David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

Getting back to what I was saying about the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024, as I mentioned earlier, sure, the coalition is supporting cutting the tax rate from 19c to 16c. We support a simpler, fairer tax system but this isn't fairer. It is just moving tax cuts that were allocated to people who have worked hard, got ahead and been caught by bracket creep. Our tax plan was addressing bracket creep by removing the 37c tax rate altogether. Unfortunately, that has been abandoned; tax is now still payable at 37c in the dollar once you get to $135,000.

Our simpler tax plan was to get rid of that tax bracket altogether until your earnings were above $200,000. Now, 37c in the dollar is paid up to $190,000. I got the Parliamentary Library to go through the changes for my electorate. Silently and without any attention being drawn to it—except for people like me, who have a low-income electorate and who had lots of people saying: 'How come my tax refund has shrunk by over $1,000? I put in all the same claims last year!'—this government didn't enforce the low- and middle-income tax offset at the last budget. So the tax changes now are just returning some of the tax offsets that were in the system up until then. For instance: the first tax benefit that people in my electorate get is once they're above the $18,200, when they will save $78 over the year. And it maxes out at the princely sum of $804, less tax, up until you get to $135,000 of income. In the system that we had, that would have been $1,052 and, if the former Treasurer's announcements in our last budget had been regulated, it would have been $1,500. Because they are moving tax cuts that were destined, after we reformed the earlier stages of the progressive tax scale, for people who've worked hard and are trying to get ahead, those earning above $135,000 will be $246 worse off. They'll be paying more tax—up to $200,000, they'll be paying $4,500 more tax than they would have.

The economy is making the cost of living higher because of inflation. We've got interest rates that are up. People with mortgages are finding they've got $10,000 or $20,000 more in payments. We have housing shortages left, right and centre. And why is that? It might have something to do with the 620,000 people that have arrived in the country in the last year. That level of migration is inflationary in itself. The UK, with a population 2½ times that of ours, had headlines that it was absorbing 600,000 people, and they thought that was a massive increase. But with 25 million people, we have the same amount! That shows you how out of control migration is. We have to be sensible; we know we have skills shortages and that migration fills some of that, but if our own people can't afford to get a house, either to rent or to own, we really have to put the brakes on.

The other thing is: why is inflation being so resistant in this country? It's basic economics. We are spending too much money without getting productivity. We're not getting any wealth creation or efficiency in producing the same amount of goods with less money, or producing a whole lot more with the same money. But we have seen around this country an explosion in public servant administrative roles which aren't producing economic benefit. I'm not saying they don't go to work and work hard, but they're not creating a good or a service that we're exporting. We're just hampering the economy with more public wages.

We have an NDIS that is totally out of control; it needs major reform. It is a sacred cow that everyone thought was going to cost $12 billion a year. I was following very closely in 2012, when Prime Minister Gillard announced it, and it got bipartisan support because the deal seemed quite reasonable. Having worked in disability for most of my professional career in medicine, because they overlap, I could see there needed to be a change in the system. But the way it was designed, with the agreement of the states, has not been able to change it because no-one in the states would let the Commonwealth change it. But it is not sustainable. The member for Macarthur will appreciate this: the payments for the Medicare system, which are for 25.5 million people, are less than what the NDIS costs with 600,000 people. We have seen wages for unskilled people go through the roof because you can get a job working in the NDIS and be earning $32 or $33 an hour without any certificate—you just have to go through probity testing, turn up and work for a company giving personal care and assistance, or accompanying for outings. Everyone in my electorate is talking about it; everyone is saying it's outrageous.

I talked to other members in this House, and they said, 'Yes, it is pretty outrageous.' Is that not inflationary—spending more than $35 billion? I'm not trying to be angry at the people who are receiving the service, but it's the way it has been set up. It's uncapped, we've got hundreds of thousands of kids now—with a projected 160,000 more coming on—

Deputy Speaker Chester, it needs to be redefined. The minister responsible is talking about capping its growth at eight per cent. No, it has to be capped, and the definitions of who gets on it. The NDIA sets a lot of these costs—fixed equipment costs for catheters, colostomy bags, wheelchairs and disability aids. People with disability have said, 'How come my catheter now costs me three or four times what it was before the NDIS?' It's because there is so much money in the NDIS, and that's because it's uncapped. So all the suppliers are putting their rates up. Some of the ABN companies that have popped up have grown topsy-turvy, and it is not sustainable. So that is another inflationary thing where we are not getting value for money out of the spend. Unfortunately, there are plenty of people who really need a big, expensive package. They are being limited because all these lower-level disability people are getting extraordinary packages.

All the philanthropic groups that used to run on a block grant have now had all their easy cases taken by these new pop-up disability service companies, which get all the low-hanging cases that are easy to provide and they get paid a motza. I've had a nurse leave nursing—an RN—because she can make $130,000, and she doesn't do night duty or weekend duty. I've had builders who've started an NDIS company. I've had teachers who've gone into NDIS companies. It's a gold rush, and the poor disability sufferers aren't getting the benefit. We really have to address this.

That's one of the reasons why we've got inflation in this country, and we wonder why we can't get people to work in hospitality and in other skilled and semi-skilled cases. It's because a lot of them think, 'Hey, why would I do that really hard job when I can get paid $12 more?' I've had nursing homes in my electorate with newly built wards for dementia, and they can't open them because their nursing staff ratios can't be filled. And they can't get regular assistance in nursing. That's because—guess what?—they can get $14 or $12 more working in the NDIS during business hours. I had an abattoir that brought workers over from the Pacific; within two months a group of 20 islanders had virtually vanished from the abattoir. The owner of the abattoir rang me up and said, 'We went through hell and high water to get these people in to keep our abattoir working and, I didn't know where they've gone.' They had gone to work in disability, because they could sleep overnight in disability housing for a significant amount more money than working in the job that they'd been brought into the country to work in.

Unless we really address inflation, these tax cuts will go nowhere. It's a sweet spot for a year or two, but we really need to get back and address the bracket-creep thing, because it's a big issue. It was so simple; there's no crime in working hard and paying more tax— (Time expired)

See this speech in context