Tania Lawrence (Hasluck, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Every taxpayer in Hasluck and around Australia is now receiving the Albanese government's tax cuts. A worker on the average wage of around $73,000 will have a tax cut of $1,504. Members opposite—particularly the member for Casey—ummed and ahed about these tax cuts and really did not want to support them. Only after some time, realising they would have to say no to tax cuts for the people in their own electorates, did they get behind and support this measure.

I was pleased when these tax cuts were announced but not surprised, as they are part of a consistent attitude on the part of the Albanese government to provide cost-of-living relief where possible, especially to those Australian families doing it tough, and in a manner that does not increase inflation. Those cost-of-living measures include energy bill relief, fee-free TAFE, cheaper child care, more bulk-billing and cheaper medicines.

Contrary to what the member for Casey said, many organisations have indeed welcomed the tax cuts; it's not just us talking to the virtues of them. Australian Council of Social Services CEO Cassandra Goldie stated:

The changes announced today are a better deal for people earning low, modest and middle incomes, including people earning under $45,000.

We are pleased the Albanese Government has listened to the community to make the package fairer.

Mark Chapman, the director of tax communications at H&R Block Australia, described the Albanese government's tax cuts as 'a welcome move given the current economic situation'. He said the wider distribution meant a useful focus on low- and middle-income taxpayers who were previously not well served by the coalition's proposed tax cuts and who have been suffering from increases in the cost of living.

Stephen Koukoulas, of Yahoo Finance, noted:

Good economics is good politics. And that is exactly what has been delivered with the revamped tax cuts to be announced by the Albanese government.

Tax cuts for all Australian workers were delivered with no net cost to the budget and with no inflationary effect. The RBA governor, Michele Bullock, stated that the tax cuts were already factored in, and that, in her opinion, monetary and fiscal policy are working the same direction.

The tax cuts are going to be more meaningful for those on lower incomes. A full-time cleaner in Midland is going to save just over $1,000; that's almost two per cent of their wage. And it isn't a one-off saving; it's a saving going forward every year. The purpose of having a progressive tax system is to ensure that those who earn more are called upon to contribute more towards government services. In a cost-of-living crisis, providing relief to those most affected by rising costs is simply good policy. As the Prime Minister and Treasurer stated more than six months ago, when circumstances change so should policy responses.

This government has done a lot for workers on lower incomes. Would the coalition ever have supported a 15 per cent pay rise for aged-care workers? No. Would the coalition ever have supported a 15 per cent pay rise for childcare workers? No. And aged-care workers and childcare workers in Hasluck and elsewhere will also benefit from the Albanese government's tax cuts. This is a government that wants to see people earn more and keep more of what they earn.

In aged care, an assistant in nursing in Midland now on a wage of around $67,000 will see a tax cut of around $1,350. It's not just assistants benefiting from that policy; it's registered nurses, enrolled nurses, assistants in nursing, personal care workers and home care workers, head chefs and cooks, and recreational activities officers. In child care, a diploma-qualified early childhood educator on $61,000 in Dayton will not only benefit from an increase in pay but keep more of what they earn too.

I was proud to be with the Prime Minister and Minister Aly at Sagewood Early Learning Dayton, in Hasluck, just a few days ago. What was going on there was good for the kiddies, although they had no idea of all the fuss happening around them! But the policy wasn't just good for the children; the pay rise was also good for the early childhood workers. It was good for workers, parents and families, the sector and the economy. It was good for the gender pay imbalance as it was good for women. It also covers out-of-school care and so benefits families of school-aged children too.

This is a government listening, understanding and seeing what needs to happen and then taking the appropriate action. That's what the tax cuts were all about too—the government responding to economic circumstances and making the necessary alterations to ensure that cost-of-living assistance was directed where it would be of most benefit. Would the coalition ever have sat back and looked at their tax policy and changed it as circumstances changed? No, they wouldn't have.

See this speech in context