Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Hansard source

Today we introduced a new bill to the House, with a clear message for the Leader of the Opposition. He needs to be able to look those 330,000 Australians in the eye and explain why he refuses to support a tax cut for them. He needs to be able to do that. I have been giving a lot of thought to why it is that the Liberal Party is so doggedly hanging on to the threshold of $50,000. After a lot of thought, I have decided that there are only three possible options. The first option is that that there was so much scientific justification for choosing that $50,000 threshold that the Liberal Party dare not change it—ever. The second option would be that the original thresholds were set in such a way that, although they were not relevant at the time they were introduced, they would somehow be magically relevant today when they are being defended by the Liberal Party so doggedly. The third option would be that the Liberal Party think that $50,000 is a high income and they do not think that people earning $50,000 deserve tax relief—something the Leader of the Opposition is trying to contest.

On option 1, is there any scientific justification for this threshold that they are so doggedly hanging onto? Members might not remember that I advised the House of some comments made by the then Minister for Health, Dr Michael Wooldridge, about how these thresholds were set. Just in case any members have forgotten, I might remind them. He said:

I think the numbers in the end were negotiated with Senator Harradine—it was over a bottle of Jameson’s whisky late at night …

So much for there being any scientific justification! The second option is that they were not relevant at the time that they were introduced but they were going to be magically relevant today. Dr Wooldridge gave us some assistance on this issue as well. He said:

We were happy to successfully get through 12 months, let alone worry about a problem in 10 years …

Of course, we know that the member for Dickson, having answered questions in the House on this matter, sat idly by as part of the government as the number of people hit by this tax slug doubled and then tripled—and he did nothing.

Option 3 is that the Liberals think $50,000 is a high income. Interestingly, Liberal Senator Simon Birmingham was asked exactly this question this morning. AAP reported that Senator Birmingham conceded that $50,000 was not a high salary. In fact, he said:

It is certainly not a high salary. Indeed, it is a working salary.

The members opposite are denying people on a working salary this sort of tax relief. Let me quote what Dale, a caller to 3AW this morning, said:

I’m one of those poor people, working hard, who has to take a second job to help for bills, and I can’t afford PHI in the first place. There is just not the money there.

He is pushing $51,000 a year, and he said: ‘I can’t afford it. The money is simply not there.’ All over Australia, people have a sinking feeling, like Dale, that the Liberal Party are not going to help working families. But the only sinking feeling that the Leader of the Opposition has is when he loads up his gondola with too much Italian luggage. I mean, really, this is ridiculous!

See this speech in context