Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

It's not lost on me, as we get to the end of this week where the biggest national issue for weeks has been the government's tax cuts, that we've had to wait until that moment—that moment just then—for the Leader of the Opposition to want to talk about them in the House. He had Tuesday's question time. We went through all the questions. He didn't want to ask about it. He had Wednesday's question time. We went through all the questions. He wanted to talk about anything but. We had Thursday's questions. He wanted to talk about everything but. He waited until after a very long question time, which was made slightly longer because of the vote that we had about me. He had all those opportunities to be able to ask about the tax policy. None of them were taken.

It's interesting: if you look at the different things the Leader of the Opposition has been saying over the years, he's always projecting. He talks about a glass jaw, but criticise him and, wow, see the reaction. He talks about being gutsy and brave and he waits until the MPI on the final day, when a whole lot of his own people have already been punted from the parliament, before he's willing to talk about it—at quarter to four, just before people are getting on planes. This is a leader of the opposition who loves to talk tough, who loves to be in there and claim that other people have a glass jaw but who is himself so highly sensitive on what he claims is a huge issue. He's right on that: the tax cuts are a huge issue. But, on that, he's not willing to have any of his arguments tested during question time when the whole nation is watching. Let's not forget how they've been all over the place on this. Let's not forget what their responses have been. When it comes to tax policy, the first reaction often gives away what people actually think. The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party spoke on behalf of the opposition when she was asked not only whether they were opposed to the tax cuts but if they would roll them back. And the answer was, 'Absolutely.' 'Absolutely,' was the response. Their values won't change on this.

They have always, historically, been the party of higher taxes. The Howard-Costello government had the highest tax ratio to GDP of any Australian government. The last time they were in office, in the 2014 budget after promising no new taxes, the first thing they did was introduce new taxes in their first budget. And he's claiming, 'I'm cleaning up the mess.' You were delivering surpluses, were you? Where did that end? Over there, they came in last time claiming that they would deliver a surplus in the first year and every year after that. Apparently, COVID happened in their first term. There's a show that will explain what happened in their first term! I'll send you the link!

We then also had on behalf of the opposition: 'When this legislation hits parliament, we will fight it all the way. I'm digging in.' This is what digging in looks like? This is a complete capitulation where what they want to do is say: 'Yeah, we support it. We want it to happen. We're just really angry about it. It really upsets us.' The simple question for those opposite the whole way through this is: did you want the government to change its position? Or did you want it to continue to be a situation where not every Australian was going to get a tax cut? The anger has made it clear to exactly everybody that those opposite wanted a situation where 84 per cent or more of Australians were not getting a tax cut. That's what they wanted to be able to deliver. They wanted to be able to deliver a situation where the concept of every Australian getting a tax cut was not going to happen. The concept of the vast majority of Australians getting tax cuts to be better off was not going to happen.

This government is functioning on two key principles, here. We want people to earn more and keep more of what they earn. Those opposite disagree at every turn on both of those principles. Every time we have taken a proposal to the Fair Work Commission arguing for people to be paid more, they've opposed it. They opposed it in the election campaign. They continued to oppose a government saying we want people to be paid more. Every time we have brought in legislation, right through to this moment right now in divisions in the Senate, those opposite have been voting to stop people from being paid more. It's right to the extent of wanting a situation where a whole lot of lowly paid gig workers should continue to have no minimum standards at all. But not only do they want people to earn less; they also want people to be taxed more. That's exactly what they've done. This might be too in house or parliamentary, but have a look at the second reading amendment that they put out that they're going to vote on later. They will vote, and it's only being moved—

We'll see, given that you think it doesn't matter which way you vote on it, my friend. It returns to the principles of stage 3. If that's what they've moved formally in the parliament, if right at the start of this they said that was 'absolutely' their position and if their track record last time was to put taxes up the moment they got in, then I reckon it's a fair bet. I think we all know what's coming from those opposite. They are committed to a system in which middle Australia pays more tax. They are committed to a system in which Australians earn less and are taxed more. I guess the words to sum that up came from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition again. There's so much! 'This is our position. This is absolutely our position.' We know what their beliefs are, we know what they wanted to do, and we know what they did last time.

It won't only be in taxation and wages policy, because nobody is an enemy of Medicare the way this Leader of the Opposition is an enemy of Medicare.

That 2014 budget didn't just put income tax up; it also put a tax on every visit to the GP. When you ask people what the cornerstone of the concept of Medicare is, what the most important marker we want to be able to improve is, it's bulk-billing. If you have to pay every time, even when your doctor wants to bulk-bill, that is the end of the foundations of Medicare. That was the 2014 budget. That was the policy of the then Minister for Health who is now the Leader of the Opposition. He wanted Australians to have to pay a $7 GP tax. He wanted essential medicines to cost an extra $5 per script. We voted for cheaper medicines. Those opposite have been furious about cheaper medicines, but it's not simply that they don't want them to be cheaper—they actively have had policies to make them more expensive, and the architect of those policies is the person they have elected as their leader. He wanted to charge Australians to use emergency departments. People would have been charged for that. He froze the indexation of the Medicare rebate, undermining the viability of GP practices, and ripped out $50 billion from the hospital's budget.

We can look at what they do. Sometimes you say, 'Don't look at what they say; look at what they do,' but we can look at both. They do both and they are continuing to do both. And every time they complain and get angry about the tax cuts, it's clear to every Australian that they didn't want the government to change its position. They think that was the wrong thing to do. They don't believe we should have come forward and said, 'Here is the method that has been advised to us by Treasury, that will help people with the cost of living and that will not put pressure on inflation.' They reckon we should have taken that advice, knowing as a parliament that we could do something, and done nothing with it. And not simply because they believe in doing nothing, but because they believe that every pathway should be in the opposite direction: pay people less, tax people more. It's their record, it's their belief, it's how they vote in there, it's clear in every interview that they give. You had only to watch the fury build on 7.30 last night to know it's exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has in mind.

See this speech in context