I am proud to rise in support of the proposition that all of these measures be discharged from the Notice Paper, and I am proud to stand here with all of my Labor colleagues trying to put to bed the 2014 budget and the cruel austerity agenda that was once proudly propagated by this government when it sought to end what it called the 'age of entitlement'. And as previous Labor speakers have observed in this debate—well, it is not really much of a debate, is it? No-one from the government side has spoken, not even the Minister for Social Services. The minister, who is at the table, is not even paying attention to the contributions that are being made, as he tries to slink away from measures that he is, no doubt, personally deeply committed to but does not have the courage to advocate for in this place or in the community. The minister understands that, since that 2014 budget, the Leader of the Opposition and the Labor team have made the case to the Australian people that this kind of austerity is not acceptable. This government accepts that point politically, but it does not accept it in its heart. On this side of the House, we know that it does not resile from a single one of these measures. That is proved with a detailed look at the current budget and the current policy settings of this government, which continue to inflict pain on those who are least able to afford it, as the member for Jagajaga made clear. I hope to have time to draw out some of those measures.
What is striking about this government is that it is so utterly pointless. I wonder if the member for Wentworth can explain to himself, much less to the Australian people, what was the point in him replacing the member for Warringah as Prime Minister. It is unclear to me, and it is unclear to anyone reading the commentary following the budget yesterday. I hope that the ministers at the table might be able to enlighten us, but I suspect they will not even try.
It is becoming clearer and clearer this is a government that is completely dysfunctional as well as a government that lacks the courage of its convictions. But, on this side, we do not mistake that lack of courage for a lack of conviction; we know this is a government that sees inequality at a 75-year high and seeks to deepen that inequality. We see that in the agenda to continue to push for a $50 billion giveaway at a time of record company profits, at a time of record low wages growth—record low wages everywhere except in the revenue forecasts of this government of course. I am sure the minister will be a firm advocate to see—I do not know—public sector bargaining reflect the wage forecasts.
There is no interjection, is there? It is another cruel falsehood. I will make this point again: whatever is to be read from this notice of motion cannot be read in isolation from the failure of government members to speak to it, from the failure of government members to publicly disavow the so-called age-of-entitlement mentality. To be fair to Joe Hockey, who I hope is enjoying himself in Washington today, every day that the member for Cook is Treasurer, Joe Hockey looks a bit better it, doesn't he?
— Ms Macklin: That is a big statement. —
I fear I may have lost some of my colleagues. The former Treasurer, Mr Hockey, at least had the courage of his convictions. He set out his vision for Australia in a speech in London of course, a traditional place to debate Australian political issues—a homage to Menzies much like the member for Kooyong gave us yesterday. I guess, like the member for Warringah, they see Australia's best times as in the past, and we see that in so many of the measures, in the cruel way that they have dealt with paid parental leave in the last budget and in the way they continue to deal with it. Their vision of Australia's best times is that they are a long way behind us and that is clear in those cuts that continue. They do not have a vision for modern Australia. It is very clear also when we look at the measures that remain that they show no prospect of inclusive growth, no vision for an outward-looking Australia. The contrast between the rhetoric of the now Prime Minister on the day he sought the leadership of the Liberal Party and whatever story emerges from this budget could not be starker. Again, it raises this profound question: what is the point of him being Prime Minister, and what is the point of this government?
We see the member for Warringah—the member for Menzies—advancing an agenda, a cruel agenda but an honest one, one that they are prepared to articulate clearly, whereas what we see from those ministers who are active in the government, who hold significant portfolios, is they are continuing to prosecute this ideological war but they do not have the courage to set out the basis upon which they are doing so; instead, they seek to obfuscate at every turn. We have seen this most clearly in the positioning before the budget in how this government and Minister Birmingham deal with education. The effective imposition of a huge burden on students seeking to enter higher education, a ticket to a good life for them and a critical ticket in us being a high-wage, high skilled economy. The impositions on students and on our universities are a huge brake on Australia's growth, on all of us achieving our potential. And of course they sit very neatly—if that is an expression I can use—with dissembling and dishonesty when it comes to school funding, another cruel handbrake on Australia's future, denying every child every chance of fulfilling their potential.
We see the inequities emerge when we look around the country, when we look at what this $22 billion cut to school funding means. We know that today kids in remote and regional Australia, kids with disability, kids from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds and in particular Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander kids are not getting every chance to succeed in school and build the platform to a successful and healthy life. What does this government do? It delivers up a lot of words but not a lot of money. It uses David Gonski as a 'look away now pea-and-thimble trick' to distract from the fact that whatever they say, their commitment is to a vision of Australia that is small and mean, a vision of a Australia that is all about looking backwards not looking forwards, a vision of Australia which does not seek to bring out the best in each and every one of us and a vision of Australia which is all about division.
We take heart, on this side of the House, that we have made that case. The government's silence is eloquent on the fact that the opposition leader, the shadow minister at the table and others in the Labor team have persuaded the government not that they are wrong but that they dare not speak what they believe. The challenge for government members opposite is to make a case, treat politics seriously and engage in a battle of ideas, not a desperate scramble to survive. If there is any point to this place, it should be the place where we debate our competing visions for Australia's future. What do we hear? The silence has been deafening.
One of my other colleagues will, no doubt, seek the jump until such time as the government brings this embarrassing facsimile of a debate to an end. I bet they think that end cannot come soon enough, because this government does not have a vision for Australia. We see that at the individual level, with the cruelties that remain: the attacks on the most vulnerable in society. It is hard to exaggerate how offensive it is that this government's vision for the most disadvantaged is entirely focused, it would seem, on getting good tabloid headlines for beating up on people in the most unfortunate and unfair terms. Whatever this policy around drug testing is and wherever its genesis is, it is clearly not random drug testing. We know that. It is the same data-driven approach that Minister Tudge has demonstrated to be so effective in managing his responsibilities to social service recipients, consistent with a vision of Australia that is all about division, not about pulling us together. It is about blaming people.
Joe Hockey, the former Treasurer and member for North Sydney as he then was, at least had the courage to talk about 'lifters and leaners'. These members opposite say it under their breath. It does not mean that they do not mean it. It does not mean that they do not believe it. If they had changed their minds, they would say so. They would come into the House, put their hands up and say, 'The agenda we took to government and prosecuted under the member for Warringah was wrong. It showed no concern for ordinary Australians or any concern to advance our collective interests as a nation.'
— Ms Macklin: They're too terrified of him. —
Yes, they are too terrified of the member for Warringah. They should not be terrified of him. He has been tried and found wanting, because his agenda was not in the interests of Australians. The challenge for members opposite is to do one of two things: to come into this place and admit that they were wrong, or to support a different way forward—a vision for Australia and for all Australians that the Leader of the Opposition will articulate tomorrow night.