Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

It's 90 per cent in the member for Macarthur's electorate. That's extraordinary. I don't know if the figures work out about the same in your electorate as in mine, but in excess of $1,500 per annum will be the average tax cut for people that I represent in this parliament. I'm very pleased to be doing that. Of course, it's not game over. There's much more to be done in that area as well. It comes on top of the work that we've done around energy bill relief. It's extraordinary.

I saw the member for Hume, the bloke who wants to be Treasurer of this country, on Insiders on Sunday. That interview was more like a game of touch footy than a game of tackle. Even under those conditions the member for Hume said that if he were ever the Treasurer of the country his mission would be reducing cost-of-living pressures on Australians. Well, that struck me. I could have fallen off my beanbag at the time—and that takes a bit of doing! When he's had the opportunity over the last 18 months—just checking to see that you're awake!—to vote in favour of cost-of-living relief, he's done the opposite. He voted against energy bill relief. When he had the opportunity to deliver cheaper medicines for Australia, he voted against that, and he's part of a party which is promising to roll that back as well. So, yes, newsflash: under a government led by Peter Dutton, we'll have higher electricity bills, more expensive medicines and the potential of rolling back the tax cuts that we're debating in the House tonight. Fee-free TAFE, easier access to doctors, cheaper child care—all of these things are 100 per cent focused on the needs of middle Australians.

There are a couple of things I've got to take up. I've listened to the talking points in the contributions of members opposite. If all you knew about Australia, Australians and the Australian workforce was what you heard from coalition MPs, you could be forgiven for thinking that the only people in Australia with aspirations to get ahead are those who earn $140,000, $150,000 or more. I have to say that's deeply offensive to every nurse, schoolteacher, brickie, sparky and chippie. To the vast majority—84 or 85 per cent—of Australians who earn less than that, that's deeply offensive. Each and every one of those people has aspirations to get ahead. Each and every one of those people has aspirations to look after their families and provide a better life for them. For members of the coalition to suggest that the only people who have aspirations are people on big salaries is deeply offensive, and it rubs against the grain of most Australians.

The second furphy I want to take on is the issue of bracket creep. Again, those opposite seem to have this idea in mind that the only people in Australia who are susceptible to the impact of bracket creep are those who are earning over $150,000 a year. What they seem to forget is that there are three tax brackets below that of those earning $150,000. In fact, if you analyse the impact of bracket creep on low- and middle-income earners, you see that they are the ones who are hit the hardest. What our tax package does is provide the most relief to the people who are hit the hardest by bracket creep, and it does so through these measures, which will come into place from 1 July. Far from the baloney that we've heard from the members opposite—and I suspect we'll hear a bit more in a tick—it's just not true that the only people in Australia impacted by bracket creep are those earning over $150,000 a year.

Of course, there is one group of Australians who are overwhelmingly impacted by bracket creep and overwhelmingly advantaged by the package that will come into effect from 1 July: we call them women. They are overwhelmingly impacted and they will overwhelmingly benefit from the bracket creep relief that is provided in this package, including reducing the 19 per cent bracket to 16 per cent.

The other confounded nonsense that is the basis of this ridiculous argument is that it assumes that no Australian government for the next 10 years will do anything about bracket creep. That's the nonsense: no Australian government will do anything about bracket creep for the next 10 years. Of course, that hasn't been true for the last 10 years, and it won't be true for the next 10 years. But this is the sort of confected nonsense that you're left with when there is no rhyme or reason, no substance or rational argument, that you can bring to the debate, when all you can rely upon is confected nonsense and imaginary assumptions.

It's better for women, better for middle Australia, better for aspiration and more effective in dealing with the bracket creep that is occurring in the here and now. We acknowledged that we had to do something for low- and middle-income earners because, under us, wages are growing. Bracket creep wasn't a problem under those opposite, because wages weren't growing under them. Wages are growing under us, and that's a good thing. We want to see wage growth and productivity growth, and we want to ensure that Australians get a slice of the benefits that come with living in such a wonderful country.

People might be wondering, and I know that there are people in the House who are wondering how is this going down in my electorate. I'm happy to report to the House that it's going incredibly well. Rebecca from Burrawang contacted me to say: 'Just to let you know that I totally support the proposed changes to the stage 3 tax cuts. Fairer and sensible.' Kristin from Kanahooka said: 'We are so pleased that the stage 3 tax cuts are now to look after those in middle to lower ranges of income. It was the right thing to do as people struggle with increasing costs of living.' Rachel from Shellharbour said: 'I, and I think many others, understand why this decision was necessary. It's important for a government to remain nimble, to be the adults in the room and adapt to unforeseen circumstances they find themselves in and do what's best for the majority of people.' I couldn't have put it better than Rachel from Shellharbour. Barry from Bowral said, 'I fully endorse the proposed changes to these stage 3 tax cuts.' And Alan from Bowral said, with a similar sentiment, 'Congratulations to your government.' The majority—

An honourable member interjecting—

My mother is looking down upon us from another place, but I'm sure she'd be very excited about what we're doing here as well! What I can say is this: quite simply, this has been endorsed by the majority of Australians. That's endorsed not only by the majority of Australians who vote Labor, or Liberal or in accordance with no particular party but endorsed and supported by the majority of Australians—which is why it should be endorsed by the majority of this House.

See this speech in context