Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

The Australian people already knew that the Turnbull government have unfairness ingrained in their DNA, but this week it has been rather spectacularly demonstrated that they are incompetent as they go about that unfairness. Unfairness and incompetence are a pretty unfortunate combination, but that is what is at the heart of the economic policy of the Turnbull government. Normally the first full sitting week after a budget is a good week for the Treasurer. It is a good week to highlight the initiatives in the budget, to show that the Treasurer understands what is in the budget. Normally the Treasurer is constantly at the dispatch box in question time and doing lots of media. Instead, this week we have a Treasurer in the witness protection program. He is not allowed to do media and he is only reluctantly let out for question time because they have to, because his budget has been exposed and, frankly, the Treasurer has been exposed as well.

There is a lot we could traverse in this discussion about the unfairness of the budget—we could talk about infrastructure, we could talk about health, we could talk about education, but we have to limit our remarks, because there is so much to say. So I will limit my remarks to the bank tax and to the important issue of the Medicare levy and the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

Firstly there is the matter of the bank tax, which goes to competence. Sometimes in the community—we have all heard it; people on both sides of politics have heard it—people say: 'Why can't we have more bipartisanship? Why can't the two sides work together? Why can't you support an idea from the other side, even if it is not exactly how you would do it?' We hear the message. So on budget night we looked at the bank tax and said: 'Well, the Liberal Party played a very obstructionist role when we introduced a bank levy. They opposed it. They said it would end Western civilisation. They did not proceed with it. But we will not take that approach. It is not how we would do it; it is not designed the way we would design it, but we will back it. We will support the government in introducing the bank tax.'

The Treasurer is very good at blaming the Labor Party for all sorts of things, but on this one he has got nobody to blame but himself. He has bipartisan support and he has still got it wrong. He has still managed to not implement this bank tax in a respectable way. On budget night it was very clear in the budget papers it would raise $1.6 billion in the coming financial year. The Prime Minister repeated it on Monday. The Prime Minister did not know whether it was tax-deductible or not, but at least he knew how much it would raise. We give him credit for that. There is a big problem, though, for the Prime Minister and the Treasurer: the banks have reported to the Australian stock exchange—as they are required to do and required to be accurate under law—how much they are going to pay, and what does it come out as? It comes out as $965 million. That is rather short of $1.6 billion. So the Treasurer had a massive problem. What did he do? He had missed the goal, so he moved the goal posts. He came into the House and said, 'The accrual figure doesn't matter—it is all about cash.'

I am not going to detain the House and explain the difference between accrual and cash. Suffice it to say that the Treasurer got it utterly wrong. He could have fessed up and said, 'We think those numbers are wrong.' Instead, he tried to change the story. He did not realise—or perhaps he did realise but thought he might get away with it—that the bank tax is paid quarterly in arrears, so the cash figure was utterly irrelevant, because what the banks have reported to the stock exchange was the accrual figure. He was wrong. Either he did not know his budget or he chose to mislead the House. Either way he stands condemned.

So there is a $2 billion black hole in the budget. We know, therefore, that the government will have to fill that $2 billion black hole. That is why this is important. The other thing we know about this government is that they will find an unfair way to fill the black hole, and the Australian people will pay the price.

That brings me to the matter of personal income tax, the Medicare levy and the NDIS. Firstly, on the very important issue of the NDIS, which is one of the great social reforms of our time, introduced by this side of the House. The government says they support the NDIS. I have a very simple message to the government: if you support it, stop threatening it. If you support the NDIS, stop threatening to cut it, and stop threatening people who receive support from the NDIS and their families with the threat that that support might cease. Because that is what the government does all the time. Stop playing politics with disability—that is my message to this government.

The Turnbull government has signed agreements with the states to implement the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We welcome that. That is a good thing, that they are continuing with the NDIS. Are they really saying they intend to renege on those agreements with the states? I do not think they are. I do not think they will renege on those agreements—I give them credit for that. Then stop threatening to do that, because that is effectively what they are doing every time they say that the NDIS is under threat.

They say, incorrectly, that the NDIS is underfunded. Now to say that is morally and factually wrong. It is morally wrong because it concerns people who receive NDIS support when they hear it. They get worried. It is factually wrong as well. If the NDIS were underfunded, wouldn't you have thought that that would be reflected in the pre-election economic forecasts prepared by the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Finance, independent of the government of the day, in the 2013 election or the 2016 election? Wouldn't you think that the PEFO would have said somewhere, 'By the way, this major government scheme will fall short in funding.' Was it there in the PEFO in 2013? No. Was it there in the PEFO in 2016? No. The government should stop playing politics.

If the government is really concerned about raising enough revenue for the NDIS or anything else, they do have another option. They can adopt Labor's plan. They can take our plan, because it makes more money. They can spend that money on the NDIS if they want. They can spend it on health or education, heaven forbid, or they could engage in budget repair. It is all there, because there is $4½ billion more in Labor's plan for personal tax.

Could it be that the government does not want to do that because they do not like the implications? There is something very important to think about when we think of the 2014 budget, which we all recall. There were lots of measures in that budget which affected low- and middle-income earners. They were all permanent. The government did not say to pensioners, 'We are going to cut your pension indexation just until we are back in surplus.' They did not say to low-income earners, 'We are going to take your family tax benefits away just until we are back into balance.' They did not say to unemployed people, 'We're going to make you wait for Newstart, with no support, until the budget has improved.' Those measures were all permanent—forever. The only temporary measure in that budget was the only one that impacted high-income earners. The only measure where they said, 'We are just going to keep it until we get back into budget balance' was the deficit levy. Isn't that convenient? What a coincidence—the only temporary one is the one that affects high-income earners! As a result, in effect, high-income earners get a tax cut on 1 July this year. That is the fact. If you are on a high income you will pay less tax on 2 July that you paid on 30 June, as a result of this government's decisions. If you are on $1 million a year you will get a $16,400 tax cut, courtesy of this Prime Minister and this Treasurer. But, under their plans, if you are on $60,000 a year you will pay $300 a year more.

There is a better way. We recognise the need for difficult decisions, but we say they must be implemented fairly. The fact of the matter is that both sides of politics—somewhat unusually in recent Australian history—will go to the next election proposing an increase in personal tax. But there will be a difference: this side of the House will say the tax rise should apply to people on more than $87,000 year; that side of the House will propose that the tax rise apply to people on more than $21,000 a year. That is the difference. That is the choice for the Australian people at the next election. Those are the competing plans being offered to the people.

And the government is doing this at a time when wages growth is at a record low. Last week, we saw figures confirming that wages in Australia are going backwards on this government's watch. People are falling behind; their wages are not keeping up with inflation. Living standards are falling, and that impacts most severely on people on low and middle incomes. And on 1 July, people who commit the crime of working on a Sunday will see their wages cut further. And this government wants to increase their tax just to help out that little bit more! This is at a time when inequality in Australia is at a 75-year high. What is their answer? Increase tax for people on $21,000 a year and give away $65 million in corporate tax cuts!

They tell us about fantasy money—$22 billion to fund education. I will tell you what is fantasy money—$65 billion in corporate tax cuts. That is fantasy money, that is an unfunded promise from this government. There is a fairer way, which a Shorten Labor government will implement—with a mandate from the Australian people. When we go to the people with our plans and receive that mandate, we will implement them in a budget a whole lot more competently than this Treasurer has been able to do over the last week.

See this speech in context