in the state of Tasmania, my home state, how does closing schools—particularly in regional communities, where kids have to travel further to get to the next school if that one shuts, where there aren't all the supports of a bigger community and where the older generations certainly didn't have the educational opportunities that the younger generations may have—address inequality where kids can't read and write properly? That is something that he needs to answer for.

Photo of Nick McKimNick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | | Hansard source

As your own minister!

Photo of Jonathon DuniamJonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Senator McKim, I'm sure, would agree that some of the policies brought in in the last four years have been good—us being the last state in Australia to have schools that went through to year 12, kids dropping out at year 10 and often not going on to do anything else. Thankfully, now we are seeing students in these schools going on to finish their secondary education—about time. It is good, and the feedback has been good—from the students, from their families, from the communities in which these schools exist and from the staff as well. I know it's not convenient when the staff take a different line to the AEU in Tasmania, but they are welcoming it. They are embracing it.

Mr O' Byrne also goes on:

Inequality is the look on the face of Tasmanians who are forced to wait 12 months to get in to the RHH after testing positive to a bowel cancer screening because they can't afford to pay to see a private specialist.

There's been a lot of talk of cuts. The last government, the Labor-Green government in Tasmania, oversaw massive cuts. This is something that we see them try and sweep aside—put under the rug—so no-one can deal with it. They cut 250 nurses from our hospitals statewide. How does cutting those supports, those vital frontline workers—which, I might add, the Hodgman Liberal government have reinstated and then some—reduce the inequality that Mr O'Byrne is now concerned enough about that he's written an op-ed about it three years after he lost his seat in the Tasmanian parliament? Words are great, but back it up with actions. He went on, finally, to say:

An interventionist government—

aka big government, with lots and lots of public servants in nice big office blocks in Hobart, is the way to go—

lifting all boats on a rising tide through a strong vision and targeted action …

That sounds great, but to me it sounds like cutting down tall poppies, shaming those who do well, work hard and take a risk, and that is something I think we need to be aware of.

On the specifics of this bill, I heard Senator O'Neill mention in her contribution that the bill will enable the Productivity Commission to do something that it doesn't currently do. But, as I understand it, the commission under the current legislation isn't precluded from doing that. I feel that, in directing it to study something that it already can, this legislation is not entirely necessary. No-one is stopping it from doing that. It can do that, so, in that sense, it seems mildly superfluous. The bill provides for a report in the end; it enables the Productivity Commission to study, evaluate and compile a report on inequality. It doesn't change anything. The government still needs to do something after receipt of these reports.

Again, I'm pretty sure those seven people across the country who are listening to this debate, if they haven't tuned out already—

Photo of Helen PolleyHelen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader (Tasmania)) Share this | | Hansard source

Five have just switched off!

Photo of Jonathon DuniamJonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Five have just switched off, said Senator Polley. They knew you were up next! I'm pretty sure those people are sick of us just commissioning reports and having a gab rather than doing the things that address the issues that have been talked about in this debate.

I've already put on record my views about how best to assist those who want to get ahead, how best to provide equality of opportunity and not shame those young people who want to get ahead and try and do well. I encourage my kids to do well. I'm sure there are some opposite who will now say that I'm an elitist because I want my kids to do well, but I'm proud of any young person who does well, who does take a risk in life, who does try and improve the lives of others, particularly in our smaller, regional communities. Directing the Productivity Commission to undertake this analysis and provide a report to government is going to do nothing, other than allow us to line the shelves in our offices with yet another report that may well never see the light of day, that will just gather dust and that will not make a jot of difference to the lives of those people we're talking about now.

I'm a very strong supporter, having done extensive work with Senator Polley and other senators on the Community Affairs References Committee, of supporting those truly in need. We can never shy away from the fact that in this country there are people truly in need. But I don't think having support for those who are in need should come at the cost of assisting those who want to get ahead. That's the thing. I think this debate sometimes comes down to there being mutual exclusivity: you've either got to support those who want to get ahead, or cut them off at the knees and give it all to those who can't do well off their own bat.

You've got to wonder, though, if this bill passed, what would it would do for Australian families? They may be struggling to pay their power bills, as Senator O'Neill talked about. No-one's doing anything to address the cost of living. In Tasmania—and I'll need to double-check this—power prices under the Labor-Green government went up something like 65 per cent in the 16 years of government down there. We had an announcement yesterday in Tasmania, where the Tasmanian government, the Hodgman Liberal government, said that, if re-elected, they would leave the National Electricity Market, which would see a significant drop in power prices. That's the kind of thing that will help Australian families who are struggling with the cost of living and will assist in this debate about trying to make Australia a fairer place in terms of the burdens that are placed on Australian household budgets.

But commissioning a report up here in Canberra, talking about it in this big room and doing nothing much else, I don't think will help those people. It is about practical initiatives. It is about going out and listening to Australians and what matters to them. It's about putting in place measures and initiatives which will assist them to deal with the problems they face, which will assist them to take advantage of the opportunities that we have in this country, which, as I started by saying today, is the lucky country. It is the land of opportunity, as Senator O'Neill said herself. In terms of providing equality of opportunity, we should be nurturing the attitude that we want to see in our young people—of entrepreneurialism, risk-taking and things like that—so that, rather than waiting for the government to fix everything, they can get up and do it themselves. (Time expired)

12:16 pm

Photo of John WilliamsJohn Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I wish you all the best for the new year, Mr Acting Deputy President Bernardi, and I welcome Senator Jim Molan here as well. It's good to see you, Senator.

Photo of Marise PayneMarise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | | Hansard source

Team New South Wales!

Photo of John WilliamsJohn Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Team New South Wales—that's it, Senator Payne! Team New South Wales—here to fight for the good side of politics.

During the Christmas break I met with a couple of friends. They had a reunion of the Commonwealth Bank staff in Inverell just a week or so ago. Many of them are good friends, and I met with a couple there. The wife was telling me that, when she got married, almost 50 years ago, she worked for the Commonwealth Bank and she had to resign her job because, if you were married and a female, you weren't allowed to work in a Commonwealth Bank. So she had resign. And that was the case, probably, at many other institutions; I'm not just picking out the Commonwealth Bank. She had to reapply for a job. How unfair is that? That wouldn't want to be the situation today in any institution. I always say that life is about fairness and that people should be treated fairly and paid fairly. I have the opinion that, if a woman is doing the same job as a man, she should have the same pay as that man, and that is simply being fair.

Mr Acting Deputy President Bernardi, you would have been familiar with the Thai Amarin restaurant at Green Square. I remember being there with you one night. During the Christmas break, Silvie and John sold the restaurant and retired. Both came here as refugees from Cambodia. Silvie's father was murdered by Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, terrible people who were trying to overthrow the government. Silvie and her six siblings and her mother walked in their bare feet from Cambodia to Bangkok. They slept on the side of the road. They made their way to Australia as refugees and became great Australians, great workers. They set up their restaurant, worked hard and became very successful. That is what Australia's about. It's the land of opportunity. If you have a go, work hard, work smart and do the right thing by your customers, if you're in retail business—you provide a good product or a good service—you become successful. That's how it should be.

I'm very proud to say that I spoke about Silvie and John on Australia Day, both in Inverell and Glen Innes. We see how other countries have had to suffer like this, and luckily we haven't. I certainly hope we don't in the future. John, Silvie's husband, was also from Cambodia. They met in Sydney. John's father was also murdered, because he was in business. Pol Pot was a terrible piece of gear. Luckily, Silvie and John met. They married and were very successful in business. They had two lovely children, Janelle and Sean. They took up the opportunity that Australia offered. They were great refugees, great immigrants, proud Australians. Their siblings are still here. They've all done well. Their mother is still alive. It's a great success story from what was a terrible situation in Cambodia. That is what Australia offers—a land of opportunity.

We have good education. It could be better, of course. It could always be better. The funding has been put forward by Senator Birmingham, with a great program for fair funding throughout Australia for all public and private schools. We have good schoolteachers. I wish there was a bit more discipline, in many respects, in some of the schools. The discipline has probably eased off from our days—I can't say 'our days', Mr Acting Deputy President Bernardi; you're a lot younger than me! It has eased off from back in the sixties and seventies, I should say, when there certainly was a lot more discipline.

There is the NDIS, to treat those who are disadvantaged, those who are disabled, to see they have a fair, decent standard of living—

Photo of Cory BernardiCory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | | Hansard source

Order! It now being 12.20, the Senate will proceed to the consideration of government business.