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

After that bizarre question time performance from the government, you wouldn't know that we are in the middle of a very important debate in Australia about two competing tax plans. Today the battlelines have been drawn. The Labor Party have made very clear what we will do and say about the government's tax plans. But what have we had in response from the government in relation to tax? We just had that bizarre performance in which we were lectured about aspiration. We were told that an aged-care worker in Burnie shouldn't be satisfied with helping Australians who are in an aged-care facility and, after having worked hard all their life and at maybe the final stages of their life, they should aspire to a better job as an investment banker. That's what the Prime Minister said during question time.

We were lectured that members of the Labor Party should not aspire to go to university—because, how dare we aspire to go to university! It's a bad aspiration, apparently, to be the first in your family to go to university—and, if your parents or grandparents didn't go to university, you should know your place. That was part of the government's great defence of their tax plan, and we were told other things about aspiration. We are happy to have a debate in this House about aspiration—more than happy. There are lots of Australians who aspire for their children to go to a good, well-funded school, which may be a public school or a Catholic school. There are lots of Australians who aspire to know that their local hospital will be well funded if they need it, at any time of the day or night. There are lots of Australians who aspire to work on a weekend and get decently paid for it. There are lots of Australians who aspire to work and then retire sometime before they're 70. There are lots of Australians who aspire to those things. On this side of the House, we support that aspiration.

I tell you what: we also support the aspiration of low- and middle-income earners to receive a bit more support. This government must think that low- and middle-income earners are fools. This government thinks that a $10-a-week tax cut will make them forget that they've lost $77 in penalty rates, or make them forget that their wages aren't growing, or make them forget that their kids' school is receiving less money, or make them forget that their school leaver's TAFE is underfunded, or make them forget that this government has tried time and time again to rip away the social safety net in this country. I tell you what: the Australian people are not the fools that this government takes them for.

Even more cynically than all of that, this government thinks that they can say to low- and middle-income earners: 'We are finally going to provide you with some modest tax relief, but there are strings attached. We are not going to give you that tax relief on 1 July 2018 unless we can bully our way to ensure that the tax cuts also go to high-income earners in seven years time.' The Australian people, the government thinks, will buy that. I tell you what: I don't think the Australian people will buy that. As I said, the battlelines are drawn. The choice is clear. There is a better way than this government is proposing, and there is a real alternative on the table.

Sometimes, governments do unfair things, particularly Liberal and National Party governments, and sometimes Liberal and National Party governments do fiscally reckless things. This government has a habit of doing both all at the same time, which is a special talent. I do give tribute to those opposite; it is a special talent. This government's tax plan is unfair, unaffordable and irresponsible. No responsible opposition would support it, and we won't be supporting it. We won't be supporting their unfunded tax cuts.

The tax plan is expensive. Not only is it expensive; it's unfair as well. Take the government's tax plan; it will cost $25 billion a year when it's fully implemented, if it's ever fully implemented. Fifteen billion dollars of that each year goes to Australia's top 20 per cent of income earners. That's the fact. The most regressive part of their plan is stage 3 of the plan. Stage 3 of the plan will grow when it is implemented at a rate of—wait for it—12 per cent a year. The member for Rankin and I have good relations with all our colleagues but if a colleague came to us and said, 'We've got a scheme which is really expensive, which will benefit high-income earners and will grow at a rate of 12 per cent a year,' we would tell them to think again—but not this government. They say, 'Approved! Great idea! Let's run it through the parliament and let's make it a condition. We won't support low and middle-income earners unless we get that through.'

This government thinks it's a good idea that everybody earning $200,000 should pay the same marginal tax rate as somebody earning $40,000 a year. This is a government which—when you take stage 3 of their tax cuts together with their big business tax cuts—wants to drain the public purse by $25 billion a year. And they lecture us about budgets! They have the hide to lecture us about responsibility. Well, we'll have a debate about responsibility and we're happy to have an election about responsibility as well as fairness. We are more than happy to do that, because under our tax plans every Australian earning less than $125,000 a year is better off. They would be better off now and better off next year in the first years of a Labor government.

Even if they got stage 2 of their tax plans through, every Australian earning less than $95,000 a year would be better off under the Labor Party's plan—70 per cent of working Australians better off—a fairer plan which is more responsible and better targeted when it comes to the budget. We'll provide tax cuts almost double what the government is providing, we'll provide them to 10 million Australians and we won't make them conditional on some never-never plan to benefit high-income earners either. We'll actually say to the Australian people, 'We'll provide tax relief that is fair, affordable and responsible, and we're more than happy to take it to an election.'

Let me make it very clear: we will take no part in this government's reckless, irresponsible and unfair plans, and we'll be voting accordingly in this House. If the government wants to try to hold the tax cuts for low- and middle-income earners hostage, as they've indicated they will do, then there are two possibilities. They can split the bill—they can surrender and split the bill—and we'll pass that legislation today through the parliament. We'll pass it tonight; we will even sit late and we'll pass it, if the government wants. Or, alternatively, if they won't pass it—if they won't relent and split the bills—then an incoming Labor government will provide that tax relief.

In the way the government has designed the tax rebate, it could be passed at any time in this financial year. It doesn't need to be passed by 1 July this year. It can be passed by 1 July 2019. That would give an incoming Labor government time to implement it, and we will if they won't. We will actually go to the people with a tax plan which is funded and which is affordable. We'll deliver it—unlike this government—and we won't put those conditions on it. The fact of the matter is that the lines are drawn and the choice is clear. And if the government really believe their rhetoric, if they really believe the case they're putting to the Australian people and if they really have the courage of their convictions then there is something they can do.

The Prime Minister had another line of attack during question time. He said, 'Okay, you don't like stages 2 and 3 of our tax plans, but why don't you vote for them anyway?' I can understand why he'd say that. He would understand a lack of conviction. He would understand a Prime Minister who wouldn't vote for his beliefs! I understand a Prime Minister who said he wouldn't lead a party that wasn't as committed to action on climate change as he is—now look who sits behind him as he is Prime Minister of Australia! So I understand that that's his approach, but we have a different approach on our side of the parliament. It's a novel approach for members opposite: we vote for what we believe in and we vote against what we don't believe in. And that's what we'll continue to do.

We'll vote for better tax cuts, for fairer tax cuts and for real relief for low- and middle-income earners, and we'll vote against schemes which are unfunded and unfair. We'll vote against them in amendments and we'll vote against them in the substantive legislation as well. We'll vote against them continually in this House, and I tell you what, we will also take that position to the people.

If the Prime Minister really believes his rhetoric, there is one thing he can do with the courage of his convictions. There is a building down the road, it's not far away. It's called Yarralumla, and he can get in a car, he can drive down there and he can say to the Governor-General: 'I can't get my tax plans through the parliament. It's all very terrible. The Labor Party are insisting on bigger tax cuts for lower- and middle-income earners but they won't let me get my scheme through. Governor-General, I'd like an election, based on our tax plans.' 'That's what he can do! He can get in his car, he can drive down there and he can call an election based on our competing plans. And do you know what we'll say? 'Bring it on!' That's what we will say, Mr Deputy Speaker.

We are ready. We relish it. We relish this argument. The Treasurer could have turned up to take this debate. He's in his office doing other things. He could turn up to take this debate to defend his tax plans, but he won't do it. I tell you what, he won't be able to hide if there is an election campaign on. (Time expired)

See this speech in context