Mr LAUNDY (Reid—Assistant Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science) (15:25): Between 2007 and 2012 I was happily working away in my family business but I was strongly of the opinion that this country faced real problems. In the four years I have been in this place—and the Leader of the Opposition talked about division—I have taken great pride in representing one of the most culturally diverse seats in federal parliament and standing up to unite our community at every turn. There is no us and them—and the Leader of the Opposition used that term in his speech. There is no us and them; there is just us. I have been saying this for four years. I am glad the Leader of the Opposition spoke at least a little bit about the numbers because the thing that drove me to this place—the thing that made me turn my back on my career for a little while before I go back to it—is the gross misunderstanding of the gravity of the challenge that this country actually faces. You hear the term 'structural budget' used—it is used day in and day out—but it is never explained. Between 2013 and 2014 former Treasurer Hockey brought down the Intergenerational report. It happens every 10 years and looks 40 years into the future. It belled the cat. In the next 40 years our population will grow in the 65-plus-age bracket at three times the rate that it will in the zero-to-65-age bracket. In 1910 in this country we introduced the pension. We set the retirement age at 65. Why did we do that? Because the average life expectancy in 1910 was 55. No-one got there. If you did, it was a rarity. The pension was a genuine safety net for those who were considered old in those days. In the next 40 years average life expectancy will reach 92 years of age for a female and 90 years of age for a male. You will work between 18 and 65 or 67, depending on where the retirement age is moved to, and you will retire after that. If you live on social security from zero to 18 you will most likely be the recipient of a public education and the recipient of universal health care. You will work between 18 and 65 and pay tax. Between 65 or 67 and 92 four out of five of us will live on a pension. That is the structural budget deficit. What does it look like? Where is the equality built into this system? The Leader of the Opposition so quickly passed over—he did use the term, and he was correct—the fact that almost one-third of the workers inside Australia's tax system sit in our middle tax bracket. That 37.3 per cent pay 28.7 per cent of the tax. Where has the equity always been in Australian politics? It has been in our progressive taxation system. As we speak our top rate of tax is 49c in the dollar. What does that mean for me coming from a business background? The Australian government is a joint venture partner with everyone who pays 49c in the dollar in tax. The Leader of the Opposition uses—and used in the election campaign—the example of the taxpayer earning $1 million. He mentioned the $16,000 tax cut for that taxpayer, which we took to the election. What he does not say is that if you earn $1 million a year in this country, under the scheme as it sits today, you will pay $460,000 in tax—an effective tax rate of 46c in the dollar. If the deficit levy expires, the marginal tax rate will go back to 47c in the dollar. That will mean that if you earn $1 million you will pay $443,000 or an effective rate of 44.3c in the dollar. If you earn the median wage in this country, $80,000, you will pay $16,000 in tax—an effective rate of 21c in the dollar. That is where the equality in this country lies and where it will always lie. Those opposite want to talk about the composition of those that pay tax, but they do not want to focus on what makes taxpaying fair. If you want to know what it is, here is the break-up: if you earn less than $18,200 a year in this country, you pay no tax, due to the coalition government. Opposition members interjecting— Mr LAUNDY: Yes, we abolished the carbon tax and we kept the tax-free threshold. One in five Australians pay no tax. If you earn between $18,200 and $37,000 a year—24 per cent of Australia do that—that is 2½ per cent of our tax take. If you earn between $37,000 and $80,000—which is 37.3, as the Leader of the Opposition said—that is 28.7 per cent of our tax take. Here is the kicker, 18 per cent of Australia sit in the demographic earning $80,000 and above, and they pay 70 per cent of the tax in this country. That is where the equality lies. The problem we have is sitting on the expense side, because of the structural budget deficit that I have explained. In the next four years, welfare expenditure in this country will move from $159 billion a year to $192 billion a year—an increase of $33 billion. Health expenditure will increase from $71 billion a year to $80 billion a year—an increase of 12½ per cent. Inside welfare, out of that $33 billion, pensions will increase from $63 billion to $73 billion—there is $10 billion; there is a third of the $30 billion. The NDIS, which was left unfunded by those opposite—a $5 billion black hole—will move from $33 billion to $53 billion. There is your $30 billion increase in those two categories alone. We have real issues in this country. The one thing I agree with the Leader of the Opposition on is that we have issues confronting us moving forward. However, there is no magic pudding economics. The troubles are real. They are demographic. We have fertility rates sitting at all-time lows. You need 2.1 children per woman under the age of 49 to replace yourself in this country. That is just replacement. Our fertility rates are sitting at 1.5 to 1.6—historic lows. It is not unique to any other First World economy; we are just getting there later. We are there, and we need to work together. The Leader of the Opposition wants division and he wants to sit here and offer all sorts of opinions up about the Trump campaign and the Clinton campaign. Well, I will tell you for the eight weeks of the campaign in Reid every morning within a half an hour of getting to a train station, I had people turn up in black shirts, green shirts and red shirts. I had people from the CFMEU yelling abuse to the point where I think they actually won me votes, but I felt like I was in the front lines of a US election campaign. Yes, he spoke about casual jobs. Why are there casual jobs—160,000 of them since September 2015? I will tell those opposite, because they have never run a business. You need flexibility since the GFC. You cannot increase prices, because of uncertain demand, and you need the flexibility of having casual workers so that, if the trade is not there, you can send them home. Why? Because, if they are there and you are not taking revenue, you lose money. I have spent four years in this place. I agree that so much of the US does flow this way— Ms Husar interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): The member for Lindsay will leave, under standing order 94(a). The member for Lindsay then left the chamber. Mr LAUNDY: The Leader of the Opposition sat there and told us about how much Bob Hawke and Paul Keating did to stop it, whether it is McDonald's, whether it is suing people—which was never around in my lifetime. You know what I hope never does come here, but I had a snapshot of it in the eight weeks in Reid—it is sheer and rank hypocrisy for the Leader of the Opposition to sit here and lecture, after he lied to the Australian people, bald-faced and looking them in the eye, telling us that we should go to a higher level— Mr Conroy: Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask that the member withdraw that. Mr LAUNDY: Member for Shortland, he lied. He looked Australia in the eye and told them we were selling Medicare. Ed Husic agreed to it in a 2GB radio interview. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Assistant Minister— Mr LAUNDY: He misled the Australian people. I withdraw 'lied'. He misled the Australian people. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Mr LAUNDY: He tricked them. Mr Conroy interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Shortland will return to his seat. Mr LAUNDY: He tricked them into voting Labor and, you know what, it was American in style. It has no place in this country. I know that on our side we will fight to stay above what those in opposition delivered for the eight weeks of the election campaign. Mr Conroy interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Shortland will return to his seat. There is a general warning on this House. The member for Newcastle is out of her place. The member for Bruce is out of his place. If there is any more of this behaviour, I will be removing them under standing order 94(a). Mr Conroy: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member withdrew the— Mr Hawke interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister withdrew. The member for Shortland will return to his seat. The member for Mitchell will not undertake a private debate across the House while one of his cohort is speaking.