James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I appreciate the contribution so far to this debate, particularly from those in the government who have run a variety of arguments—some of which, I might add, are extremely contradictory of each other—about the merit of the proposal that they're putting before the parliament here and now. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024 is a proposal to change what we referred to as the third stage of income tax relief for all Australians, which, of course, I was honoured to vote for in the first ever debate that I participated in this parliament after the 2019 election. Although I correct myself, because I didn't need to vote on it because, of course, the parliament supported it without a division. That's because back in 2019 the new opposition leader, Anthony Albanese, made a decision that the Labor opposition would support what are known as the stage 3 tax cuts. There were comments made about that in the debate, to be sure, by them in those early days of the new parliament. They ultimately made what seemed to be reported out of the Labor caucus as a pragmatic decision to support tax cuts for all Australians. Of course, stage 3 is called stage 3 because there are three stages of tax cuts that saw the tax burden appropriately relieved for all Australians.

One wonders, in listening to the debate and the comments being made by Labor members, if what they're doing here is such a great idea and such a popular idea, why it wasn't something that they articulated and campaigned for in the recent federal election. For all of the reasons that are being put forward by government members, I find it very curious and strange to understand why they didn't want to make any of these points in an election campaign. If they're such good arguments, and if so many Australians would be better off thanks to the changes that they're proposing to our previous government's broad and comprehensive income tax relief, then it should have been something to campaign on and get elected on. But of course the complete opposite happened. The now Prime Minister made a very solemn covenant with the people of this country. When he went to the polls in May 2022 and when he was seeking to become the prime minister he was asked repeatedly—and he was very clear repeatedly—that an Albanese government supported the legislated stage 3 tax cuts, that they would not touch them if they were elected, and that the people of this country could trust Anthony Albanese because he was making a solemn commitment. It's pretty clear since the election what Anthony Albanese's commitment and solemn word means—absolutely nothing.

Of course, this isn't the first time. We know that with $275 power bill cuts that are frankly laughable now and a range of other things that I won't digress into in this debate. This, unfortunately, is the deepest cut of all. By order of magnitude, the value of this broken promise is the greatest in the history of Australian democracy. If you look at the value of this betrayal, it is the greatest in the history of Australian democracy. There are some other examples in the history of Australian democracy. Paul Keating comes to mind—a very famous iron-clad tax commitment that he gave, l-a-w law.

The GST's a great example, because the GST is an example of having a policy, taking it to the people and giving them the chance to vote for it or not. What an excellent example of having a policy position that you take to the people and ask them whether or not to endorse. The concept of going to an election in May 2022 and giving a repetitive, iron-clad promise on honouring legislated income tax cuts and then changing your position is absolutely appalling. What we're voting for on this side of the chamber are tax cuts—no question about it. We're the low-tax party. It's in our DNA. What's happening right here is that taxes are getting cut for some Australians whilst increasing taxes on other Australians to pay for it. What an absolute fraud.

See this speech in context