Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (16:40): I rise today to speak in the debate on the motion before the Senate on: The Abbott Government's vicious attack on low and middle income Australians. I think this debate is actually a debate between reality and fallacy. That is what the difference is between the coalition government and those opposite—the reality of the coalition fixing Labor's mess versus the fallacy of Labor believing there is nothing to fix; the reality of the coalition budget ensuring the fixing of the economic mess left by Labor versus the fallacy of Labor pretending that we are sticking it to low-income earners. Labor claims to be the champion of low-income earners, but it appears to be unrequited love. None of the seven federal electorates with the lowest median weekly incomes elected a Labor MP at the last election. If the ALP's economic game plan was what low-income earners wanted in this country, then someone forgot to tell the low-income earners of Australia! If the false hopes and pipe dreams peddled by the previous government were what low-income earners wanted, then why did they reject the ALP and the Greens? That is because low-income earners in this country tend to be tough—they are tough people, and they knew that tough measures were required, and they understood how much $1 billion in interest payments could actually deliver for their communities. If I go through the ranks in the 2012 electoral divisions, No. 1 was Hinkler with a median income of $940; then there was Cowper with $970, Lyne with $978, the electorate of Page in New South Wales with $999, Wide Bay in Queensland with $1,008, Lyons in Tasmania with $1,029, and Mallee in Victoria with $1,069. They are the seven lowest median income level communities in our nation, and all of them have elected coalition members as their local representatives. The MPI not only claims that there is a government attack on low-income earners; it claims that it is 'vicious', which means that it is with malicious intent, and that is the fallacy. The reality is that our only intent is for a stronger future, a sustainable future, a self-reliant future, for our nation. Labor has some nerve, coming in here accusing us of attacking low-income earners! Let us have a look at the reality of how the last Labor government treated low-income earners. It was the last Labor government that put an extra 200,000 Australians on the dole. It was Labor that ripped off regional students with drastic cuts to youth allowance. It was Labor that sabotaged our border protection policies, resulting in more than 1,000 asylum seekers drowning at sea. It was Labor that slashed $700 million from payments to single parents, and it was a Labor MP who spent the union dues of the country's lowest-paid workers on champagne and prostitutes. That is the reality. It is easy to expose the fallacy of Labor's claim that the budget is characterised by malice against low-income earners. There is no tax increase on low-income earners, but a temporary debt levy— Senator Singh: Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. Senator McKenzie is besmirching the name of Labor through the remarks she just made in her speech, and I ask her to withdraw them. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Gallacher ): There is no point of order. You are debating the issue. Senator McKENZIE: There is no tax increase for low-income earners but a temporary debt levy on high-income workers, those who earn more than $180,000 a year, and it is a levy I am more than happy to pay. I also support the pay freeze for federal parliamentarians and Public Service department heads. These are hardly vicious attacks on low- and middle-income Australia. This is an honest federal budget, something Australians have not been used to for awhile. We did not fiddle the figures and we did not put all the spending beyond the forward estimates. It is an authentic, realistic budget, compared to the fallacious surplus of the previous Labor government, promised 500 times but never delivered. It is a tough budget; it had to be. Labor inherited a string of budget surpluses and no debt. In fact, $60 billion was in the bank and, in just six years of Labor government, that money was wasted. We ended up owing $667 billion. That is the reality. That is half the Defence budget. It is about what we spend on aged care and it is more than we spend on universities. Senator Singh interjecting— Senator McKENZIE: You do not like to hear it, but these are the facts. The coalition did not create this Labor mess, but we have a duty to fix it. The Australian people elected us to fix it. We are the firefighters and Labor are the arsonists. The Abbott-Truss government's Economic Action Strategy will reduce the Labor deficits by $44 billion over the forward estimates. If we do nothing to the budget, as Labor planned, then we will not be able to afford the welfare and the education, health and defence systems that we currently enjoy. There is good news in the coalition budget for low- and middle-income Australians. The budget has plenty of good news, including infrastructure. Infrastructure benefits all Australians but particularly job seekers, as better infrastructure means more employment. We will invest $50 billion in infrastructure by 2019-20, strategically to grow our economic potential, to grow jobs. The budget includes major reforms to education, particularly in higher education. The deregulation of the university system has allowed Labor to screen $200,000 arts degrees, but the fact is— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator McKENZIE: and you do not want to hear it—that the cost of some degrees will go up and the cost of some degrees will come down, depending on demand. Deregulation will allow our universities to compete with the best on the planet, by giving them the freedom to innovate. It has been welcomed by the vice-chancellors of the very universities that service the lowest income earners in the nation. The Regional Universities Network has come out in support of the education initiatives that this government handed down last night. When we talk about health, how will the $7 co-payment for GPs visits affect low-income earners? We are actually making sure that there are safeguards within the budget to protect the most vulnerable. The Medicare safety net threshold will be adjusted to ensure that those most vulnerable in our society will still be able to access excellence in health care. The fact is that the Medicare surcharge and the Medicare levy only funds 20 per cent of our Commonwealth healthcare spend. It is unsustainable. If we want to enjoy state-of-the-art X-rays, state-of-the-art diagnostic tests and world-class health delivery from our GP right throughout the hospital system, 20 per cent of our federal Commonwealth government collection is not going to cut it. Older Australians will also be able to make a modest contribution. The pension age will rise to 70 but not for two decades. So that is time to prepare all you 35-year-olds to put some money away. That is the reality and it is a fallacy to believe that the working population in the future will be able to support a huge number of Australians living upwards of age 100. To conclude, the reality is that it is a tough but fair budget. However, Labor's claims that it unfairly targets low- and middle-income Australia is demonstrably false. Just get real! (Time expired)