David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Getting back to what I was saying about the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024, as I mentioned earlier, sure, the coalition is supporting cutting the tax rate from 19c to 16c. We support a simpler, fairer tax system but this isn't fairer. It is just moving tax cuts that were allocated to people who have worked hard, got ahead and been caught by bracket creep. Our tax plan was addressing bracket creep by removing the 37c tax rate altogether. Unfortunately, that has been abandoned; tax is now still payable at 37c in the dollar once you get to $135,000.

Our simpler tax plan was to get rid of that tax bracket altogether until your earnings were above $200,000. Now, 37c in the dollar is paid up to $190,000. I got the Parliamentary Library to go through the changes for my electorate. Silently and without any attention being drawn to it—except for people like me, who have a low-income electorate and who had lots of people saying: 'How come my tax refund has shrunk by over $1,000? I put in all the same claims last year!'—this government didn't enforce the low- and middle-income tax offset at the last budget. So the tax changes now are just returning some of the tax offsets that were in the system up until then. For instance: the first tax benefit that people in my electorate get is once they're above the $18,200, when they will save $78 over the year. And it maxes out at the princely sum of $804, less tax, up until you get to $135,000 of income. In the system that we had, that would have been $1,052 and, if the former Treasurer's announcements in our last budget had been regulated, it would have been $1,500. Because they are moving tax cuts that were destined, after we reformed the earlier stages of the progressive tax scale, for people who've worked hard and are trying to get ahead, those earning above $135,000 will be $246 worse off. They'll be paying more tax—up to $200,000, they'll be paying $4,500 more tax than they would have.

The economy is making the cost of living higher because of inflation. We've got interest rates that are up. People with mortgages are finding they've got $10,000 or $20,000 more in payments. We have housing shortages left, right and centre. And why is that? It might have something to do with the 620,000 people that have arrived in the country in the last year. That level of migration is inflationary in itself. The UK, with a population 2½ times that of ours, had headlines that it was absorbing 600,000 people, and they thought that was a massive increase. But with 25 million people, we have the same amount! That shows you how out of control migration is. We have to be sensible; we know we have skills shortages and that migration fills some of that, but if our own people can't afford to get a house, either to rent or to own, we really have to put the brakes on.

The other thing is: why is inflation being so resistant in this country? It's basic economics. We are spending too much money without getting productivity. We're not getting any wealth creation or efficiency in producing the same amount of goods with less money, or producing a whole lot more with the same money. But we have seen around this country an explosion in public servant administrative roles which aren't producing economic benefit. I'm not saying they don't go to work and work hard, but they're not creating a good or a service that we're exporting. We're just hampering the economy with more public wages.

We have an NDIS that is totally out of control; it needs major reform. It is a sacred cow that everyone thought was going to cost $12 billion a year. I was following very closely in 2012, when Prime Minister Gillard announced it, and it got bipartisan support because the deal seemed quite reasonable. Having worked in disability for most of my professional career in medicine, because they overlap, I could see there needed to be a change in the system. But the way it was designed, with the agreement of the states, has not been able to change it because no-one in the states would let the Commonwealth change it. But it is not sustainable. The member for Macarthur will appreciate this: the payments for the Medicare system, which are for 25.5 million people, are less than what the NDIS costs with 600,000 people. We have seen wages for unskilled people go through the roof because you can get a job working in the NDIS and be earning $32 or $33 an hour without any certificate—you just have to go through probity testing, turn up and work for a company giving personal care and assistance, or accompanying for outings. Everyone in my electorate is talking about it; everyone is saying it's outrageous.

I talked to other members in this House, and they said, 'Yes, it is pretty outrageous.' Is that not inflationary—spending more than $35 billion? I'm not trying to be angry at the people who are receiving the service, but it's the way it has been set up. It's uncapped, we've got hundreds of thousands of kids now—with a projected 160,000 more coming on—

Deputy Speaker Chester, it needs to be redefined. The minister responsible is talking about capping its growth at eight per cent. No, it has to be capped, and the definitions of who gets on it. The NDIA sets a lot of these costs—fixed equipment costs for catheters, colostomy bags, wheelchairs and disability aids. People with disability have said, 'How come my catheter now costs me three or four times what it was before the NDIS?' It's because there is so much money in the NDIS, and that's because it's uncapped. So all the suppliers are putting their rates up. Some of the ABN companies that have popped up have grown topsy-turvy, and it is not sustainable. So that is another inflationary thing where we are not getting value for money out of the spend. Unfortunately, there are plenty of people who really need a big, expensive package. They are being limited because all these lower-level disability people are getting extraordinary packages.

All the philanthropic groups that used to run on a block grant have now had all their easy cases taken by these new pop-up disability service companies, which get all the low-hanging cases that are easy to provide and they get paid a motza. I've had a nurse leave nursing—an RN—because she can make $130,000, and she doesn't do night duty or weekend duty. I've had builders who've started an NDIS company. I've had teachers who've gone into NDIS companies. It's a gold rush, and the poor disability sufferers aren't getting the benefit. We really have to address this.

That's one of the reasons why we've got inflation in this country, and we wonder why we can't get people to work in hospitality and in other skilled and semi-skilled cases. It's because a lot of them think, 'Hey, why would I do that really hard job when I can get paid $12 more?' I've had nursing homes in my electorate with newly built wards for dementia, and they can't open them because their nursing staff ratios can't be filled. And they can't get regular assistance in nursing. That's because—guess what?—they can get $14 or $12 more working in the NDIS during business hours. I had an abattoir that brought workers over from the Pacific; within two months a group of 20 islanders had virtually vanished from the abattoir. The owner of the abattoir rang me up and said, 'We went through hell and high water to get these people in to keep our abattoir working and, I didn't know where they've gone.' They had gone to work in disability, because they could sleep overnight in disability housing for a significant amount more money than working in the job that they'd been brought into the country to work in.

Unless we really address inflation, these tax cuts will go nowhere. It's a sweet spot for a year or two, but we really need to get back and address the bracket-creep thing, because it's a big issue. It was so simple; there's no crime in working hard and paying more tax— (Time expired)

Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's good news, Deputy Speaker Chester, because on 1 July this year, 13.6 million Australians are going to get a tax cut. Every Australian worker, every Australian taxpayer, will get a tax cut—and the vast majority of them are going to get a bigger tax cut than they would have under this miserable mob over there. I've just listened to the member for Lyne talk for about 15 minutes, complaining that workers in his electorate are getting paid too much. He's complaining that, somehow, the only people who have aspiration in this country are people who earn more than $140,000 a year. And he was complaining that workers who look after people with disabilities and work in the care sector are getting paid too much. He'd like to see their wages reduced.

I can understand that that's the position of the member for Lyne, because that's the position of the coalition. The Labor government has a very different view.

It has a very different view, as the member for Macarthur reminds me. In speaking in favour of these tax cuts in the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024, I'll also speak against the amendment which was moved by the member for Hume.

The member for Macarthur reminds me that the reason we're able to do this is because we've been managing the economy in a responsible fashion. For nine long years, the coalition promised to introduce a balanced budget. They had T-shirts and coffee cups printed promoting a balanced budget, but they never delivered one. Well, we've delivered one, and I can tell the House that the budget is in very, very good shape at the moment. And because it's in very good shape, we're able to deliver a better tax package and deliver better results for the overwhelming majority of Australians.

When it comes to managing the budget, we're also retiring debt. And for the love of all things sacred, haven't we needed to do that? Because when we came into government, we succeeded a government that gave us the most debt and the biggest deficit—in fact, not just the biggest deficit, the biggest two deficits—in our nation's history, and record debt approaching $1 trillion. I can inform the House that, contrary to the assertions made in the amendment moved by the member for Hume, we're retiring debt, and that we're retiring debt at a record rate: over 80 per cent of the new revenue that came through in the first two budgets delivered under the Albanese government has gone not into new spending but into retiring debt and paying down the debt of the Morrison-Turnbull-Abbott governments. Wages are growing. That offends the member for Lyne, as it offends the member for Hume and as it offends most of the members on the other side. But it doesn't offend us, because it's a deliberate strategy to get wages moving again. That's in contrast to those opposite, where the deliberate strategy—the design feature—of their economic plan was to suppress wages. They are moving again, and I, for one, am very pleased about that because there are two sides to the cost-of-living equation. They are: How much money have you got in your pocket? And how much have you got to expend on groceries, rent, mortgage, fuel and other things? Wages moving again is actually a good story. We're delighted that under our workplace relations reform we're making it easier for workers to bargain for a wage increase with their employer, enhancing productivity, but also ensuring that the lowest-paid workers in the country have got an award wage rise. It's a very good thing.

I'm surprised that the member for Lyne, like other members of the National Party, is opposed to it. The National Party represent the poorest electorates in the country, where they have the largest proportion of workers reliant on minimum award wages. It's extraordinary that a person could be elected to parliament but not go in to bat for the interests of the people that they represent.

Right across the board we're balancing the budget, retiring debt, getting wages moving again and ensuring that we're creating jobs. We want to ensure that, through our responsible budget management, we're able to bring those people up who are struggling and who need the support of the government. But the best thing that we can do as a government is ensure that we're creating the economic conditions to grow employment. I can tell you that there have been more jobs created under the first two years of the Albanese government than under any government in postwar history. It really is a tremendous record.

I said at the outset that 13.6 million people will get a tax cut. That's 13.6 million taxpayers. Whether you're in the highest tax bracket or the lowest tax bracket, you're going to get a tax cut. About 11.5 million Australians will get a bigger tax cut than they would have under those opposite. For the life of me, I can't see why they are so angry about what we're proposing to do. Average income earners will now be getting a tax cut of $29 a week.

I did see the Deputy Leader of the Opposition waving around a fistful of lobsters, saying that this was miserly. I've got to say that there's a touch of snobbery in that. I know that, in my electorate, in the member for Macarthur's electorate and in so many other electorates that we represent, if you put an extra $20 per week, let alone an extra $29 a week, in somebody's pocket—and that's real money—it makes a difference. I wouldn't be scornful of that and saying that it's not even worth it, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition did. She had some quite excited things to say about our plan. I don't know whether it's still the position of the coalition, but she informed all Australians, when we announced our plans, that if they won government they'd roll it back, that they'd reverse those changes. Maybe it is their plan; maybe it isn't. It's up to the member for Farrer, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, to clarify the coalition's position on that.

It didn't take me too long to form a position on it. When I look at the impact it has on my own electorate, around 70,000 people in the electorate of Whitlam will receive a tax cut. The national average—and this is a good story—is that around 84½ to 85 per cent of Australian taxpayers are going to be better off under our plan. But in my own electorate 87 per cent of taxpayers will be better off.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ninety per cent in mine.

Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's 90 per cent in the member for Macarthur's electorate. That's extraordinary. I don't know if the figures work out about the same in your electorate as in mine, but in excess of $1,500 per annum will be the average tax cut for people that I represent in this parliament. I'm very pleased to be doing that. Of course, it's not game over. There's much more to be done in that area as well. It comes on top of the work that we've done around energy bill relief. It's extraordinary.

I saw the member for Hume, the bloke who wants to be Treasurer of this country, on Insiders on Sunday. That interview was more like a game of touch footy than a game of tackle. Even under those conditions the member for Hume said that if he were ever the Treasurer of the country his mission would be reducing cost-of-living pressures on Australians. Well, that struck me. I could have fallen off my beanbag at the time—and that takes a bit of doing! When he's had the opportunity over the last 18 months—just checking to see that you're awake!—to vote in favour of cost-of-living relief, he's done the opposite. He voted against energy bill relief. When he had the opportunity to deliver cheaper medicines for Australia, he voted against that, and he's part of a party which is promising to roll that back as well. So, yes, newsflash: under a government led by Peter Dutton, we'll have higher electricity bills, more expensive medicines and the potential of rolling back the tax cuts that we're debating in the House tonight. Fee-free TAFE, easier access to doctors, cheaper child care—all of these things are 100 per cent focused on the needs of middle Australians.

There are a couple of things I've got to take up. I've listened to the talking points in the contributions of members opposite. If all you knew about Australia, Australians and the Australian workforce was what you heard from coalition MPs, you could be forgiven for thinking that the only people in Australia with aspirations to get ahead are those who earn $140,000, $150,000 or more. I have to say that's deeply offensive to every nurse, schoolteacher, brickie, sparky and chippie. To the vast majority—84 or 85 per cent—of Australians who earn less than that, that's deeply offensive. Each and every one of those people has aspirations to get ahead. Each and every one of those people has aspirations to look after their families and provide a better life for them. For members of the coalition to suggest that the only people who have aspirations are people on big salaries is deeply offensive, and it rubs against the grain of most Australians.

The second furphy I want to take on is the issue of bracket creep. Again, those opposite seem to have this idea in mind that the only people in Australia who are susceptible to the impact of bracket creep are those who are earning over $150,000 a year. What they seem to forget is that there are three tax brackets below that of those earning $150,000. In fact, if you analyse the impact of bracket creep on low- and middle-income earners, you see that they are the ones who are hit the hardest. What our tax package does is provide the most relief to the people who are hit the hardest by bracket creep, and it does so through these measures, which will come into place from 1 July. Far from the baloney that we've heard from the members opposite—and I suspect we'll hear a bit more in a tick—it's just not true that the only people in Australia impacted by bracket creep are those earning over $150,000 a year.

Of course, there is one group of Australians who are overwhelmingly impacted by bracket creep and overwhelmingly advantaged by the package that will come into effect from 1 July: we call them women. They are overwhelmingly impacted and they will overwhelmingly benefit from the bracket creep relief that is provided in this package, including reducing the 19 per cent bracket to 16 per cent.

The other confounded nonsense that is the basis of this ridiculous argument is that it assumes that no Australian government for the next 10 years will do anything about bracket creep. That's the nonsense: no Australian government will do anything about bracket creep for the next 10 years. Of course, that hasn't been true for the last 10 years, and it won't be true for the next 10 years. But this is the sort of confected nonsense that you're left with when there is no rhyme or reason, no substance or rational argument, that you can bring to the debate, when all you can rely upon is confected nonsense and imaginary assumptions.

It's better for women, better for middle Australia, better for aspiration and more effective in dealing with the bracket creep that is occurring in the here and now. We acknowledged that we had to do something for low- and middle-income earners because, under us, wages are growing. Bracket creep wasn't a problem under those opposite, because wages weren't growing under them. Wages are growing under us, and that's a good thing. We want to see wage growth and productivity growth, and we want to ensure that Australians get a slice of the benefits that come with living in such a wonderful country.

People might be wondering, and I know that there are people in the House who are wondering how is this going down in my electorate. I'm happy to report to the House that it's going incredibly well. Rebecca from Burrawang contacted me to say: 'Just to let you know that I totally support the proposed changes to the stage 3 tax cuts. Fairer and sensible.' Kristin from Kanahooka said: 'We are so pleased that the stage 3 tax cuts are now to look after those in middle to lower ranges of income. It was the right thing to do as people struggle with increasing costs of living.' Rachel from Shellharbour said: 'I, and I think many others, understand why this decision was necessary. It's important for a government to remain nimble, to be the adults in the room and adapt to unforeseen circumstances they find themselves in and do what's best for the majority of people.' I couldn't have put it better than Rachel from Shellharbour. Barry from Bowral said, 'I fully endorse the proposed changes to these stage 3 tax cuts.' And Alan from Bowral said, with a similar sentiment, 'Congratulations to your government.' The majority—

An honourable member interjecting—

My mother is looking down upon us from another place, but I'm sure she'd be very excited about what we're doing here as well! What I can say is this: quite simply, this has been endorsed by the majority of Australians. That's endorsed not only by the majority of Australians who vote Labor, or Liberal or in accordance with no particular party but endorsed and supported by the majority of Australians—which is why it should be endorsed by the majority of this House.

Aaron Violi (Casey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024 is an important piece of legislation to speak on, and there are two fundamental questions that need to be asked when we speak on this legislation. I noticed that those opposite are focusing on one—the tax cuts and the changes, and I will get to those. They're conveniently ignoring the other question that the Australian people are asking, and that goes to trust and integrity: why has the Prime Minister broken his word yet again on a significant commitment that he made over 100 times? We just heard the assistant Treasurer talk about this package and how wonderful it is. It raises the question: if it was so wonderful, why didn't they take it to the last election? Or the one before that? And why did the Prime Minister promise 100 times not to change it and not to break his word? 'My word is my bond.' That's what we will look at.

I have to admit that I don't know the Prime Minister that well, I haven't had the opportunity to spend time talking to him in the House. But I do know someone who knows him quite well: the former Guardian editor, now Labor media adviser, Katharine Murphy. She knows the Prime Minister very well, as we found out in the last few weeks. How did she describe this Prime Minister in late 2022? This is a direct quote from the Labor media adviser, Katharine Murphy, when she was the Guardian editor:

Power is his natural habitat, and he's spent a lifetime studying all its forms, covert and overt. In order of preference, Albanese is fascinated by power, politics, parliament, policy and process.

In that couple of sentences, she has outlined why this decision was made. It was about power and it was about politics. It was about a prime minister who was losing the support of his backbench because he has been distracted for the last 18 months and hasn't been addressing the cost-of-living crisis.

And this is about the politics of it for this Prime Minister. Let's think back to the words of the ALP national secretary, Paul Erickson, in their party room, which someone was nice enough to leak out to us and we were able to see it in the media. I quote from Paul Erickson, and it's really important that we listen to his words: ' You must look like you're responding, first and foremost.' That was about the cost of living. He said, 'You must "look like"'. It was not, 'You must solve this problem,' it was, 'You must look like you are responding.' That's what we're seeing today, and in question time, from all of those opposite. They're talking about what they're looking like and what they're doing. We heard from many of those opposite before Christmas. Here is a quote from an MP on the Labor backbench who wasn't prepared to put their name to it:

People just don't see us doing anything on issues for them.

There was a long list. The member for Bennelong, the member for Hunter, the member for Lyons and the member for Macarthur all spoke out publicly about this government being distracted and not focused on the cost of living post the Voice referendum. There were many other unnamed backbenchers that were making the same noises. That's what this is about. This Prime Minister broke his word to the Australian people. The question comes, and many in my community have asked me: 'I'm going to benefit. I'm happy. I need every dollar I can get, given everything is going up and up, but how do I trust this Prime Minister? What's he going to break his promise on next?'

But it's worse than that. It's worse than the fact that he broke his promise. You'd think it couldn't be, but it is. This is classic Labor politics. It's all about the headline. It's all about the spin. It's about the song and dance of what they're delivering. But let's understand what is being delivered by this government when it comes to cost-of-living relief. There is not an extra dollar for the Australian people today or all of February, March, April, May or June. The Australian people have to wait until 1 July to see any kind of relief from this government. When 1 July comes, what relief do they see from this government? Let's be clear: every dollar they can get is crucial, because this incompetent government that continues to make the wrong decisions is driving prices up for all Australians. They get $15 a week in five months. In the last week in my community, petrol was at $2.19 a litre, so $15 a week gets you seven litres of petrol. We don't have great public transport. We're out of the outer suburbs. You've got to drive everywhere. It doesn't get you very far. If it gets you from one side of the electorate to the other, you're very lucky.

It's quite interesting that last week the Treasurer talked about 'a day late and a dollar short'. I couldn't help but laugh, because last weekend that's exactly how someone in my community described this measure from this government. They're a day late and a dollar short when it comes to the cost of living. They've said 'cost of living' and 'middle Australia' more in the last week and a day in this House than they have in the 18 months before that, because they weren't focused on it. The Prime Minister himself at the Press Club admitted that circumstances have changed because his policies are failing. It is the incompetence of this government that is driving the cost of living up.

Not only are they making decisions that are driving energy up, inflation up and groceries up; they're also doing the old trick of taking with one hand and giving back with the other. In July and August of last year, many Australians were shocked, low- and middle-income earners in particular, when they got their tax return back. They were expecting about $1,500 or $1,600, but it wasn't there. That was because this government made a decision to let the low- and middle-income offset lapse. They took that money away from low- and middle-income Australians—$1,500 last year from 1 July—when Australians needed it. And they're now asking the Australian people to be grateful for the $804, the $15 a week, they're giving back after taking that $1,500. But the Australian people know how tough it is, that they need support, and that this government has abandoned them.

The CPI has increased by almost 10 per cent. If you're on the average salary, of $85,000, your purchasing power since Labor has come to government has dropped by $7,600, and this government says, 'Be thankful for $15 a week in five months time.' Food's gone up by more than nine per cent. Housing's gone up by over 12 per cent. Electricity has gone up by 23 per cent. Gas has gone up by 29 per cent. If you've got a home loan and a mortgage, you've experienced 12 interest rate rises under this government. Rents are at their highest since 2009. But this Prime Minister and this government are saying: 'Be thankful for $15 a week in five months time. Be thankful for that.'

But let's be clear: all of these increases are happening because we've got a weak Prime Minister who's not across the detail and is making decision after decision that is making it harder for the Australian public. He admitted that himself at the Press Club quite a few weeks ago. He's been distracted, and the Australian people are paying for it. As the Reserve Bank governor Michele Bullock, said in November last year:

… the remaining inflation challenge we are dealing with is increasingly homegrown and demand driven.

She is also reported as indicating:

While labour costs are a big part of the increase, huge increases in the cost of energy, rent, and insurance are all keeping inflation higher for longer. In the September inflation report, energy … prices increased more than 12% year-on-year and insurance premia increased more than 8% year-on-year.

But be thankful for your $15-a-week increase in five months time. I don't think you could be more out of touch than this Prime Minister and this government.

It's easy to talk about the numbers and the statistics, but I want to spend a moment to share some of the stories from my community. From a constituent in Healesville: 'I just received my car insurance renewal, with an annual increase from $971 to $1,690. These increases are not random. My circle of friends are all complaining of general increases of 60, 70, 80 per cent. Outrageous in these tough times.' From a constituent in the Upper Yarra, who recently turned 18: 'The cost-of-living crisis is getting far too out of hand, and Australians need some relief. This is my first year working. I work for $21.50 an hour in a factory far, far away from my home. My family has always struggled financially, but all of us receive an income. And, despite that, money still doesn't work out. I'm tired of worrying about this stuff. It's an extra burden when I'm meant to be in the funnest stage of my life. And the same goes for all the other kids my age in the Yarra Valley.' That's what we need. We need decisions that will actually address this cost-of-living crisis. The $15 a week in five months time is absolutely better than nothing, because who knows how expensive it will be to live in Australia in another five months under this government?

We talk about trust—and we've already seen the Prime Minister break his word. That leads to the other big question the Australian people have: are they prepared, at the next election, to write a blank cheque to this Prime Minister for higher taxes? That's what a vote for Anthony Albanese and the Labor government at the next election would mean. You'd be giving him a blank cheque for higher taxes, because he's shown that he's prepared to break his word if circumstances change. This will embolden him to do it again. Once you lie once, it's so much easier to do it again—

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Aaron Violi (Casey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Once you mislead the public once—

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you.

Aaron Violi (Casey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

it's easier to mislead them again and again. That's the question: what's next—negative gearing? We've heard, 'We've got no plans at this stage.' We've heard that script before. Will it be capital gains? 'There are no plans for capital gains.'

I'm nervous about this one, Member for Deakin. What about the family home? I stood in this spot last year in question time and asked the Prime Minister to rule out tax changes on the family home. It was worse than, 'No plans'. He didn't rule it out. He had three minutes to rule it out, to say, 'No, no plans,' and mislead the Australian people again. He wasn't prepared to do that. So, if he wouldn't even mislead us on the family home in question time, what's next? Franking credits? Superannuation? He's already broken his promise with the superannuation changes last year. Is there a death tax coming? Is there a tax on retirement? We don't know, but we know there are more taxes coming, because this government has to find money for its tax-and-spend agenda.

We've already seen the NDIS continue to go up and up, and the minister has said publicly that the reductions that they're looking for are a guide, a recommendation, and that it doesn't matter if we don't get to those. I know the Treasurer would agree with him, but I'm sure they can find some taxes to cover those increased expenses.

My community knows that this isn't the first and it won't be the last broken promise from this Prime Minister. When he was the shadow minister for infrastructure in 2019, he committed to a 10-year program to seal 150 kilometres of dirt road in my community. That program had bipartisan support for a 10-year program, and, in the first four years of that program, funded by the coalition, it was being delivered on time and on budget. It was saving lives. It was making it easier for residents, for businesses, for school students and for communities, getting rid of the days of the dust and the potholes in our community.

But this Prime Minister broke that promise as well. He pulled that funding. He pulled $100 million from my community to seal those roads so he could put it into Suburban Rail Loop, his own passion project with the then premier Daniel Andrews. It is a disgrace that he broke his promise on the tax cuts and that he's ripped that money out of my community.

Stephen Bates (Brisbane, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move the amendment as circulated in my name:

That all words after "House" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"(1) notes that these revised tax cuts will still make economic inequality in Australia worse by:

(a) giving politicians and CEOs on incomes more than $200,000 three times the value of tax cuts compared to the average worker;

(b) only providing the poorest 20 per cent of society with 0.4 per cent of the share of tax cuts next financial year, compared to the wealthiest 20 per cent of society who will enjoy half the total value of the tax cuts;

(c) exacerbating the gender pay gap, with 42 per cent of the tax cuts going to women and 58 per cent to men; and

(d) starving the budget by a jaw-dropping $318 billion over the decade, removing revenue that could support people who rely on aged care services, disability support, income support and families who depend on the public education and health systems; and

(2) calls on the government to redesign the tax cuts to not give the wealthiest in society $4,529 a year and instead redirect this largesse to expanding public services like mental health and dental into Medicare and financial support for those earning below the tax free threshold in this cost of living crisis".

Scott Morrison's stage 3 tax cuts would have delivered $9,000 to those earning over $200,000 and literally nothing to those earning $45,000 or less. The government's changes to stage 3 are an improvement, but they could go a lot further.

Let's not forget just how much this will cost this country. The projection is $313 billion over a decade. These cuts are due to come into effect in July 2024. They are still the most expensive and most inequitable tax cuts in Australia's history. If they were listed as expenditure, they would be one of the most expensive programs listed in the budget. They're still skewed towards higher income earners: a huge amount of money in this is still going to the people at very top. The wealthiest 20 per cent of society will get 50 per cent of the tax cuts. The poorest 20 per cent of society will get 0.4 per cent of the tax cuts. Even middle-income earners are getting short-changed, with politicians, CEOs and billionaires getting three times more in tax cuts than the average worker.

The Greens are the only ones in parliament to have consistently opposed the stage 3 tax cuts all the way through. I'm sure the Treasurer can attest just how many times I've asked him a question in question time about changing or abolishing the stage 3 tax cuts. We were unequivocal that this was tremendously bad public policy that would turbocharge inequality and widen the gender pay gap.

While the government cheers on these revised tax cuts—and they are an improvement—if we step back and look at them, they are still remarkably unfair and will result in poor public services, by blowing an incredibly huge hole in the budget. People who need aged-care services or disability services and those who rely on the public health system or the public school system are the biggest losers from these cuts.

It's high time we looked at tax reform in this country as a whole. Data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD, shows clearly that we undercollect taxes on wealth and pollution and overly rely on personal income tax. Our so-called tax debates have become so dishonest because they're driven by business leaders and corporate lobbyists—people who brag about the destruction of carbon taxes and fossil fuel taxes to the detriment of Australia's social services. These lobby groups have far too much influence in parliament, writing laws for themselves and having the major parties wave them on through.

Basic economics says we should tax things we want less of and subsidise things we want more of. But, here in Australia, we seem to do it the other way around. We are spending over $11 billion a year on fossil fuel subsidies, and we collect more revenue from HECS than we do from the petroleum resource rent tax. Students pay a fortune to study so the government can prop up the fossil fuel industry. All of us pay a fortune to go to the dentist so that the government can prop up the fossil fuel industry. Bulk-billing rates have collapsed so that the government can prop up the fossil fuel industry. This is about choices. If we want to transition away from coal and gas, we need to stop subsidising them and put that money into making people's lives easier. It's not complicated; it's just inconvenient for BHP and Santos.

Improving the stage 3 tax cuts is a start. We need to reduce inequality—inequality that has been rampantly increasing in Australia. If we're serious about having a fair society, about having a fair economy, about improving the lives of all Australians, about tackling climate change and about fixing the housing and cost-of-living crises, then it is time to admit that we can't have world-class services if we do not have a world-class tax system. It's the dishonest promise of countless politicians: getting Scandinavian social services at American tax rates.

Corporate superprofits are going completely unchecked, all while they dodge taxes and leave it to Australian workers to pick up the tab. Here are some examples: Qantas, $9.3 billion of income, no tax paid; casino giants Crown and the Star Entertainment Group, $2.25 billion and $1.5 billion in income respectively, no tax paid; Singapore Telecommunications, parent company of Optus, $8 billion of income, no tax paid. Meanwhile, just one nurse or teacher is paying more than all of these companies combined. Make it make sense.

As we face the impacts of climate change, it is only going to get harder to hold the economy and our society on a steady course. One of the major variables in how we shape our economy is how we choose to collect and spend tax revenue. It is something the people should have control over. Legislation should not be written of, by and for giant corporations.

A simple, efficient solution would be to collect more tax from the petroleum resource rent tax. The PRRT was introduced in 1987 and is supposed to operate as a means of collecting a fair share of petroleum profits on behalf of the Australian people. The PRRT is a tax on superprofits, sometimes called resource rents, made by multinational oil and gas companies operating in Australia. That's what it's designed to do, but, in reality, the PRRT has such extensive loopholes that oil and gas producers are able to minimise the tax or avoid paying it entirely. Australians are missing out on a fair share of revenue, while fossil fuel companies are making record profits and worsening the climate crisis. Proposed changes to the PRRT, which are supposedly designed to limit the extent to which gas and oil companies can reduce their liabilities, are so incremental that they were actually welcomed with open arms by the fossil fuel industry. The government seems hell-bent on tinkering around the edges of genuine problems rather than dealing with them in a meaningful way, for fear of antagonising donors.

Australia is the world's third-largest fuel exporter. We are behind only Saudi Arabia and Russia. We export less gas than the likes of Qatar, and they receive over 20 times the amount of tax revenue that we do. Or take Norway, which like us is a relatively small but developed economy with substantial natural resource extraction. In recent years, Australia's and Norway's oil and gas industries have generated similar amounts of revenue, but Norway's citizens have gotten significantly more out of it than we have. Norway's Ministry of Finance projected that tax revenue from oil and gas was to be a staggering A$127 billion in 2023 alone, or around A$23,500 per Norwegian citizen. Research from the Australia Institute shows that increasing the PRRT would raise billions of dollars in revenue that could be spent on essential public services and dealing with the cost of living and the impacts of climate crisis, which in itself is driven by Australia's massive fossil fuel export industry. Increasing the PRRT is necessary to ensure that Australian people get a real share of the windfall profits from our own natural resources.

Scrapping fossil fuel subsidies, actually taxing the fossil fuel industry fairly and closing loopholes that let so many wealthy individuals and companies avoid tax will strengthen our economy and our society. This is about making the right decision for everyone. Rather than having to imagine what we could achieve, we could just do it. Investing in our essential services will improve both our quality of life and our productivity. We could invest in public housing and public transport, driving down the cost of living. We could invest in fully free child care, driving far more people into the workforce than any tax cut could ever hope to. We could lift the pension and JobSeeker payments. The list goes on with what could be funded by fixing the PRRT, even with the $318 billion price tag of these stage 3 tax cuts.

Dental into Medicare, wiping student debt, making uni and TAFE free, and creating a universal childcare system—these are all possible if we start having a realistic conversation about our tax system. We live in a country where a nurse or teacher pays more in taxes than a billion-dollar multinational company. This is beyond a joke, and it's an insult. Everyday people are struggling to make ends meet, and more people than ever are living pay to pay. This is about choices. On one hand, the choice is to cut our people's health and education, their futures and a sustainable planet for the sole purpose of propping up billion-dollar companies and ensuring that one in three corporations in this country never have to pay a cent in taxes. On the other, we could look at the alternatives that already exist: making these giant corporations and the fossil fuel industry pay their fair share so that we can afford to have these nice things again. There is nothing impossible about that choice. Politicians just have to decide if they want to put people or corporations first.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Elizabeth Watson-Brown (Ryan, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Anne Aly (Cowan, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Early Childhood Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024 and what our new tax cuts will mean for the people that I represent in this place, the people of Cowan.

I may be biased, as I'm sure everybody here is biased towards their own community, but Cowan is a prime example of an electorate that best represents the people of Australia. The people of Cowan are hardworking; they go to work every day to provide for their families and for their loved ones, and many of them have come from around the world for a better future and to call Australia home. They are indeed aspirational Australians. I've heard that word 'aspirational' spoken a lot during this debate and I have listened carefully as those opposite described what 'aspiration' is. The member for Bowman, for example, described 'aspiration' and talked about aspiration in terms of people aspiring to buy an investment property. Well, let me tell the House a little bit about aspiration.

Aspiration is the migrant daughter of a bus driver, born in a country where she could only ever hope to be the daughter of a bus driver, standing in this place and delivering a speech as a minister in the federal government. But it's also the young man I met while doorknocking who had just finished school and wasn't quite sure what he wanted to do with his life and who didn't realise he could actually study a degree in counterterrorism at Edith Cowan University until I explained to him that I actually wrote the course and that it was a good option for him. Now, three years later, he is aspiring to work in the field of counterterrorism and law enforcement. Aspiration is also the single mum in casual work who aspires to save enough money to fix that leaky roof. It's the young couple expecting their first child and budgeting for the cost of early childhood education so that they can both return to work and manage the cost of living. It's the early childhood education and care worker, it's the nurse, it's the police officer and it's the tradie, all of whom will get a tax cut under our better way—under our Labor tax reforms.

Like all the members here, I don't claim to be anything special when I say that I go out there and listen to my constituents. I know that's something that each and every one of us do; we undertake those activities as part of the privilege of being representatives of our communities in this place. I listen to my constituents when I meet them regularly at my meet-your-member events, or when I have 'open offices' or community events, or even when I'm just walking through my local shopping centre. I'm sure many in this place will be very familiar with the fact that it takes three hours to buy a bottle of milk at your local shopping centre or when visiting your local café! One thing I often hear from them is how difficult it is with the cost-of-living pressures right now. But I must also say that since being elected into this place in 2016, I have often stood in my seat and spoken about the pressures on people in some of the poorer suburbs in my electorate and how that's impacting them.

There's absolutely no denying that household budgets are under the pump. There's a genuine sense of stress and anxiety every time people look at the bills or line up at the checkout counter. Just go to your local shops, stand back and observe. I don't normally buy bread, but the last time I was there I was buying a loaf of bread for my brother-in-law—who only eats white bread!—and I noticed people looking into their purses and their wallets, counting the coins to be able to afford a loaf of bread.

It's pretty tough out there, and I know from listening to members on all sides that everyone is acutely aware of just how tough the people that they represent are doing it. But the difference is that we're doing something about it. We went to the election with a promise to deliver cost-of-living relief, and the Albanese government is doing exactly that. From tripling the bulk-billing incentive and cutting the cost of prescription medicines to providing energy bill relief and making early childhood education and care more affordable—in fact, 11 per cent more affordable than it was before we came to office—at every turn we're doing everything that we can to deliver that cost-of-living relief to the people of Australia.

At my meet your member events, people have told me that we need to do more for taxpayers, and this message has been echoed very strongly in communities across the country. It's crystal clear that every taxpayer needs and deserves a meaningful tax cut and, as good governments do, we've listened. It's pretty despairing to hear those opposite rabbit on about broken promises, but what they cannot deny, what they cannot come in here and say, is that those tax cuts aren't a better way, aren't delivering cost-of-living relief for the people that they represent and aren't going to mean more money in the pockets of the people they represent. Listen carefully to what they say, because not a single one of them can come in here and deny that fact.

Good government isn't about shying away from tough decisions. It isn't about staying the course just to look after your own political interests when there is a better way ahead of you. It's about doing the right thing for the right reasons and, importantly, at the right time. It's about putting people ahead of politics, and that is exactly what we're doing.

From 1 July, we're giving every taxpayer a tax cut, which will deliver more help for those working families in Cowan and every electorate represented here and will put cash back into people's pockets at a time when they need it most. It's a huge thing for the people of Cowan because we are set to be the biggest beneficiaries of Labor's tax cuts in Western Australia. There are about 83,000 taxpayers in Cowan, and they're now going to get an average tax cut of $1,451. That means that that single mum can fix that leaky roof. It means that that young couple preparing to have a baby can put something aside for when their baby is born. It means that that young man who undertook studies and aspires to work in law enforcement and counterterrorism can buy the books that he needs to complete his final year at university.

We're already getting extremely positive feedback from across my community in Cowan. Constituents are ringing my office and telling us what that extra $1,450 means to them. They can pay their insurance bill, fill up their car, put food on the table and pay their mortgage. They're also telling us that they're proud that the Prime Minister and this government is sticking up for people in need rather than sticking to a tax policy from five years ago.

What makes me even more incredibly proud is what these tax cuts will mean for women across the country. It doesn't need to be said that women work hard right across Australia, and we want to ensure that they also get to keep more of their hard-earned money. Our tax plan will see Australian women taxpayers receive, on average, a tax cut of $1,649 from 1 July. That's an extra $707, on average, compared to the previous government's plan.

Under our plan, huge numbers of early childhood educators, disability workers and aged-care workers will also benefit from our tax cuts. It isn't circumstantial. It's not just by accident that this happened. It's by design. Just as those opposite, by design, had that the centrepiece of their economic plan was to keep wages low, our design is to give people back more of what they earn. Our design is to get wages moving. Our design is to give people a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, and our government has applied a clear gender-impact lens to the changes that we're proposing, to measure the significant benefit that these tax cuts will have for women.

A couple of weeks ago I was speaking to Emma, an aged-care worker and a proud United Workers Union delegate. She was telling me how excited she was to be getting back $1,700 in her pay packet from the tax cuts. I also spoke to Caro, who I mentioned last week in question time. She's an early childhood educator who's been in the industry for 45 years. I tip my hat to anyone who's been in early childhood education for 45 years. Don't get me wrong: the highlight of my day, every day, is visiting early childhood education centres, but after 45 minutes I am exhausted. So hats off to Caro for doing it for 45 years. She has absolutely devoted her life to education and she was able to tell me what it means to her—as a childcare worker, a female worker, a hardworking woman—to get these tax cuts. Hearing from Caro and Emma was a humbling reminder of the reason why we form Labor governments: it's to ensure that we deliver for all Australians, especially those who need it most, to ensure that nobody is left behind. That's what these tax cuts do; as the Prime Minister has said and the Treasurer has said, they don't leave anyone behind. The original stage 3 tax cuts were leaving behind some of the most hardworking people in Australia who are doing it the toughest, many of them in electorates around the country just like Cowan.

Our changes, our better way, our tax reforms, ensure that every working person in Australia, every taxpayer, gets a tax cut. I'm proud to be part of an Albanese Labor government that is delivering real cost-of-living relief to families in the community of Cowan and in every community across the country. Over the course of today, as we did last week, we'll hear many contributions on this policy reform. But, as I said earlier, not a single person can come in here and say that these tax cuts won't benefit the people in their electorate—that the people in their electorate won't get a tax cut or that anybody in their electorate will be left out. And, as that's the case, that's a pretty sure sign that we're doing the right thing by all Australians.

Elizabeth Watson-Brown (Ryan, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Make no mistake: the revised version of these tax cuts still widens the inequality gap. The top 20 per cent of income earners will get 50 per cent of the benefit of these tax cuts; the bottom 20 per cent will get just 0.4 per cent, not even a whole per cent. Brad Banducci, the CEO of Woolworths, is on a tidy $11.7 million salary. He's one of the highest paid CEOs in the country, and he's still taking home a $4½ thousand tax cut. He won't even notice the difference. There's $4½ thousand for everyone earning over $200,000 a year. That includes every politician here and every billionaire in Australia. It's a total of $84 billion, for the top tier of earners, that could instead be used for free dental care, building public homes and fully funding our schools so parents and teachers don't have to plug the gap. These are things that would actually help all Australians, but, no, of course Brad Banducci deserves that $4½ thousand tax cut. Woolworths made almost $2 billion in profit last year, charging record high prices and ripping off the farmers who supply them, and they can also afford to pay their CEO over $10 million. Prices of essentials like cheese have doubled in some cases. They can get away with this because of Australia's entrenched supermarket duopoly preventing new entries into the market, and Labor still chooses to give Brad Banducci a $4½ thousand tax cut. His counterpart, Rob Scott at Wesfarmers, which owns Coles, on a measly $8 million, is also of course getting a $4½ thousand tax cut. And the government has the nerve to call this 'cost-of-living relief'. That's a joke.

Who else is getting a $4½ thousand tax cut? Australia's top three billionaires raked in a jaw-dropping $1.5 million an hour over the past three years. That's $1.5 million an hour. We're in the worst cost-of-living crisis in decades. Three people pocket 27 times more than the median annual Australian income every hour. Labor is allowing billionaires to amass wealth at a mind-boggling rate. They get $1.5 million richer every hour. Meanwhile, one in eight Australians are struggling to put food on the table, pay their rent or afford to go to the doctor. Australia has 141 billionaires. Just three of them have made a staggering combined total of over $65 billion since 2020. The University of Sydney reckons it costs just over $250,000 to build a single social housing dwelling. With $65 billion, we could provide nearly 260,000 homes, ending the waitlist for social housing about three times over. What does the government do instead? Pat themselves on the back for their so-called progressive changes to the stage 3 tax cuts—changes that overwhelmingly benefit the likes of Gina Rinehart and Clive Palmer. Over 50 per cent of the benefits flow right back into their pockets.

The Prime Minister is handing out favours to his corporate mates, with money that should be benefiting everyday Australians. The Labor government have clearly washed their hands of everyday people to pander to the whims of their donors, like Santos. There are many destructive corporations stalking the halls of federal parliament here, but I think, if you wanted to pick the epitome of evil corporations that control our government, Santos would be right up there. Santos—who donated $111,000 to Labor and $59,000 to the Liberal and National parties last year and who has donated almost $1.5 million to the major parties in the last decade. Santos—who has its personnel embedded in the major parties. Queensland Labor senator Anthony Chisholm was a strategist for Santos until he was elected in 2016. Santos—also a regular lobbyist in the Queensland parliament and federal parliament. Santos—who, despite being a climate-wrecking gas corporation, continues to have new gas mines approved. Tanya Plibersek approved a massive expansion of Santos gas wells in Queensland just last year.

There's been a lot of talk about tax lately, and rightly so, but frankly the biggest issue with tax in this country is companies like Santos ripping us off. In the financial year 2021-22, Santos paid only $15,876 in tax. That's less tax than the average Australian worker. And what was Santos's income that year? It was $5.8 billion. Despite making billions each year over the last decade or so, Santos has paid hardly a cent in tax that whole time. Santos claims it's because it's not making a profit. I'm sorry, but I think Australians are too smart to buy that nonsense. Either you're lying or you're very bad at running your business. But perhaps the answer is simple: Santos seems to own the Labor Party and the Liberal and National parties, so it can do what it wants. It rips out our gas, ships it overseas and makes a killing for its wealthy shareholders, and we all pay more for our gas bill. Global warming gets worse. Santos pays no tax. Our schools, hospitals and public housing are all underfunded. What a rort!

If the government were serious about tax reform, they'd also be looking at negative gearing and capital gains tax. Labor and the Liberal and National parties have made it easier to buy your second home or your fifth home than your first. Investors do well; everyday people get screwed. Basically, how it works is like this: Labor and the Liberal and National parties have given huge tax incentives to people who are buying an investment property. This means more people want to buy houses, and it massively drives up the price of housing for everyone. Everyday people buying their first home have to compete with increasingly wealthy investors, but they don't have the existing capital or the tax concessions to compete with them.

What are these tax cuts that Labor and the Liberal and National Parties are handing to investors? The first is negative gearing. That means an investor can claim all of the expenses associated with an investment property as tax deductions from their income. That includes interest payments, maintenance, insurance, body corporate fees and council rates. For those in the top tax bracket in particular, paying 45 per cent on income over 180,000, this is actually a huge saving. Of course, first-home buyers have to cop all those expenses—they don't get to claim them on their tax. This affects how much they can afford to borrow. So instead of this property being some family's first home, it actually becomes a tax write-off for a wealthy investor—sounds bad, doesn't it? But the rort doesn't stop there. There's this thing called capital gains tax. It's what you pay when you make a profit from buying and then selling an asset. Normally, you'd have to pay tax on this profit, just like any other income. But most investors can claim the capital gains tax discount, which reduces CGT by a whopping 50 per cent. That means you pay less tax on asset inflation than you do on wages. That's absurd.

First home buyers don't benefit from this—they haven't sold a home before. As house prices rise because of these government tax breaks, buying houses just to sell to other investors with substantially discounted tax becomes a reason to buy in the first place. Instead of this property being some family's first home, it becomes a speculative commodity for a wealthy investor. Here's an idea: instead of subsidising property investors and making it easy for them to outcompete first home buyers, put that money into affordable and public homes for people who need a place to live. It's truly astounding to hear so many Labor MPs talk about how these tax cut changes leave no one behind. The Prime Minister even said this in his speech to the Press Club. Apparently, people who don't earn enough income to reach the tax-free threshold don't count. Many of these people are doing it toughest right now, and they won't see a cent from these changes.

Zaneta Mascarenhas (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What an opportunity to stand before this House and to support a motion that will deliver real tangible benefits to my electorate of Swan. When I was elected, I made a commitment to make a real and tangible difference to my community and my constituents. My team and I are passionate about supporting the electorate, and my electorate represents Australia. It is a microcosm of the nation. It has diverse interests, hardworking families and people aspiring to get ahead in life, to provide stability and security for their households and their families, to provide a good education for their children, and to make sure that they get health care when they need it. Their priorities are my priorities, and my priorities are the priorities of the Albanese Labor government—that is, to make sure that people have more support and access to services when they need it.

I was very proud to hear that WA will be the first state to have fully funded schools by 2026. It's inspiring to be a part of a government with this vision and a government that has the courage to implement it. We are also expanding bulk-billing and opening urgent-care clinics. When you need a doctor, you should need only your Medicare card, not your credit card. It's all part of the theme to create a better, fairer Australia. That's exactly what the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024 is a part of—creating this vision. We are fully aware of the pressures that many Australians have been facing. Cost-of-living pressures have placed burdens on many people and their families. They have placed a heavy burden on middle Australia. We know this and, unlike the opposition, we do not ignore the facts; we do not ignore the feedback we have been receiving from the community. We face it head on, we are listening, we are hearing you and we are acting, and that's the job of government.

Next week in my electorate, I will be hosting a one-stop shop for people that are doing it tough right now. We'll be holding a helping households hub to help people with their household finances. We'll be bringing federal, state and local government together to inform people of the policies that are relevant to them, and bringing in external service agencies that can provide advice and support when they need it. This is an idea that—I'm going to say it—we've stolen from the member for Reid, because the truth is that good ideas should be spread throughout the nation. We will be looking at legal advice, financial counselling and support, and a navigating Services Australia session. Within a day, we've had nearly two dozen registrations, and I hope that we get even more because I want to reach as many people as possible.

We are not consumed by individual crusades against the vulnerable, unlike what we saw under the previous government. We only need to look back at robodebt to understand what the Liberal Party thinks about people doing it tough. Instead of reaching out and saying, 'Okay, what can we do; what can we change,' they punished people for being vulnerable. You can't get more of a polar opposite. The Liberals put the blindfold on and attacked, whereas we as Labor turned up the volume, we listened and we responded.

The opposition doesn't like our proposed tax changes. What does the opposition want? Do they want wages to be lower? Do they want inflation to be higher? The answer appears to be yes. They want tax cuts to benefit the few, not the many, and they're at odds with themselves. One minute, the member for Hume is calling Labor's tax cuts a form of Marxism, and then, on the same day, he turns around and says that he'll be supporting them.

This isn't about politics; it's about people. And that's why I stand here wholeheartedly supporting these tax cut measures—

Hon. Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Zaneta Mascarenhas (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

it's nice to see that people are listening to this speech!—because what it means is that on 1 July this year every taxpayer will benefit. It's a plan designed to alleviate financial burdens and provide relief to individuals across the nation. I know that there's a little bit of jealousy, like, 'Why wasn't this my idea?' The truth is that we saw that the economics changed and what we did was listen to sound advice. We had a frank and fearless Public Service, and we had a government that was listening and acting. We devised a more inclusive approach to deliver tax cuts to a broader spectrum of our society, not just the privileged few. We had been talking about cost-of-living pressures in this place and that we needed to do more. We're at this moment in time where we are indeed going to do more. The measures come in addition to the previously announced $23 billion in cost-of-living relief.

As I said, I am passionate about fostering a strong and prosperous community in Swan, and I am passionate about a government that makes a real difference. This bill will make a difference to thousands of people in Swan. It will make a difference to their cost of living. In Swan alone, 94,000 hardworking individuals will receive a tax cut. It means an average benefit of $1,600 per person. Even better, because of Labor, 77,000 taxpayers in Swan will enjoy a larger tax cut compared to under the plan proposed by the Morrison government. In Western Australia, 1.2 million people will fare better under our tax plan, and 1.5 million hardworking taxpayers will see a reduction in their tax burden from July onwards.

Soon it will be International Women's Day, and the theme of International Women's Day in 2024 is economic empowerment. The Minister for Women has done some amazing work in the development of policy in this area, and it's even more exciting to see that our cost-of-living tax cuts plan supports the needs of women not just with kind words but with real economic empowerment. In Western Australia, 700,000 working women are set to receive a tax cut, and 600,000 of those are getting a bigger tax cut thanks to Labor. This represents a significant stride towards gender equality, with 90 per cent of all Western Australian women enjoying a larger tax cut compared to before.

I support these changes because they spell out tangible benefits for Australians. They mean that 77,000 individuals in Swan will be better off. Eighty-one per cent of Western Australians will experience improved financial circumstances. It's a commitment to fiscal responsibility and compassion. It's putting cost-of-living pressures at the forefront of government policy. It's recognising that the biggest concern for many Australians is cost-of-living pressures. This isn't about political expediency; it's about making the right choice for the people.

In conclusion, the Albanese Labor government's tax cuts are a testament to our dedication to the welfare of all Australians. We believe in fairness, inclusivity, and compassion - and these are the principles that guide our policies.

Bridget Archer (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As politicians, we often find ourselves living our life—our professional life, at least—dealing in absolutes. No matter the side of politics, we set ourself up for it time and time again when we attack a policy point while holding ourselves to a position that may become untenable down the track or by making a promise that's full of authenticity and the best intention at the time but becomes, for a number of reasons, problematic later down the track when it comes time to fulfil the promise. It is genuinely hard not to do it at times, as I think our constituencies expect to feel reassured and providing a 'maybe' or 'it depends' response doesn't really fill them with confidence. It leaves us as elected representatives vulnerable to attacks by our opponents or in the media.

But, as I've said previously, I don't want people to accept that they just believe politicians to lie, and broken promises are hard for our constituents to swallow, no matter the outcome. It is a slippery slope that does cast a shadow on what this government might promise next. If you promise 100 times to keep a policy and then you change it, it's expected that our communities will think any future policy could change after the 101st, 110th, or 150th promise to keep it. It's not okay to play with the truth, even if you like the outcome. It simply leads to a further erosion of trust and confidence in governments.

So it's here tonight that we find ourselves debating Labor's tax cuts, which the coalition will not stand in the way of. Just a few weeks ago, I asked when Labor would begin fulfilling its election mantra not to leave any Australians behind. It is 18 months since being elected, so it's pleasing that this legislation will support individuals and families in need, and I wouldn't block any measure that would help my electorate of Bass. While it's truthful that more constituents in my electorate will benefit from these proposed changes than they would have under the previous iteration, it's still a drop in the bucket for my community as cost-of-living pressures increase. Housing, healthcare affordability, education expenses, child care—these are all daily factors putting pressure on households.

Over the past 18 months, real net disposable income per person has collapsed, down 8.6 per cent. For an average income earner, this is a decline in take-home pay of just under $8,000, primarily driven by rising mortgage payments, falling real wages and increasing taxes. So, again, although I welcome relief, an average earner would receive just $804 more under Labor's policy, or $15.46 a week. This is less than 1 per cent of their annual wage and returns just 10 cents for avenue dollar they have lost to cost-of-living pressures under Labor's first 18 months in office.

A recent survey by the Mercury newspaper indicated that almost all Tasmanians were feeling the pressure as daily expenses continue to rise. Groceries were a major factor, with many cutting back on activities outside of the home to meet growing costs, and others admitted to using savings to keep up with the costs. CEO of the Tasmanian Council of Social Service Adrienne Picone said:.

Tasmanian families are increasingly forced to play a cruel game of 'what must I go without this week,' trying to stretch a meagre income to cover the essentials, when the reality is it is simply not possible in the current climate

No Tasmanian should be forced into a situation where they're forgoing healthcare in order to put food on the table, yet this is occurring on a daily basis across the state.

Ms Picone's statement highlights another area where the government is falling short, looking to provide additional and necessary assistance to low-income households who don't benefit from any tax cut but are deeply feeling the pinch of just trying to get by. As a co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Ending Poverty, I've held a number of events with my co-chair, the member for Canberra, as we explore the impact of poverty and how parliament can meaningfully address this. Just last week, we hosted a briefing with the Brotherhood of St Laurence on further practical steps governments of all persuasions could take. But it's hearing from those with lived experience that stays with you.

When I'm out in the community, cost-of-living pressures sit just behind housing as the No. 1 issue people raise with me, particularly, as Ms Picone points out, there are an increasingly large number of people who are choosing between paying their rent or their mortgage and having food on the table. Food insecurity is a major issue. The 2023 Foodbank hunger report stated that 84,000 Tasmanian households faced food insecurity last year—18,000 more than in the year prior. These are our neighbours, parents and children we pass at the school gate, the couple we say hello to on our morning walk or the young person making our coffee. From the discussions I've had on the ground with local organisations including the Benevolent Society, the Salvation Army and City Mission, there's a significant increase in middle-income earners needing their services, as they're forced to sacrifice their food budget to meet their increased mortgage or rent payments. These conversations are supported by hard statistics, with around 33 per cent of food-insecure households in Tasmania holding a mortgage.

Additionally, the 2023 Mapping Social Cohesion study—a joint project between the Australian National University and the Scanlon Foundation Research Institute, with more than 7½ thousand participants—found that almost half of those surveyed believe that economic issues are the most important set of problems our country faces today, followed by housing affordability and shortages. Forty-one per cent of participants describe themselves as either poor, struggling to pay their bills, or just getting by—up four per cent from the year prior. Dr James O'Donnell, who led the study, has spoken of the impact that financial stress is having on our communities:

With more Australians under financial pressure in 2023, it's perhaps not a surprise that our sense of belonging and connectedness to each other are also lower this year.

With more people worried about economic inequality, we're less trusting of government, more worried about the future and less connected to Australian values and society.

This is an important call to action for governments and the community to consider policies and programs that give everyone the opportunity to contribute to society to the fullest.

So, while these tax cuts will go some way to providing relief, with a surplus in the billions, I'm asking the federal government what else they can be doing to seriously tackle the challenges we're facing. Where the government is claiming success in delivering cheaper health care and child care, I'm not seeing the proof in northern Tasmania. We have an older population with higher rates of chronic disease and areas of socioeconomic disadvantage, and still we have the lowest bulk-billing rates in the country. From July to September last year, the rate dropped to 71 per cent—3.5 per cent lower than the national average. Whilst these numbers are before the triple bulk-billing incentive came into effect, on the ground I'm not seeing evidence of this trickling down to patients. I acknowledge that this has been an ongoing problem for both political parties, no matter who has been in government. It's one that I worked hard in addressing while the coalition was in government. I appreciate that there's not a silver bullet, but that we must put the current government on notice that more has to be done for the sustainability of practices and the health of our communities.

I met a number of times on this issue with Ben Dodds, President of the Rural Doctors Association of Tasmania, and I want to raise some comments that he made recently. What we've seen over a long period of time is the degradation in the Medicare rebate that has been available for patients, and there are many GPs who don't want to be in a position where they need to be charging a gap. Dr Dodds also acknowledged that, while GPs would often bulk-bill a patient who is in financial difficulty, it was not sustainable in the long term, and he said that the current Medicare rebates were still not enough to keep many rural and regional general practices going. I also know and understand from my long-term engagement with professionals in the health community that, again, it's not just the cost of going to the doctor that keeps patients at bay; as with child care, it's an accessibility issue, with many practices struggling with the recruitment and retention of doctors, and not for lack of trying.

There are a number of reasons behind this, including the classification of some areas in my electorate under the Modified Monash Model, which does affect the amount of the incentives they can receive, with some of areas of my electorate receiving the same classification as Hobart, providing further challenges when competing in a tight talent pool. I advocated for changes to the MMM when the coalition was in government and I'm continuing this fight. Plainly put, if we don't stop tinkering at the edges over proper reform it is only a matter of time before more practices close across my electorate. I'm available and willing to work with the government, or with anyone, to ensure that this does not happen. We must stop putting a bandaid on a gaping wound.

And then there is the issue of child care. While there are claims from the federal government that they have made child care cheaper—again, something I would dispute based on feedback from families in my electorate—there's a bigger area of accessibility. All the talking points on cheaper child care land nowhere if many parents are unable to access it. I'd like to read an email I received just before Christmas that sums up the experiences of too many families in my electorate: 'Over the past seven months I've been actively seeking suitable day-care options for my little one, who is set to start in February. Unfortunately, the waiting lists for these facilities are proving to be excessively long, making it challenging for parents like me to secure a spot for our children. This situation has left me feeling disheartened. Additionally, I want to emphasise that the current difficulties in accessing timely day-care services may force families like mine to make difficult decisions such as one parent having to stop working. The potential loss of income could be a significant financial blow for us and I imagine for many other families in our community. I'm also concerned about how families with lower levels of income, or single parents, are managing this situation. The challenges they face are likely even more daunting.'

The government was elected on a mandate to deliver greater trust, more accountability and transparency, but what we have seen so far is the usual spin and talking points rather than the substance that the public expects. You shouldn't be telling people they are better off and they should be grateful for it. What we should be asking our communities is: do they feel better off now than they did 18 months ago? The test isn't what they say or even what they do; it's the result.

Sally Sitou (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sixty-five thousand dollars is a figure worth remembering. It's a figure that all of us in this place should know. It's the amount the median Australian worker earned in 2022. Half of all workers earned more than this; half earned less than this. From a salary perspective, this is middle Australia, and until recently that middle earner was going to receive a tax cut of about $500 a year. However, the Albanese Labor government's changes mean that worker will now get a bigger tax cut. Almost three times that original amount, they'll now get a cut of $1,304. Everyone in this place knows that the cost of living is the No. 1 issue for our communities. It's true in my electorate of Reid, too. It's a diverse electorate, culturally, linguistically and economically. There are about 100,000 workers in my electorate. We're one of the larger working populations across the country. Every one of those workers will now get a tax cut, and four out of every five of those taxpayers will get a bigger tax cut thanks to the Albanese Labor government.

I'm proud to be part of a government that has been focused on addressing cost-of-living pressures. We've walked the tightrope between taking the heat out of the inflation challenge and providing help to those who need it, as well as providing the reform the country needs to build a stronger future. On child care, thanks to the minister here today, we've helped parents through our cheaper childcare policy, which has helped provide an average reduction in out-of-pocket childcare expenses of about 11 per cent. On aged care, we reformed the sector, implementing the recommendations from the royal commission while making sure we provided aged-care workers a 15 per cent pay rise. We've successfully argued for an increase in the minimum wage. That's the challenge for all Labor governments—to build for the future, to leave nobody behind and to provide the conditions for workers and businesses to flourish. That's what the Albanese Labor government's tax cuts will do.

But what are the opposition doing? Well, it has been quite a journey. First, they were repealing it. Then they were opposing it. Then they were reviewing it. Then they were backing it. Now they seem to have settled on a position of having their cake and eating it too—on the one hand they say that they will support these changes, but on the other hand they say that these changes aren't enough. That would be a coherent argument if they hadn't opposed every other intervention to take pressure off families. It would be a fair argument if they hadn't opposed the childcare changes, if they hadn't opposed our intervention into energy markets to provide energy price relief, and if they hadn't spent the previous decade suppressing wages as a deliberate design feature of their economic policy.

On this side of the House we have taken a very different course. We want workers to earn more because that's the best way to manage cost-of-living pressures. We want workers to earn more and to keep more of what they earn. The average full-time aged-care worker on around $70,000 a year will now take home around $1,400, rather than the $625 under the original stage 3 tax cuts. A software engineer on about $115,000 a year will now receive a tax cut of $2,554 thanks to these changes. This will mean more money in the pockets of local residents in the electorate that I get to represent. It will help them pay for groceries, mortgages and bills.

These changes are great for Australian women. Nine in 10 working women will get a bigger tax cut under Labor's new tax plan. Ninety-seven per cent of childcare workers, disability workers, and aged-care workers will be better off, 96 per cent of nurses will be better off and 98 per cent of teachers will be better off. These changes have been well received in my electorate. A resident from Croydon wrote the following: 'I congratulate the Albanese government for the recent decision to change the stage 3 tax cuts. The new proposal is rational, given the change in domestic and international circumstances since the original proposal.' A resident from Liberty Grove said, 'Well done for not getting stuck with a promise from the past instead of making the best decision for our future.' A resident from Abbotsford emailed this message: 'Congratulations. I'm thrilled that your government has had the courage and integrity to change the stage 3 tax cuts in spite of the political risks this may pose.' This was the politically difficult decision to make, but we made it because it was the right thing to do. These tax cuts are better for all Australians.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I give the call to the honourable member for Nicholls.

Sam Birrell (Nicholls, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Speaker, it's a wonderful electorate and you're welcome any time.

The way I see it, there three issues. One is integrity in politics, and I think we need to quarantine that and discuss it in and of itself. The next issue is tax reform. The third is the cost-of-living crisis, who has created it and exacerbated it, and what options there are to deal with it at its root cause. On integrity in politics, the Prime Minister had broken his promise, and he promised Australians they could trust him to keep his promise because, as he said, 'My word is my bond.' If the Prime Minister can mislead Australian so blatantly on this issue, can anyone ever believe anything he's going to say again? When we have our lead-up to the next election, what's his word worth it if it is no longer his bond? He didn't need to break this promise; he chose to.

It's really disappointed to see the debate in this place around tax reform. I think the late Bob Hawke would be appalled at what he is seeing. I don't think Paul Keating would be impressed either, and certainly John Howard and Peter Costello wouldn't be impressed, because those were people who focused on tax reform at its core and as a mechanism to improve the Australian economy, increase productivity and create better living standards overall for people—not the sort of tacky redistribution we're seeing here. Keating was very focused on reforming the economy overall, with more productivity and a focus on growth. And Howard did change his position on the GST, but he had the courage to take that position to an election and let the people decide. I think that was a courageous move. People in the end decided that they did want some form of consumption tax, because the ministers could then explain what it was all about, and the voters voted for it.

What do we want from our tax system? We want fairness. We want to reward workers and force government to cut its cloth, and that hasn't been happening for a number of decades. Both sides are to blame, quite frankly, for that. We really need governments that are focused on efficiency. They could look at the private sector for ways to do that. We want incentive. We want to encourage aspiration. We want to be in the global pool of talent and make sure that the message we're putting out there is that Australia is a place where you can come and get rewarded for the extra work you do—for doing that extra shift, for getting that extra certificate, for getting your apprenticeship, for going to university and trying to find a way to move into those higher income brackets—without having the bracket creep steal the money away from you as you work harder to get it. We really want productivity, and that's to encourage business activity, profitability and employment.

I notice that the government is saying, 'Well, when circumstances change, we must change with them.' That claim can be expressed in many ways. That means you can bend to any whim, promises don't mean anything, and our commitment is our commitment until it isn't our commitment anymore. I believe this is a political response from the government, not a cost-of-living response. The cost-of-living issues have been with us for a while. Admittedly, they have been getting worse and worse since mid-2022. I've seen that in my electorate of Nicholls. The government seems to have been incredibly distracted by the cost-of-living crisis and, from what I can see, to have only woken up to it over the summer of 2023-24. The government has been distracted by a number of issues over the past year and a bit.

There was an opportunity to advantage low and middle income earners, and it could have been done last year. This is something that's been completely missed in the debate, in my view. The low and middle income tax offset was put in place by the coalition to help people on low and middle incomes, hence the name. It was a response to some challenges that were happening during the pandemic, and it was a temporary response for what we hoped would be a temporary problem. That's what responsible governments do. The Albanese government could have extended that if they wanted. They could have limited it to a desired income threshold. But the government allowed it to lapse, so low and middle income families, with the cost-of-living pressures ramping up, got a rude shock at tax time last year when they went to get their tax returns: they discovered they were $1,500 out of pocket.

Even with additional tax relief under this legislation, a farmer or factory worker in my electorate earning $70,000 will still be worse off than they were when this government took office, because they were getting the low and middle income tax offset. I sit here in question time and I listen to all these ministers get up and talk about their portfolios and say, 'Such and such is getting $800 of tax back that they wouldn't have gotten under the coalition.' It's simply not true, because they were getting $1,500 extra under the low and middle income tax offset when the coalition was in government. There is every likelihood that, had the coalition been re-elected, that might have been extended—if the cost-of-living crisis were as bad; I believe it wouldn't have been as bad under the coalition policies.

As I said, I don't believe this is about tax reform or fairness or the future of Australia's economy. I think it's about political expediency and it's populism over pragmatism.

David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Dunkley tax cuts.

Sam Birrell (Nicholls, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, some people are calling them the Dunkley tax cuts, which shows the short-termism of some of the thinking. As my five seconds wind down, I hope to continue tomorrow, Mr Speaker, but I will cede to you.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier today, the debate is adjourned, and resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

House adjourned at 22:00