Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Hansard source

I'd advise the House and advise members that at the end of this speech we'll be bringing this to a vote, because it's time for this parliament to decide whether or not we're going to provide a tax cut for every Australian.

You would have thought that, for the big fight that those opposite decide to pick when they get to budget night and do the presser afterwards, the whole backbench would be ready to come in behind its leadership. But we get the shadow Treasurer making a speech, then the Leader of the Opposition and then no-one—none of the backbench turn up! We have two speeches from the crossbench—because no-one from there jumps. Then the member for New England comes in to be the one loyal soldier to give a speech about tax cuts. It's a 15-minute speech, but he gets to the 13-minute mark and still hasn't mentioned them, then refers to them for all of 24 seconds before returning to the rest of his stream of consciousness.

Today is the day when this term—and where the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer have taken their party—reaches full circle. Never again let it be said by those opposite that, somehow, they think they are the party of lower taxes. Up until today, they've been able to say, 'It was just the Leader of the Opposition,' or, 'It was just the shadow Treasurer.' We know they're saying that, because it's in the papers. We know that they're all running off all their backbenchers, complaining about the lack of a coherent economic message.

Today, all that changes. When the tax cuts were announced for the previous budget, they were initially going to fight them. They were going to hold an early election over them. But, eventually, they folded and said: 'Okay. Maybe we'll support them. We just won't be happy about it.' Today, you can't go back to your branches anymore and say: 'That's just the leadership. That's not what we believe.' You will now go back to your branches after what's about to happen, and it will be on you that you have voted for every worker in your electorates to have higher taxes. You're about to actively be part of that decision.

Part of the reason why we're bringing this to a vote now is that I want to give the Senate the chance to consider this tonight. I want there to be an opportunity for this to be law. Because, make no mistake, the conversation that those opposite will be having with their party members and with every single person who votes for them will not be about explaining whether or not they want to give this money but about the fact that they want to take it away.

They keep telling us in interview after interview—the shadow Treasurer used the line again on the weekend—'The best guide to future action is past performance.' Well, they are about to provide the textbook case of past performance, which is: when you are given a decision, do you vote for taxes to be lower or higher? Members on this side are about to vote for taxes to be lower. We're about to vote consistently with how we've voted on every cost-of-living measure. We know that if you want cost of living to be eased for people, you want their taxes to be lower, and we voted for that. Those opposite are about to vote for taxes to be higher. To ease cost of living, you want wages to be higher, and we voted for that. At every single opportunity, those opposite have voted to restrain wages, just as they did for nine years, when low wage growth was a deliberate design feature of how they managed the economy.

They have been consistent with every other cost-of-living measure, opposing energy bill relief, opposing free TAFE and opposing cheaper medicines, but it has taken until today that they have been forced to have the vote on where they stand on taxation. Let's remember that these tax cuts build on what we did last time that they didn't want us to do. They are a top-up on what happened last time. When you put them together, you get an average tax cut of $43 a week for 2026-27 and an average tax cut of $50 per week in 2027-28. Does that mean that the cost of living is solved? Of course it doesn't. You also need all the other measures, including higher wages and what we have done to bring inflation down. You need all of that to be able to make sure you're looking after people. But what is there up in lights is that those opposite oppose every single one of those measures—absolutely everything that would make life easier for people. Those opposite don't just believe that it should be harder for people; they vote that it should be harder for people. So, after this moment, never think that there is an option for those opposite to claim that they're the party of lower taxes, because they will have voted for tax to be higher for every single Australian taxpayer—every one of them.

As the PM said, tax cuts are the only cuts that they don't support. They're the only cuts they don't support. Those opposite have cuts planned, particularly because of their plans for nuclear. You don't get to spend $600 billion without making cuts. We know that they oppose what we did on medicines. They've opposed energy bill relief. They've opposed higher wages. They've opposed cheaper child care. Three times in three years they've opposed three tax cuts, and throughout all of that time this government has had a very simple refrain: people should be able to earn more and keep more of what they earn. No-one on the other side was able to make it to their time defending what is in front of us.

Maybe you want your audition for the front bench. I got to say that there are a good number you are better than. It's a very special front bench that those opposite have provided.

See this speech in context