Zoe McKenzie (Flinders, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I will. The press release also said:

A Federal Labor Government will electrify and duplicate the track to Baxter, giving commuters better access to high quality public transport and park-and-ride options

The press release goes on for a few more paragraphs, making wonderful promises to do better for the people of my region, to make good on a promise that was actually made by the wonderful dear friend to many of us in this place, the former member for Dunkley, Peta Murphy, who concluded:

Only a Federal Labor Government will make sure that the extension of the line to Baxter, benefiting residents in Frankston and the Peninsula, becomes a reality.

Of course, the Albanese Labor government cancelled that rail project in their 90-day, revised to a 200-day, review of infrastructure last year, together with the much sought after overpass, a jetty road in Rosebud. So it should be no surprise that when you look at the detail of this particular bill that you find a bit of the old bait-and-switch built into the offer.

Firstly, only 10,000 households can be helped each year. It is limited to people who earn less than $90,000 a year or $120,000 for a couple, even though we know people need to earn infinitely more than that just to buy an entry-level home or apartment in my electorate. It is limited in terms of purchase price, for example, to $850,000 in metro Melbourne and $550,000 for the rest of the state of Victoria. And to ensure its availability, states actually need to opt in, even though we already know similar schemes in Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia are undersubscribed at the moment. So why would those states opt in unless attempting to simply cost shift while benefiting no new prospective homebuyers? More detail will come in time about the program direction, so we don't quite know yet whether the Commonwealth will cap its contribution, nor how they might treat, for example, the value of any improvements that other homeowners may make to the property.

But most important to me in this bill is that I can reasonably deduce that it will help precisely nobody in my electorate of Flinders. Why? In a nutshell, the median price of a home in my electorate today is $1.13 million and as we saw on the front page of The Age today, you need to earn $220,000 a year to be able to afford such a home—that is, I should point out, a 40 per cent rise on just four years ago. So what you need to earn to afford a house in my electorate of Flinders is quite daunting. For example, if you want a house in Bittern, the average price there is $861,000 and the income you require just to be in the game is $170,000. A house in Capel Sound for $734,000 to buy requires income of $144,000. In Crib Point, a house will cost you in the order of $770,000 and require an income of $151,000. In Hastings, a house will be around $700,000 and require you to earn around $140,000; Pearcedale, almost $1 million, $915,000, requiring an income of about $180,000 a year. And in Somerville, where my electorate office is, a house will set you back about $810,000, needing an income of almost $160,000.

It shouldn't be lost on anyone listening from my electorate at this time that these are exactly the people who were recently punished by the changes to the stage 3 tax cuts. I listened to some of the government speeches on this bill yesterday in this chamber and I was floored to hear some of them mention the magical word 'aspiration'. Perhaps it was only to distinguish themselves from the next-level lecturing from the Australian Greens and their utter disdain for those who work hard and invest in property and, in doing so, create homes in the form of rental properties for others. But it is fair to say that talk of aspiration sits uncomfortably in the mouths of those sitting opposite after they abolished the most meaningful reform to personal income tax that has been attempted in the last decade, one which should have addressed racket creep and would not have cost Australian an additional $28 billion more in income tax over the next decade—that is, $28 billion more over the next decade.

It is perhaps no surprise then that the economic hero of the modern Labor Party, the man whose politics are the stuff of which today's Treasurer's doctorate is made, Paul Keating, in a marvellous and long interview with Michael Stutchbury, reflecting on his 80 years of life, was described as commenting as follows:

While seeking to keep out of current tax policy controversies, he says the top personal income tax should be no higher than 39 per cent, compared with the current 45 per cent rate (plus the 2 per cent Medicare levy).

And he quotes the mighty PJK:

"There's an issue that all societies should have of how much a person's conscientious efforts and wealth should be delivered to the state," he says.

"Once you start getting the top rate over, in my opinion, 39 [per cent], it becomes confiscatory and when they become confiscatory you just lose all that impetus to make a dollar and do clever things."

That's nicely said.

We know he's not the only one who gets it. Some clever work done by Sky News political editor, Andrew Clennell, dug up the old Kevin Rudd plan for tax reform, one which you might say can be classed in the category of aspiration of which those opposite were speaking yesterday. Andrew Clennell reminded us in the first week of February that, upon a time, the Rudd government aspired to install a new tax system, by 2013-14, in which there would only be three tax brackets. The 45c rate would drop to 40c, and the 40c rate would drop to 37c, on its way to 30c. Well, my, how the Labor Party has lost its way. Now it punishes those who earn more than $130,000—

See this speech in context