Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak against the Medicare Levy Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017. Whatever else this bill may be about, what it is not about is the funding of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. That is a matter of bipartisan policy between both the major parties. From the very moment that the NDIS was conceived and established, it has been fully funded by a range of policy measures, which the member for Ballarat took us through a moment ago, and by bilateral agreements that have been pursued with the state governments both by the former Labor government and by this government. To assert that there is any lack of funding flies in the face of the bilateral agreements with the states which this government has absolutely pursued. So there is no question that the National Disability Insurance Scheme is fully funded.

What this bill is about is increasing tax. Ironically, given that this is a conservative government, it is also a high-taxing government which has seen a greater share of GDP being involved in taxation than during any government since the Howard government. Indeed, this government, in this year's budget, has introduced $20 billion worth of new taxes. As I said, the tax-to-GDP ratio is higher now than it ever was during the former Rudd-Gillard government. So this is a measure to increase tax, and it comes from this conservative government.

This bill comes against the backdrop of an issue which is at the forefront of what's being experienced by working Australians and, indeed, the working people of market economies around the world, and that is inequality. It is a lack of fairness, as the member for Ballarat rightly said. We are seeing inequality growing markedly. Since 1975, the earnings growth of those in the top 10 per cent of our economy has been three times that of the bottom 10 per cent. The labour share of the economy now is at a 60-year low. In the last generation, we've seen the top one per cent of our economy double their share of national income. We've seen low wages growth in the last few years, such that right now wages are growing at the lowest rate since that stat began being recorded back in the 1990s, and homeownership now is at a record 60-year low.

All of those indications speak to the growing inequality that we find within our community, which increasingly is seeing Australians being divided between the haves and the have-nots. I can tell that in my electorate there are many who are feeling the raw end of that equation. Having seen job losses at places like Alcoa and Ford—with the removal of the car industry in this country, which sadly came to an end last Friday—they have seen their share of our national prosperity decline, and they feel it greatly.

It's against that backdrop that we have this bill, which seeks to impose taxation upon them. It really is a particularly perverse outcome that we see emanating from the bill which is before the parliament today. It is, as I said, a bill which is fundamentally the work of a high-taxing government, but it is also a bill which flies in the face of dealing with this fundamental challenge which presents itself to our country today, the challenge of inequality. This bill, in combination with the removal of the deficit levy in this year's budget from those earning more than $180,000 a year, sees the remarkable result that people who are earning less than average wages actually get a tax increase by virtue of the bill that we are debating right now whilst, on the other hand, those who are earning more than $180,000 a year, including those who might be earning $1 million a year, actually get a tax break by virtue of this government's proposal to remove the deficit levy on that cohort of income earners. That is the way in which this government has sought to deal with the issue of inequality in our society. I reckon that, if you are a person who had been working at Alcoa and you have lost your job, are living in a suburb like Corio or Norlane, are on the lowest of incomes and see that this is the formula that your government is putting before you to increase your taxation whilst at the same time providing a tax break for those people who might be earning $1 million a year, that absolutely flies in the face of what we see in this country as being fair. There is nothing fair about that equation at all.

That's why we are seeking to amend the bill which is in front of the House today to provide that those earning less than $87,000 a year would not have to pay the increase in the Medicare levy which is proposed by the bill before us now. The difference between our proposition and what this bill provides as the policy of this government as enunciated in this year's budget, in terms of relieving those people having to pay the increase in the Medicare levy, is a removal of a tax hike on seven million Australians. That's the number of Australians who are earning less than $87,000 a year. Right now you can be earning as little as $21,000 a year and you will be struck with an increase in your taxation as a result of the bill in front of us today, which is why we seek to amend it to remove that requirement and so this increase will not apply to those who are earning less than $87,000 a year. As it stands right now, research from the ANU demonstrates that twice as many households would be worse off if the amendment that we are proposing is not put in place compared to the situation if the amendment that we're proposing is ultimately passed by this parliament.

In the same breath, what we also seek to do—and we will be moving amendments that provide for this as well—is have the deficit levy, which applies to those earning more than $180,000 a year, continue. On the one hand you have the government seeking to remove the deficit levy, providing a tax cut for those earning more than $180,000, and imposing a tax increase for those earning less than $87,000—indeed, earning as little as $21,000. On the other hand you have Labor's proposition, which would see those earning more than $180,000 keep paying the tax that they are currently paying and those earning less than $87,000 also remain on the tax rate they're currently paying and not be slugged with the increase which is being put forward by this bill and which was contained in this year's budget. That is an approach to fairness which stands in stark contrast to what we have seen from this government.

It's not only in respect of this legislation that we see the failure of this government to deal with the question of fairness. At the same time as it put this legislation before this parliament, we also see this government supporting a cut to penalty rates for those who absolutely need that extra income in their pockets. This government has form on attacking people who need income the most. This government is not only failing to deal with that huge challenge being faced by our nation and market economies around the world; it is making things much worse. The response is to put in place this provision which gives a tax cut to those on the highest income and puts a tax increase on those on the lowest income at the same time as there is a cut to penalty rates for people who absolutely need to take home the income they earn through penalty rates on a Sunday.

I said at the outset that what this is not about is funding the National Disability Insurance Scheme. That is a matter of bipartisan policy—the NDIS has been funded from the moment it was created. And it is, for us in Geelong, something which is particularly important for two reasons. The National Disability Insurance Scheme began its life back in 2013 at Barwon, based on Geelong, as one of its two trial sites. The other trial site was in the Hunter, based on Newcastle. We've had it in place since 2013, and we've been able to see firsthand, over the more than four years since then, how this has changed the reality of people who have a disability. It has changed their reality and their experience of life. We have seen how they can enjoy life to the fullest and, more than that, contribute to the economy in a way that they were unable to do before the National Disability Insurance Scheme came into being.

That, after all, was the basis of the Productivity Commission's original support for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, because what it provided for was the unlocking of the enormous potential of those with a disability in our community to contribute to our economy. We in Geelong have seen the benefits of that since 2013, so we know as well as any community in this country how important the National Disability Insurance Scheme is and why it's important that it be fully funded. And it has been. It was fully funded by Labor and it has continued to be funded by this government. So the idea that this is somehow necessary in order to bring about that funding is completely wrong.

But the other reason why this particularly pertains to those of us in Geelong is that it is also the site of the National Disability Insurance Agency's headquarters—the entity charged with the responsibility of running the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Indeed, as I go for a run most mornings in Geelong, I am watching the NDIA's headquarters rise as the tallest building now in Geelong. That construction started earlier this year. It's expected to be completed later next year. There is $120 million worth of investment in that building, providing hundreds of jobs. The office will be the home of 560 people, ultimately, in the headquarters of the National Disability Insurance Agency. As I said, since 2013 they have been responsible for supporting almost 100,000 people with a disability around the country—a cohort of them from Geelong. By 2020 it's expected that that number will rise to 460,000 people around Australia. Indeed, the agency will be responsible for delivering the full $22 billion National Disability Insurance Scheme.

The NDIS is a critically important scheme for this country. The agency is now a fundamental part of the fabric of Geelong. We see that in an employment context and in the way the agency engages within the community of Geelong right now. Increasingly, we are seeing in a very physical sense, with the new headquarters rising against the skyline, what will become the home to the NDIA.

But not for a second should anyone be under any illusions that this bill needs to be passed in order for all of that to continue to occur. The NDIS has been fully funded from the outset—fully funded, as I said, by Labor, and, to be fair, by this government as well. Ultimately, what this bill is about is taxation. It is a bill that in its unamended form is deeply unfair, taxing those who earn the least and providing a tax break to those who earn the most. It's for those reasons that we will seek an amendment in this place to restore fairness to this bill and attempt to continue the process of restoring fairness to our taxation system by exempting those who earn under $87,000 from a tax increase and making sure those earning more than $180,000 continue to pay the tax which they have paid up until now. If we do that, and if the government supports us in those amendments, it will indeed make the bill a whole lot fairer.

See this speech in context