Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know the frustration that so many Canberrans and other Australians have felt in dealing with the NDIA, with the coordination that comes from the NDIA, or lack thereof, and the overwhelming bureaucracy. My attention was drawn to an article that was in The Guardian a few days ago, a tragic story about Denis and Annette Reid. Denis lives in Queanbeyan, grew up in Bombala and is an Army veteran. As the article says, Denis's experiences mirror the experiences of so many of those who've had to deal with the NDIS.

As I said in my remarks last night, this is a scheme that I am 150 per cent behind. This is an empowering scheme. It's a scheme that allows those with a disability to realise their full potential. It's a scheme that allows carers respite—well, that's what it's designed to do. But there have been challenges with the scheme, and that's why it's important that we discuss these challenges and don't sweep them under the carpet. We've got to get this right. This is vitally important for our nation's future. It is vitally important for those with a disability to ensure that they realise their potential and have a bright future. It's vitally important for carers who are worried sick and spend sleepless nights. They are worried witless about what's going to happen to their child when they get older, when they get frail and when they're no longer able to physically and emotionally manage, look after, support and care for this child. They are worried witless about what happens when they get older and also when they die. That's why the NDIS provides them with lifetime support that is tailor-made to each and every individual.

I start with this example of Denis and Annette Reid, whose experiences mirror those of many who are dealing with the NDIS at the moment. Annette, unfortunately, has MS. The article says:

Denis sought and was granted a $150,000 NDIS package to support Anne, which included $30,000 for a bathroom renovation.

He got a quote from a builder friend for a professional bathroom fit-out, which came in at $18,000, well below what he had been approved to spend.

Denis had been given prior approval to self-manage the funds, but sent in a request form for the work to the National Disability Insurance Agency.

He was bounced between staff and state offices. No one could give him a straight answer—

about the difference in the money for the renovation and the quote from his mate.

One moment the form had arrived, and was being processed. A week later, Denis was told it hadn't been received and needed to be sent again.

This is the experience of so many Australians, including Canberrans, and it's got a lot to do with the fact that there has been a cap on the NDIA staff. We've got this huge, incredibly ambitious scheme rolling out nationally—a scheme that will, as I said, realise the potential of so many Australians—and there just are not enough staff inside the NDIA and also not enough providers providing the services that people need. So Labor has made it clear that we are calling on the government to act urgently on the staffing issue. I understand the Productivity Commission suggested that the cap of 3,000 staff is underdone, and I call on the government to urgently remove the NDIA staff cap.

In the 2013-14 budget, Labor clearly set out how the NDIS would be funded for 10 years, well before the transition to the full scheme in 2020. Our plan to fund the NDIS included $6.5 billion in reforms to the private health insurance rebate, $6 billion in retirement income reform and $20.6 billion in other long-term savings proposals. These long-term savings included changes to tax concessions for fringe benefits and net medical expenses, changes to the indexation of the tobacco excise, and increases to import processing charges. The Medicare levy was also increased by 0.5 percentage points, to two per cent. Together with the contributions from state and territory governments, these measures covered the cost of the NDIS for 10 years.

Independent research from the ANU shows that twice as many households would be worse off under the plan that the government currently has before us than under Labor's plan. If the government's policy were in place from 1 July 2019 then, according to the ANU modelling, 60 per cent of households would be worse off, 39 per cent would see no change and just one per cent would be better off—just one per cent! By comparison, if Labor's policy were implemented from 1 July 2019 then 27 per cent of households would be worse off and 73 per cent would see no change in their circumstances, a huge difference.

Despite this, the government seems adamant on funding the NDIS through an increase to the Medicare levy. This is after its plans to help fund the NDIS through cuts to welfare were scrapped earlier this year. Of course, where do they go? They go to those most vulnerable in our community. Helping fund the NDIS through a further increase to the Medicare levy means that it will affect workers earning less than $87,000. It means that low- and middle-income earners in my electorate will feel the pinch of this bill. These are also people who are going to be getting a tax hike.

It's breathtaking that at a time of low wages growth and high cost-of-living pressures—especially when it comes to housing affordability—this government is prioritising an income tax hike for the same workers who have already had their penalty rates cut. Essentially, their wages have dropped. We're at the lowest level of wage growth in a generation. Productivity has gone up 10 per cent over the last 10 years, and yet wage rises have only gone up six per cent. We have a significant issue on wages in this country, and it's not just in terms of penalty rates; it's also in the fact that real wage growth has not happened over time.

I want to make reference to the fact that this government is hell-bent on targeting those who are most vulnerable in our community—those who can least afford it and who are struggling. There are a lot of Canberrans and a lot of Australians who are out there, struggling. Just recently, on Friday, I hosted a pensions forum with the shadow minister for social services. It was a pensions forum that covered not just the aged pension but also the disability support pension, Newstart or any pension that people can get. And what was really concerning from that event was the fact that people are really frightened about their futures. This is what this government has done to Australians and this is what this government has done to Canberrans. It's a fact that they're frightened about their future in terms of cuts to services, cuts to pensions and cuts to the energy supplement. They're frightened that they're constantly targeted by a government that is completely out of touch and which is absolutely hell-bent on pitting Australia's vulnerable people against each other—this government pits the most vulnerable in our community against each other.

In closing, I want to send a very strong message to those Canberrans and those Australians who are listening that Labor will continue to fight for you. Labor will continue to fight for the most vulnerable and those who are doing it tough in our community: only Labor has your back and only Labor has your concerns at heart. (Time expired)

Susan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The position that Labor has taken on this matter has been really clear: we don't think that low- and middle-income earners should be hit by an increase to the Medicare levy to pay for a National Disability Insurance Scheme that has already been paid for. So we oppose the Turnbull government's proposed increase to the Medicare levy on workers earning less than $87,000. We think that the more than seven million Australian workers earning less than $87,000 each year should be spared this tax hike.

Let's remember what this is about: it's an increase in the Medicare levy of 0.5 per cent, taking it to a rate of 2.5 per cent. Of course, it replaces this government's original plan to do welfare cuts, which they said was to fund the NDIS. Of course, that was blocked, but, again, this is something that has already been funded. Now the government seems to thinks that low- to middle-income earners have money to burn. It does make me wonder what those opposite do in their time away from this place. When I'm out talking to people, whether it's in Bilpin or Bligh Park, Warrimoo or Woodford, they're telling me that things are tough. Their wages are not keeping up with the costs that they face on a day-to-bay basis.

If those opposite were out there talking to normal people—to people who work in shops and hospitals and have their own small businesses—they'd know that right now people are feeling the squeeze. It's the mix of low wages growth, high cost-of-living pressures like electricity bills and the government already pursuing cuts in penalty rates and forcing those sorts of cuts onto low- and middle-income earners. I suppose we should not even wonder with why the Treasurer would stop there; he is also hitting the same group of workers with the income tax hike.

I do think it's interesting that we're talking about an increase in the Medicare levy at the same time as there is some discussion by the Treasurer on the back of the Productivity Commission report about inclusive growth—growth that doesn't leave some people out, growth that doesn't widen the gap between the top and the bottom and is spread across all Australians. It has probably come as a bit of a surprise to this government that the Productivity Commission is saying that the key to Australia's economic growth and productivity is apparently people. Yes, fancy that—people! It will be a shock because this government has presided over non-inclusive growth entirely at the top end of the system.

Productivity has surged 20 per cent but with only six per cent real wage growth. We've got a high degree of casualisation and a high degree of outsourcing to labour-hire companies. It's hard for workers to get a pay rise. And then we have a Treasurer wanting to talk about health reforms when all they really want to do is tear Medicare apart.

Labor long ago appreciated that people are the heart of the economy. They're the reason for the economy. Go back to 2008, and under the Labor government COAG agreed that human capital was the key source of economic growth. That was nearly a decade ago. It's taken those opposite a little while even to hear the phrase 'inclusive growth'. The Commonwealth and the states at that time agreed on how to invest in people, but the Liberals rejected it all in their 2014 budget, cutting health and cutting education, and they continue with that agenda, so they're very late to this party. They want to cut universities. They can't get it through the Senate, but it's what they want to do. They want to invest less than we need in schools, and here in this legislation they want to hit low- and middle-income earners to fund something that is already funded.

We can hope that the Treasurer's rhetoric that echoes the true values of fairness and equity that we in the Labor Party actually believe in is reflected in his policies, but I won't hold my breath, because I think it will take more than a Productivity Commission report for this government to get it. They say they believe in fairness and they say they believe in inclusion, but every piece of law they try to pass, including this one, shows they really believe in the opposite.

It's worth looking at just what a 0.5 per cent increase means to low- and medium-income earners. For a start, it will increase the tax burden on vulnerable Australians earning as little as $21,000 a year. The Prime Minister's tax increase will mean a worker on $55,000 a year will pay $275 extra in tax. Someone on $80,000 will face an extra $400 in tax. Of course, these are not necessarily large amounts to those opposite, but when you are raising a family, running a small business from home or putting together the early part of your career or your profession, they're significant amounts of money. When you get your electricity bill, it barely touches the edges of it. A worker earning $85,000 a year will lose the full benefit of last year's sandwich-and-milkshake tax cut. I'm not going to claim credit for that phrase, but it describes beautifully the value of that tax cut to people. In fact, those earning $85,000 a year will end up paying more in income tax after that tax cut.

We think that workers earning less than $87,000, which is the top figure of the third tax level in the tax table, will be hurt by this increase and they simply don't deserve it. The stagnant wages, the falling living standards and the record levels of underemployment all mean that many Australians are probably less able to pay more tax than they ever have been in the past. It is especially galling that this is happening at a time when big business is getting a $65 billion tax cut. The combination is just staggering.

This piece of legislation is also based on a furphy. The NDIS was funded by Labor in government. I don't think that I can join this discussion about NDIS without pointing out that this government has so poorly rolled out the service for many people in my electorate of Macquarie. We spend hours every week trying to resolve their issues. The government has actually saved money on the NDIS by having a staff member per electorate office working for them, I would guess, as advocates and problem solvers.

In talking about the problems of the NDIS, I have previously spoken in this place about the challenges facing Gretta Serov, who lives in the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury, one week at a time with each parent. She's 26, in a wheelchair and waiting to be able to use some of her core funding to get to university. What she was allocated in her transport plan does not cover that journey. We're talking about investing in people—in human capital—yet we can't find a way to allow a young person with a disability to get to university. That really is shameful. This is something she has been asking for since November last year. Months and months of promises have not led to a solution for this situation.

Not surprisingly, as Gretta's situation became more widely known in my electorate, Kayla got in touch with me. Kayla lives in Hazelbrook, which is halfway up the Blue Mountains. She has no access to public transport. She uses a power wheelchair, just like Gretta, and is having so many issues regarding transport. Transport is one of the key areas where we are failing recipients of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We have not got this right. I'm trusting there is a commitment on the other side to get it right. There is certainly a commitment on this side of the House that we get this system working.

There are other challenges thwarting people and really giving the NDIS a bad name that need to be addressed. The Australian disability enterprises are finding it particularly challenging. They're concerned there's no support from the NDIS with referrals. In fact, they feel that people have been directed away from disability enterprises which create products, deliver services and employ people with disabilities.

One of the big issues that comes to my electorate office is around the complaints process—perhaps not about the complaints process so much as about the lack of complaints process and the randomness of how a complaint is dealt with by the NDIA. Sometimes it is by email and sometimes by phone call. There is no consistency. You speak to different people and you get different responses. This is the sort of issue that we should not be hearing about.

Inadequacy of funding is obviously something that comes up, and where we notice it most is where there is a request for a review of a plan. There have been poor plans done; there is no doubt about it. There are people who are worse off under this system, and that was never meant to be the case. But getting a review, even for something minor, seems to take forever. The participants feel that the review is just an excuse for there to be a cut to the funding that they get, so there is fear about even requesting a review because there is no guarantee they will even maintain the service level that they have when requesting an improvement in that service level. There are things like discrepancies in plans, such as where the plan states it's for nine months, but the portal says 12 months. That creates confusion with costing—is it meant to last nine months or is it meant to get them through 12 months? And accessing the portal is another issue altogether; it's a piece of technology that was not well thought through. The biggest concern that I hear is around the inordinately long wait for review decisions. I mean, you've got people whose lives are literally on hold while their plan is being reviewed. They're treading water, waiting for decisions, and yet there doesn't seem to be any agreed timeline within which those decisions occur.

One of the other concerns that has come to me from many constituents is that the reviews are sometimes decided without any consultation with the participant or with any of their support workers, or any of the medical specialists who they work with. We also hear this about plans: that plans are approved and people aren't even sure that there's been a proper discussion about it. When there's a review, it is unacceptable that participants have no opportunity to review the plan before it has been finalised, because—guess what, Deputy Speaker Vasta?—that just leads to another review of the plan, so this process can go on and on and on.

To be fair, I have heard of really great outcomes from some participants on the NDIS. There are people who have experienced the benefits that this program was designed to bring. It has changed their life; it has given them more independence; it has given them the capacity to self-determine and make decisions about what their priorities are as an individual. But I have to say there is a long, long way to go before that becomes the norm. I look forward to seeing the quality of plans improve, the processes improve; however, if that doesn't happen then we are really failing the people who expect a lot from this parliament, who received a commitment from both sides of this House to a National Disability Insurance Scheme.

We often get asked, and it's often asked about here in question time on issues, if there are any alternative views? I want to talk about Labor's alternative position on funding the NDIS, because the position we have is better and fairer for the budget. Our plan raises $4 billion more than the government's proposed tax rise over 10 years by increasing the Medicare levy for people earning more than $87,000. Our plan is restricted to those earning more than $87,000 a year, and keeping the deficit levy on those income earners earning more than $180,000 a year. We'll obviously be moving amendments in the Senate on this. Independent research from the Australian National University shows that twice as many households would be worse off under the coalition's plan than under our plan. We think that being able to halve the number of people impacted is a pretty good outcome, particularly because you're ensuring it's not the most vulnerable people who are impacted.

Labor created the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We know how important the NDIS is to improving the lives of people with a disability, and the lives of their friends and families. We are genuinely committed to its successful rollout. Like other items of government expenditure such as Defence—there's a whole array of them—the NDIS is funded from consolidated revenue and does not require separate funding arrangements. (Time expired)

Cathy O'Toole (Herbert, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I stand here today on behalf of the families and workers in Herbert to say no to the Medicare Levy Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017. I cannot support a bill that increases taxes for the poor and lets the top end of town get away with not paying their fair share of tax. I am sick and tired of the relentless attacks on workers by the Turnbull government.

I stand with Labor in opposing the Turnbull government's proposed increase to the Medicare levy for workers earning less than $87,000. This is a tax hike for more than seven million Australian workers earning less than $87,000 each year. And while the Turnbull government are increasing taxes on Aussie workers, they are also giving a $65 billion tax cut to big business. Allow me to repeat that: a person working in construction on the Townsville Stadium, serving coffee at McCafe on the Lakes, the local subcontractor, nurse, or teacher at Thuringowa State High School will receive a tax increase and big business will get a $65 billion tax cut from the Turnbull government.

The Turnbull government is asking Australian families and workers to pay more tax whilst allowing companies like Chevron and Google to get way with not paying one cent of tax to this country. How is that fair? How is it fair that billion-dollar companies do not pay their fair share of taxes in Australia whilst the local subcontractor pays more in tax? This is the current situation in Australia, and I will keep on repeating these facts until the Turnbull government actually does something to stop the growth in inequality and support Australian families and workers.

Inequality is at a 70-year high. More than 105,000 people are homeless, one-third of pensioners live in poverty and 32 per cent of unemployed people live in poverty. The HILDA report shows that child poverty in Australia is growing. Wage growth hasn't been this low since records started being kept. Since 1975, the Australian Bureau of Statistics has collected data on earnings inequality. Profits have gone up by 40 per cent and wages have gone up by less than two per cent. Real wages have grown by 72 per cent for the top 10 per cent. In 1975, the top 10 per cent earned twice as much as the bottom 10 per cent, but by 2014 they earned nearly three times as much. If low-wage earners had enjoyed the same percentage gains, they would be $16,000 better off a year.

The richest one per cent of Australians own more wealth than the bottom 70 per cent of Australians combined. For every dollar a male earns, a woman earns 82c. Six hundred and seventy eight corporations have paid no tax. Forty eight millionaires paid no tax. The latest corporate tax transparency report by the Australian Taxation Office in 2014-15 showed that 36 per cent of large firms had zero tax payable in 2014-15. I would be very grateful if someone from the Turnbull government could please explain to me how these statistics are fair. Can the Treasurer or the finance minister outline what they are doing to ensure that these companies pay their fair share of tax? They won't, because I suspect they can't. When your mates, and your experience, are big business you can never have an understanding of what it's like for a working Australian on a low income.

It's dumbfounding that, at a time of low wages growth and high cost-of-living pressures, the government is already pursuing a cut in penalty rates for low- and middle-income workers and the Treasurer is prioritising an income tax hike for those same workers. The Turnbull government's plan to increase the Medicare levy would increase the tax burden on vulnerable Australians earning as little as $21,000 a year. This government's tax increase will mean a worker on $55,000 would pay an extra $275 in tax, while someone earning $80,000 would pay an extra $400 in tax. A worker earning $85,000 a year will lose the full benefit of last year's tax cut and actually end up paying more income tax.

This is a government that pretends to give you money with one hand while stealing it from you with the other. And whilst they're giving $65 billion tax cuts to big businesses and increasing the taxes those earning $21,000 a year, in this bill they're also making cuts to the Education Investment Fund. The Education Investment Fund was established to provide capital investment in higher education infrastructure and vocational education and training infrastructure, including renewal and refurbishment in universities, research facilities and major research institutions. Since 2008, and until the Turnbull-Abbott government abandoned the program, around $4.2 billion was provided to co-finance the updating and modernisation of Australia's vocational, higher education and research facilities across 71 projects. Universities Australia said that losing the EIF, which has $3.8 billion remaining, would make it harder for the sector to create new jobs, generate research breakthroughs and compete for international students. Because of the abolition of these programs universities, TAFEs and research institutions have said they will either cancel or postpone plans for infrastructure investment and upgrades.

These cuts will cost jobs in my electorate of Herbert, an area that can afford neither job cuts nor cuts to higher education. On top of these cuts, $37.1 million in funding will be lost to James Cook University, and $30.1 million will be cut from Central Queensland University. It is internationally recognised that education is a key factor in lifting people out of poverty. A strong education system equates to a stronger middle class. A strong middle class means a strong economy. When the government is making such severe cuts to universities and is cutting more than $2 billion from TAFE, on top of increasing taxes for Australian workers and families, it is clear that the Turnbull government is not helping workers but, in reality, destroying them. We see cut upon cut upon cut by the Turnbull government to the people who need the most support.

The Turnbull government's treatment of the NDIS is abhorrent and shameful. The NDIS is the biggest transformational social change this country has seen since Medicare. The NDIS has the potential to make amazing and transformational changes to the lives of people who live with a disability, and to give those people, who have been socially isolated, the opportunity to engage in their community. The NDIS is the opportunity for people with a disability to achieve a life of choice, purpose, meaning and citizenship, just like other members of the community.

I have seen a young 14-year-old girl's life turned completely around. Her physical health was very poor. She was spending many months each year in hospital. Her physical health is now so much better. She is actively engaged in life, which has taken enormous pressure from her mother and family. In this young woman's case, the NDIS has been life-changing.

However, sadly, this is not always the case, because it is very hard to deliver consistent quality supports to vulnerable people when the system is being developed on the run due to the government's lack of planning, preparedness and ability to assist those most in need and the most complicated cases. I have a man aged 42 who is a veteran living in my electorate who has a devastating acquired brain injury and very bad physical health. He has a wife and three children but he cannot live at home because his care needs are very high. His wife is beside herself, and has become very depressed, because he is now caught between the aged-care system and the NDIS. He is living in the ABI unit, and this is simply just not good enough. I am working with the NDIA to address this situation.

I stand here as a proud member of the Labor Party and I vow to the Herbert community that, together, Labor and I will fight to protect the NDIS. Labor created the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and we know how important the NDIS is to improving the lives of people with disabilities and their families. Labor has a plan to ensure the full and proper rollout of the NDIS, and it does not include taxing the most vulnerable Australians.

Labor has a plan that is better and fairer for the budget. Labor's plan raises more than $4 billion—more than the government's proposed tax rise over 10 years—by increasing the Medicare levy for individuals earning more than $87,000 a year and keeping the deficit levy on those income earners earning more than $180,000. Independent research from the Australian National University shows that twice as many households would be worse off under the coalition's plan than under Labor's plan. We are 100 per cent committed to the successful rollout of the NDIS. We are 100 per cent committed to looking after Australian workers. We are 100 per cent committed to supporting Australian families. The question is: are you, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull?

These cuts and all of the benefits to big business highlight one thing: that the Prime Minister is completely out of touch with Australian families and workers. With an estimated worth in stocks, shares, properties and trades of $200 million, of course this Prime Minister could not possibly comprehend the day-to-day struggles of someone earning $50,000 a year. The Prime Minister is out of touch and seemingly incapable of understanding the needs of Australian families and workers. I will never support taxing the poor and giving large tax breaks to the very rich. Stagnant wages, falling living standards and record levels of underemployment and unemployment all mean that low- and middle-income Australians are less able to pay more tax than they have in the past. Only Labor will stand up and fight against inequality. It has only ever been Labor, and will only ever be Labor, that gives families and workers a fair go.

Susan Lamb (Longman, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Medicare Levy Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017. As do all my Labor colleagues who have spoken before me, and who will continue to speak after me, I stand here in resounding support of both Medicare and the National Disability Insurance Scheme—or, as we all know it and love it, the NDIS.

Both Medicare and the NDIS are incredible initiatives, of course. Both programs have been designed to deliver quality and affordable health and social outcomes for all Australians regardless of who they are or where they live. For many vulnerable Australians these programs ensure—or in the case of areas yet to receive the NDIS, like my area in the Moreton Bay region, they will ensure—that we have a reasonable quality of life for people living with a disability. In my area, that's around 10,000 people, so we're eagerly awaiting on the NDIS to arrive in the Moreton Bay region.

But programs like these should always be lauded. Anything that can be done to ensure that all Australians have a fair go are highly important in helping move Australia forward. It comes as no surprise that both Medicare and the NDIS were Labor initiatives. Labor are 100 per cent behind both initiatives and Labor is 100 per cent committed to the successful rollout of the NDIS Australia-wide. As I mentioned, that includes the Moreton Bay region as we await the rollout.

But as all Australians know, it is only Labor that's 100 per cent committed to Medicare, because they just can't trust the Liberals with Medicare. At any chance the Liberals get they will take a jab at it. They will look at dismantling the pride of our nation wherever they can. Sometimes it's pretty blatant—blatant, like the Medicare freeze, which they absolutely refuse to lift. Instead they make excuse after excuse, day after day. The Prime Minister could lift that freeze right now if he wished to—right now. He could lift it right now, but he won't because this government has it in for Medicare.

But sometimes this government isn't so blatant. Sometimes they're a little more subtle—not a lot but just a little, like with the bill I'm speaking on right at this second. Despite the NDIS having been fully funded in a bipartisan fashion, with funding allocated to the NDIS in all budgets since 2013 and 2014, here we are today with the government looking to raise the Medicare levy to fund what has already been funded. This is the government raising the price of Medicare for every Australian, one step at a time. We all know that this government wants Australians to pay their healthcare costs completely out of pocket. So, instead, they raise the cost half a per cent at a time. That is not completely subtle, of course, but not as blatant as their Medicare freeze.

Somehow, the government had money to burn in this budget, though. They threw $122 million away—$122 million!—because they were too weak to do their job. They were too scared to stand up to the right wing of their party despite their dishonest claims that they were united and a factionless party. They were too weak to do their job and threw away $122 million. And they're throwing away $65 billion by sending taxpayers' money offshore with huge multinational companies that will benefit from the ideological big business tax cut. And they've cut $16,400 in taxes from millionaires by axing the budget repair levy.

I would argue that this budget is far from being repaired. Under this government the national debt has skyrocketed. This government claims that when Labor was in power, Australia was facing a budget emergency. Do you remember that, Deputy Speaker Buchholz? It was a budget emergency. What would it be called now, I would ask? What would they call it now? Now that debt has grown so much under their rule and now that it has grown so much due to this government's reckless spending, surely it can be called nothing less than catastrophic? And yet despite the catastrophic circumstances that Prime Minister Turnbull and his government—and his Treasurer, of course: don't forget the Treasurer's involvement in this—have got Australia's budget into, they now think it's okay to remove the budget repair levy.

Well, I agree that some things need to be done—they absolutely do—to reduce the negative balance that continues to grow under the Turnbull government, but I vehemently oppose this government's ridiculous assertion that it's low- and middle-income Australia who should be the ones to pay for this mess. It is not their fault. It is not the fault of hardworking taxpayers that this government mismanages money. So how is it fair? Tell me how it is fair that this government plans to burden a worker on $55,000 a year with an extra $275 a year in tax. How is that fair? Somebody earning $55,000 a year is now going to be burdened with $275 extra a year in tax. How is it fair that the government's proposed increase to the Medicare levy will hit vulnerable Australians earning as little as $21,000 a year? You have to ask: how do you live on $21,000 a year?

This government has absolutely no idea. It has no idea what real Australians live like, how people just barely get by, or how this government's continual attacks—such as cutting the take-home pay of hundreds of thousands of workers, which has begun rolling out to Australia's most vulnerable workers—are taking their toll on these people. The government has no idea how the cost-of-living pressures that have ballooned under this government—like the energy prices that this government, despite its claims, still hasn't got control of—are taking a toll on households all over this country. It has no idea how this extended period of low wages growth is taking its toll. Then here stands this government, raising the rate of taxation on the very same people who it's taking its toll on: Australia's most vulnerable workers.

This is all coming from a party that like to claim that they're the party of lower taxes. What they like to omit, though, is the footnote on the party of lower taxes, and that's the caveat that shows their true intentions. They are the party for lower taxes—but for wealthy people, of course. How else could you define the government? They raise taxes for people on a barely liveable $21,000 a year—that's right—and they've cut $16,400 from the taxes of millionaires. They are raising the tax on people earning $21,000 a year, and millionaires get a $16,400 tax cut. That is over three-quarters of $21,000. It's three-quarters of a salary of a worker who'll be getting a tax hike, being gifted to a millionaire. I really struggle to understand how the government justify this—how they can look at low-income earners in Australia and say that they deserve a tax hike while millionaires deserve a tax cut.

That is why I so strongly oppose this bill. Anyone earning less than $87,000 shouldn't have to shoulder the brunt of this government's economic mismanagement. You know, there are less than five per cent of people who earn over $87,000 in my electorate. Ninety-five per cent of people in Longman earn less than $87,000, and they're going to shoulder that, while your millionaires get a tax cut. Tell me how that's fair.

Not only that, but over the next 10 years Labor have plans to make sure that we have a plan that is fair. We've got a better plan for the budget, and let me tell you about it. Labor's plan raises over $4 billion more than this government's proposed tax rise for low- and middle-income Australia. It is a plan that just makes sense. Independent research from the Australian National University shows that twice as many households would be worse off under the coalition's plan than under Labor's plan.

But the sad part about this is that the government won't listen to the ANU, of course. It won't listen to the ANU. It won't listen to Labor. It certainly won't listen to Australian people. It appears to me that, unless you are conforming to the government's single-minded vision—and it supports the top end of town; this government only wants to hear from the top end of town, the wealthy people—then it just wants to put its fingers in its ears and say: 'We don't hear you. We don't want to know about it.' But we on this side of the House know this isn't how good governments operate. It's not how strong governments operate. It's not how governments with leadership operate, of course.

As you well know and, I'm sure, as lots of Australians well know, this government has no real reason to impose a Medicare levy on the NDIS. The NDIS is fully funded from consolidated revenue like nearly every other item of government expenditure, so what makes the NDIS so special? Why is it so different that it requires its own funding stream? Why doesn't defence spending, for example, require its own levy? Why does the $65 billion taxpayer fund that will pay for this government's big business tax cut come from its own revenue stream? Is it because the government doesn't completely support the rollout of the NDIS? You have to ask the question. I can't think of any other reason that would make sense. Why else would you isolate the NDIS and impose such an increase to the charge for Medicare to pay for it? What I suspect is that the government is seeking to pose both the NDIS and Medicare as much greater burdens than they actually are. By increasing the cost of Medicare, it seems less attractive—I suppose because it is. It is because the government is not stopping its continual attempts to undermine Australia's first-class universal healthcare system. It just keeps chipping away at it. As long as the coalition is in power, nothing is safe.

Despite this government's attempts—or maybe because of them—Labor will fight. We will fight for Medicare. We will fight for the NDIS now more than ever before. Labor will fight for these services because Labor truly believes in them. The NDIS was Labor's great idea. It became a great policy and now is a great reality. We in Labor will fight for the NDIS and we will not allow low- and middle-income Australians to be caught in this crossfire, especially not now—not now when, we have low wage growth that has flatlined; not now, when energy prices are through the roof; and, for that matter, not in a few years' time, when Prime Ministers' half-baked energy plan saves people 50c off their power bills either. We will not be doing that now. We will not get people caught in that crossfire—certainly not now, when the government is giving high-income earners and big businesses a free pass.

This is a government in disarray. This is a government and a party that used to claim to be really good economic managers, but we know they can now be seen as anything but. Following the disastrous run-out over the last through years, I think it's pretty clear. We've had millions wasted on a postal survey—$122 million, to be precise. Billions and billions of dollars have been lost on the failed rollout of the NBN. Tens of billions have been spent on big businesses getting a tax break. This is a government with no policy except to recklessly throw taxpayers' money at their conservative base.

I oppose this government's attacks on low and middle income. I oppose this government's taxation hike for over seven million Australians. As I mentioned before, about 170,000 of those seven million Australians live in my electorate, and 95 per cent of those people earn less than $87,000 a year. That's why I oppose this. I was elected to represent the people of my electorate, and that's exactly what I will stand up and do. Unless this government is willing to amend this bill to no longer hit society's most vulnerable, including the people of Longman, and to no longer increase the taxes of people earning less than $87,000, I will stand here and oppose this bill.

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to join my colleagues in speaking on the Medicare Levy Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017 and other bills and specifically to support the amendments that Labor has proposed to these bills. We know that politics is all about choices. Every day in this place we are making choices on behalf of our constituents in this place and as well in our local communities. Every now and again, something comes up that makes you reflect on your role in politics, exactly who it is that you're representing and who it is that you're fighting to protect in this community. This bill is one of those examples.

Let me make it abundantly clear: Labor is 100 per cent committed to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We created it. We know how important it is for families and for people with a disability. That is without question. But when you have a choice on whether to hike taxes for every low-income earner in the country, at the same time as the government is proposing to lower taxes for wealthier Australians and for corporations, you have to ask: is it the right choice? The answer that Labor has to that is: no, it is not. It is a choice that is inconsistent with our values.

You can't see this bill in isolation from all of the other decisions that the government has taken. The government has taken the decision that it believes the best thing it can do in order to get the budget into some balance is to cut billions of dollars out of health care, hospitals, education services and not-for-profit organisations across every single portfolio area. It's then said it wants to put some of the savings that it's made into some other priorities. It's then saying that it wants to literally provide tax cuts to millionaires—$16,400, as we heard from the member's contribution before, for millionaires—and corporate tax cuts amounting to $80 billion worth of impost on the budget. That's what it wants to do. Then it's saying: 'We don't have enough money to fund the NDIS because we've made some other decisions about the money that Labor put aside to fully fund the NDIS. We now need to find some more money, so the people we're going to go to to find that money are all Australians, including those who are on the lowest possible incomes.' So that's the choice this government has made.

We recognise that we have different values to this government. We think that the NDIS is important. It's why we fully funded it. It's why we created it and developed it, because we knew there was a problem in access to services for people with disabilities nationally. It was a fundamental reform that was needed. But we also knew that there were better ways to make savings, without hitting low-income earners. We have announced those plans. It's unusual for an opposition to provide such detailed costings already at this stage of an election cycle, but the fact that our plan raises $4 billion more than the government's plan, without hitting the lowest income earners in this country, says everything about the values of this government.

We oppose this government's proposed increase to the Medicare levy on workers earning less than $87,000, because it is a tax hike on over seven million Australian workers earning less than $87,000 a year. Labor rejects the government's claim that the NDIS is in any way underfunded. When Labor announced the NDIS, it was fully funded. The government's claim that the NDIS is not funded simply does not stack up. But we don't want there to be any second of a doubt about the future of the NDIS, so we've made difficult decisions, including supporting the increase in the Medicare levy on the top two tax brackets and, in effect, making the deficit levy permanent. That is what we have suggested. Labor's plan, as I said, raises $4 billion more than the government's proposed tax hike over 10 years, but it is a fairer plan and it is better for the budget.

I want to touch on the importance of the NDIS and reinforce Labor's support for this scheme. When former Prime Minister Gillard introduced the legislation to establish the NDIS, she said:

The scheme … will transform the lives of people with disability, their families and carers. For the first time they will have their needs met in a way that truly supports them to live with choice and dignity. It will bring an end to the tragedy of services denied or delayed and instead offer people with disability the care and support they need over their lifetimes. This is a complex bill, yet at its heart is a very simple moral insight:

I think that last sentence sums it up incredibly well. We have a shared responsibility to ensure that people with a disability and their families, who carry a significant load, receive proper support. It's all too common for families of people with disability to describe their constant fight to access services and support to ensure that their loved ones are able to reach their full potential. I know that many families feel like they have to fight to get the help that they need, time and time again. For some, navigating the system itself is a full-time job. The NDIS is designed to transform this process, and it's one of the most important achievements in Australian social policy in recent years. It is a fundamental change to the way in which we provide services in this country for people with disabilities. As we created it, we fully funded it.

The government knows the NDIS is fully funded. Otherwise it would not have signed the bilateral agreements with the states and territories on the further rollout of the scheme. In the 2013 budget, Labor increased the Medicare levy by 0.5 per cent. We also made other tough savings measures, including private health insurance rebate reforms, changes to retirement incomes, changes to tobacco excise indexation and changes to import processing charges. Together these savings fully funded the NDIS over 10 years. I respect that the government has made different choices about what it wants to do with those savings. But it can't now come back and say there's no money for the NDIS, that the NDIS is not going to be supported and that the only way we can save it under this government, making different choices, is by increasing the Medicare levy again, in the context of tax cuts to wealthy millionaires and corporations and of taking some different decisions about cuts to other services. That's what this government has done.

After four years of the Liberals, we have seen the budget worsen and the economy, frankly, stuck in neutral. There hasn't been any cost blow-out with the NDIS. Only last Thursday, the Productivity Commission released a report that showed the NDIS is in fact actually on budget. The government is projecting its own fiscal failure onto the NDIS funding and making people on lower incomes pay for it. So it's looking for a way to plug the gap that it has created. It's dumbfounding that, at a time of low wages growth, high cost-of-living pressures and with the government already pursuing a cut in penalty rates for low- and middle-income earners, the Treasurer is prioritising an income tax hike for those same workers, as is represented in this bill. The government's plan to increase the Medicare levy would increase the tax burden on vulnerable Australians earning as little as $21,000 a year. The government's tax increase will mean a worker on $55,000 would pay $275 extra a year in tax, while someone on $80,000 would face an extra $400 in tax. A worker earning $85,000 a year would lose the full benefit of last year's sandwich-and-milkshake tax cut and actually end up paying more in income tax. Stagnant wages, falling living standards and record levels of underemployment all mean that low- and middle-income Australians are less able to pay more tax than they have been in the past. Combine that with increases in the cost of living and increases in energy bills that occurred under this government's policies, and all of those things add up to a sector of the community that is under substantial strain. This bill does nothing to assist them; in fact, it makes it far worse for them.

In contrast, Labor has a plan that is better and fairer overall, both for lower- and middle-income earners and for the budget itself. Labor's plan raises more than $4 billion more than the government's proposed tax rise over 10 years, by increasing the Medicare levy for individuals earning more than $87,000 a year and keeping the deficit levy on those income earners earning more than $180,000. We will move amendments in the Senate to reflect this.

Independent research from the ANU shows that twice as many households would be worse off under this government's proposal than under Labor's plan. Labor created the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We know how important the NDIS is to improving the lives of people with disabilities and their families. We are 100 per cent committed to the successful rollout of the NDIS. The NDIS has been funded by Labor governments. Governments allocated funds to the NDIS in all budgets since 2013 and have signed bilateral agreements with the states that contain the Commonwealth government's commitment to the full funding of the NDIS. Like other items of government expenditure, such as defence, the NDIS has been funded from consolidated revenue and does not require a separate funding arrangement.

I'd like to finish by reiterating the importance of the NDIS and the importance of getting the NDIS rolled out, both on time and in a way that actually benefits the majority of people who are involved in it. People with disability have waited all their lives to get decent services and they don't deserve any more waiting from this government. The Productivity Commission's report last week identified some real issues with the rollout of the scheme under this government. As my colleague, the member for Jagajaga, the shadow minister for social services, said last week, one of the critical issues is that there are not enough staff inside the National Disability Insurance Agency and not enough providers providing the services to meet people's care needs. The reason for this is the government has imposed a cap on the staff at the NDIA, which is severely restricting the capacity of people with a disability to get into the scheme and get the services they need. There has been an absolute mess made by this government with the introduction of the new IT system, which needs to be addressed as a matter of absolute urgency if we are to get this scheme right. Labor has called on the government to fix the IT mess, lift the cap on the number of staff employed at the NDIA and provide much better training so we can make sure the assessments that occur and the very important plans that are made for people who are eligible for the scheme are got right in the first instance.

This scheme has the potential to absolutely change lives. It is fully funded. It was fully funded under Labor, it will be fully funded and it can be fully funded if the government accepts Labor's amendments to this bill. The only question we have before the parliament today is whether it is every low-income Australian who has their tax increased or whether the government finally acknowledges that Labor has a plan that is better and fairer on the budget. People with disabilities, their families and carers understand that Labor designed, funded and delivered the NDIS, and they know that Labor will always protect it. We know how important the NDIS is to improving the lives of people with disability across Australia. If this government takes the decision to accept Labor's amendments to this bill, we can take out any uncertainty around NDIS funding that has been created by the different choices this government made for the savings that Labor made when in government to fully fund the NDIS. We know the government's decisions to cut taxes for millionaires and to cut taxes for corporations amounted to $80 billion worth of tax cuts. This government is deciding it now wants to create a circumstance where low-income Australians have a substantial tax increase. In the context of having low wages growth and higher costs of living, it is fundamentally unfair. We know that is fundamentally unfair and the government needs to accept Labor's amendments either in this House or in the other place as we go forward with this bill. If we're to take this NDIS forward we must make sure that under this government people with disabilities actually get the services they deserve and were promised by this reform.

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak against the Medicare Levy Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017. Whatever else this bill may be about, what it is not about is the funding of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. That is a matter of bipartisan policy between both the major parties. From the very moment that the NDIS was conceived and established, it has been fully funded by a range of policy measures, which the member for Ballarat took us through a moment ago, and by bilateral agreements that have been pursued with the state governments both by the former Labor government and by this government. To assert that there is any lack of funding flies in the face of the bilateral agreements with the states which this government has absolutely pursued. So there is no question that the National Disability Insurance Scheme is fully funded.

What this bill is about is increasing tax. Ironically, given that this is a conservative government, it is also a high-taxing government which has seen a greater share of GDP being involved in taxation than during any government since the Howard government. Indeed, this government, in this year's budget, has introduced $20 billion worth of new taxes. As I said, the tax-to-GDP ratio is higher now than it ever was during the former Rudd-Gillard government. So this is a measure to increase tax, and it comes from this conservative government.

This bill comes against the backdrop of an issue which is at the forefront of what's being experienced by working Australians and, indeed, the working people of market economies around the world, and that is inequality. It is a lack of fairness, as the member for Ballarat rightly said. We are seeing inequality growing markedly. Since 1975, the earnings growth of those in the top 10 per cent of our economy has been three times that of the bottom 10 per cent. The labour share of the economy now is at a 60-year low. In the last generation, we've seen the top one per cent of our economy double their share of national income. We've seen low wages growth in the last few years, such that right now wages are growing at the lowest rate since that stat began being recorded back in the 1990s, and homeownership now is at a record 60-year low.

All of those indications speak to the growing inequality that we find within our community, which increasingly is seeing Australians being divided between the haves and the have-nots. I can tell that in my electorate there are many who are feeling the raw end of that equation. Having seen job losses at places like Alcoa and Ford—with the removal of the car industry in this country, which sadly came to an end last Friday—they have seen their share of our national prosperity decline, and they feel it greatly.

It's against that backdrop that we have this bill, which seeks to impose taxation upon them. It really is a particularly perverse outcome that we see emanating from the bill which is before the parliament today. It is, as I said, a bill which is fundamentally the work of a high-taxing government, but it is also a bill which flies in the face of dealing with this fundamental challenge which presents itself to our country today, the challenge of inequality. This bill, in combination with the removal of the deficit levy in this year's budget from those earning more than $180,000 a year, sees the remarkable result that people who are earning less than average wages actually get a tax increase by virtue of the bill that we are debating right now whilst, on the other hand, those who are earning more than $180,000 a year, including those who might be earning $1 million a year, actually get a tax break by virtue of this government's proposal to remove the deficit levy on that cohort of income earners. That is the way in which this government has sought to deal with the issue of inequality in our society. I reckon that, if you are a person who had been working at Alcoa and you have lost your job, are living in a suburb like Corio or Norlane, are on the lowest of incomes and see that this is the formula that your government is putting before you to increase your taxation whilst at the same time providing a tax break for those people who might be earning $1 million a year, that absolutely flies in the face of what we see in this country as being fair. There is nothing fair about that equation at all.

That's why we are seeking to amend the bill which is in front of the House today to provide that those earning less than $87,000 a year would not have to pay the increase in the Medicare levy which is proposed by the bill before us now. The difference between our proposition and what this bill provides as the policy of this government as enunciated in this year's budget, in terms of relieving those people having to pay the increase in the Medicare levy, is a removal of a tax hike on seven million Australians. That's the number of Australians who are earning less than $87,000 a year. Right now you can be earning as little as $21,000 a year and you will be struck with an increase in your taxation as a result of the bill in front of us today, which is why we seek to amend it to remove that requirement and so this increase will not apply to those who are earning less than $87,000 a year. As it stands right now, research from the ANU demonstrates that twice as many households would be worse off if the amendment that we are proposing is not put in place compared to the situation if the amendment that we're proposing is ultimately passed by this parliament.

In the same breath, what we also seek to do—and we will be moving amendments that provide for this as well—is have the deficit levy, which applies to those earning more than $180,000 a year, continue. On the one hand you have the government seeking to remove the deficit levy, providing a tax cut for those earning more than $180,000, and imposing a tax increase for those earning less than $87,000—indeed, earning as little as $21,000. On the other hand you have Labor's proposition, which would see those earning more than $180,000 keep paying the tax that they are currently paying and those earning less than $87,000 also remain on the tax rate they're currently paying and not be slugged with the increase which is being put forward by this bill and which was contained in this year's budget. That is an approach to fairness which stands in stark contrast to what we have seen from this government.

It's not only in respect of this legislation that we see the failure of this government to deal with the question of fairness. At the same time as it put this legislation before this parliament, we also see this government supporting a cut to penalty rates for those who absolutely need that extra income in their pockets. This government has form on attacking people who need income the most. This government is not only failing to deal with that huge challenge being faced by our nation and market economies around the world; it is making things much worse. The response is to put in place this provision which gives a tax cut to those on the highest income and puts a tax increase on those on the lowest income at the same time as there is a cut to penalty rates for people who absolutely need to take home the income they earn through penalty rates on a Sunday.

I said at the outset that what this is not about is funding the National Disability Insurance Scheme. That is a matter of bipartisan policy—the NDIS has been funded from the moment it was created. And it is, for us in Geelong, something which is particularly important for two reasons. The National Disability Insurance Scheme began its life back in 2013 at Barwon, based on Geelong, as one of its two trial sites. The other trial site was in the Hunter, based on Newcastle. We've had it in place since 2013, and we've been able to see firsthand, over the more than four years since then, how this has changed the reality of people who have a disability. It has changed their reality and their experience of life. We have seen how they can enjoy life to the fullest and, more than that, contribute to the economy in a way that they were unable to do before the National Disability Insurance Scheme came into being.

That, after all, was the basis of the Productivity Commission's original support for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, because what it provided for was the unlocking of the enormous potential of those with a disability in our community to contribute to our economy. We in Geelong have seen the benefits of that since 2013, so we know as well as any community in this country how important the National Disability Insurance Scheme is and why it's important that it be fully funded. And it has been. It was fully funded by Labor and it has continued to be funded by this government. So the idea that this is somehow necessary in order to bring about that funding is completely wrong.

But the other reason why this particularly pertains to those of us in Geelong is that it is also the site of the National Disability Insurance Agency's headquarters—the entity charged with the responsibility of running the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Indeed, as I go for a run most mornings in Geelong, I am watching the NDIA's headquarters rise as the tallest building now in Geelong. That construction started earlier this year. It's expected to be completed later next year. There is $120 million worth of investment in that building, providing hundreds of jobs. The office will be the home of 560 people, ultimately, in the headquarters of the National Disability Insurance Agency. As I said, since 2013 they have been responsible for supporting almost 100,000 people with a disability around the country—a cohort of them from Geelong. By 2020 it's expected that that number will rise to 460,000 people around Australia. Indeed, the agency will be responsible for delivering the full $22 billion National Disability Insurance Scheme.

The NDIS is a critically important scheme for this country. The agency is now a fundamental part of the fabric of Geelong. We see that in an employment context and in the way the agency engages within the community of Geelong right now. Increasingly, we are seeing in a very physical sense, with the new headquarters rising against the skyline, what will become the home to the NDIA.

But not for a second should anyone be under any illusions that this bill needs to be passed in order for all of that to continue to occur. The NDIS has been fully funded from the outset—fully funded, as I said, by Labor, and, to be fair, by this government as well. Ultimately, what this bill is about is taxation. It is a bill that in its unamended form is deeply unfair, taxing those who earn the least and providing a tax break to those who earn the most. It's for those reasons that we will seek an amendment in this place to restore fairness to this bill and attempt to continue the process of restoring fairness to our taxation system by exempting those who earn under $87,000 from a tax increase and making sure those earning more than $180,000 continue to pay the tax which they have paid up until now. If we do that, and if the government supports us in those amendments, it will indeed make the bill a whole lot fairer.

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Corio and indeed a whole number of speakers on our side of the parliament who have been absolutely spot on to say that the Medicare Levy Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017 and the cognate bills before the House say it all about a government so desperate to cut taxes on the top end of the town that they're prepared to jack up taxes substantially on people who work and struggle in this country. They want to jack up income taxes on middle Australia so that they can fund this showering of largesse on the top end of town, whether it be through the company tax cuts or through the personal income tax cuts if you make more than $180,000. All of it is funded by this raid, really, on the family budgets of middle Australia. The Australian people know that this government has form when it comes to this kind of behaviour—this kind of damaging and dangerous trickle-down agenda. They know that this is a government of the top end of town, for the top end of town and by the top end of town.

What makes it especially galling is to hear this rubbish from that side of the House that somehow this is about funding the National Disability Insurance Scheme. That is total and absolute rubbish. They should not be using Australians with a disability and the NDIS—which we designed under the member for Jagajaga, the member for Maribyrnong, the member for Lilley and others—in this debate. We care deeply about the NDIS; we fully funded the thing. For Australians with a disability to be told that they are the excuse of those opposite to jack up taxes on middle Australia to fund top-end tax cuts for multinational corporations, the big four banks and people who earn over $180,000 is offensive. And I think a lot of people in the community are angry about that. Australians know better than the lies that they are being told about the funding of the NDIS. They know that the NDIS was funded. They know that Labor cares deeply about it. They know that this is more about taking from those who work and struggle to pay for corporate and high-income earner largesse at the top of the tax system. They know it because this is the government's defining feature—to jack up taxes on middle Australia in order to give big tax breaks to the top end of town.

Time after time in question time, the Treasurer and the Prime Minister say: 'We're the party of lower taxes. The worst thing you can do is jack up taxes; that would be very damaging to the economy.' When they say that, they aren't referring to people across the board; they don't mean people that we represent; they don't mean people on middle incomes in this country. They want lower taxes for people who earn the highest incomes and for multinational corporations and the four big banks, but they want higher income taxes for people on middle incomes.

That's why middle-income earners have the most to fear—not just from these bills, as important as they are, but from the entire approach of those opposite. That middle Australia has the most to fear is no longer just the opinion of people on the Labor side of politics. This is now the view of the independent Parliamentary Budget Office. The PBO released on 11 October some damning statistics about the approach of those opposite. The PBO, which is independent of either side of politics in this place, said that everybody will have their taxes increase over the next four years but especially people on middle incomes. People on middle incomes will bear the brunt of the agenda of those opposite.

Strangely, when you think about our challenges—when you think about wages growth at record lows, cuts to penalty rates, record underemployment and living standards having gone backwards in the last national accounts—it is astounding. It is astonishing that those opposite want to give the biggest tax increases to people who average $46,000 a year in personal income. This is the extraordinary outcome of the trickle-down ideology from that side of the House, which pretends that the only way to grow the economy is to give the biggest tax breaks to those who need them least and to make people who work and struggle pay more income tax.

When they have a government like this, it is no wonder the Australian people want the rules of the economy rewritten. They want the rules of the economy rewritten to support inclusive growth, not as a slogan but as a governing principle. They want the rules of the economy rewritten so there's genuine reward for effort, not cuts to wages for people who work on weekends, and they want the rules rewritten so that there is genuinely a decent social safety net for those left behind and those at risk of being left behind. We say to middle Australia, from this dispatch box, with colleague after colleague making the same point, that we stand with middle Australia. We do not think that people earning under $87,000 a year should cop a tax increase at the same time as those opposite want to give a tax cut to the top end of town—to multinationals and high-income earners. We don't think that's fair, we don't think that's good economic policy and we will not be supporting it. Instead we'll be supporting the amendment moved by the member for McMahon.

As others have said, there are 11 bills in the package that we are debating at the moment. The first 10 give effect to the increase in income tax—the 0.5 percentage point increase in the Medicare levy to 2½ per cent. They change the Medicare levy rate and make all of the consequential changes as well. The net effect, of course, is that people on low and middle incomes who are already struggling with the cost of living—with energy prices, for example, as my colleague at the table, the member for Port Adelaide, knows all too well—will face more acute cost of living pressures if these bills are passed by the parliament this week. Something like seven million Australian workers earning less than $87,000 a year will get that tax hike. It will be imposed on vulnerable Australians earning as little as $21,000 a year. Somebody on $55,000 a year will pay $275 extra a year in tax and somebody on $80,000 will pay an extra $400 in tax. That gives you a sense of the magnitude of what those opposite are trying to pull when it comes to taxes on middle Australia.

The 11th bill in the package is a bit different. It's about the Building Australia Fund and the Education Investment Fund. It wants to abolish both of those funds which were set up in 2008 by the former Labor government to invest in university capital and critical national transport and communications infrastructure. These funds hold something like $3.8 billion each. They're making a return for the government. They are there to invest in the things that would actually deliver growth in this economy—human capital and physical capital—to get the productivity that we need to grow the economy. They are being abolished by those opposite, again as part of this absurd claim that it's necessary to fund the NDIS. It says more about their unwillingness to invest in education and infrastructure than it says about the NDIS, so we oppose those measures as well.

The stats that I mentioned before by the Parliamentary Budget Office are the most important considerations before us as we deal with these bills that jack up taxes on middle-income Australians. As I said before, the biggest increase will be for people earning around $46,000 a year, but everyone will get a tax hike over the next four years. Average-income earners will see their tax jacked up by 3.2 percentage points—much higher than the increase of two percentage points that is expected for the highest earners—and tax rates for middle-income earners are expected to hit at least a 20-year high. You can see the sort of damage that these tax cuts will do in middle Australia.

We shouldn't pretend that it's all bracket creep, although those opposite would like to pretend sometimes that this damning analysis from the PBO is all bracket creep. That's an important part of it, but, as the PBO itself said, average tax rates are projected to increase due to policy changes—most notably the policy decision to increase the Medicare levy from 2019-20. The PBO report supports the independent research from the ANU which shows that twice as many households would be worse off under the coalition's plan than under Labor's alternative plan, which is captured by the amendment that the member for McMahon moved.

With the economic situation that I described earlier—record low wages, cuts to penalty rates, record underemployment and declining living standards—it is really quite extraordinary that those opposite would contemplate handouts to the top end of town at the expense of millions of ordinary workers in this economy. That's what they're doing: giving a $65 billion handout to multinationals and the big four banks. The big four banks get something like $10 billion or $11 billion of that $65 billion. That says it all, really, in one number. Even then, they won't get the growth dividend that they claim from that. Their own Treasury says that the dividend from those company tax cuts would be one per cent in 20 years. That is 0.05 per cent a year, which is not enough bang for all of those bucks. There is a $16,400 a year tax cut for somebody making a million dollars in the income tax system at the same time as somebody on $55,000 pays $275 more a year. I could go on, but people understand what's happening here: money out of the pockets of middle Australia, onto the bottom line of multinational corporations. At the same time, we have all these other cuts in the budget: $17 billion out of schools; $3.8 billion out of universities; a $1 billion cut to the pensioner energy supplement; and a $2.2 billion cut to GP, specialist and allied health services. The list, unfortunately for Australians, goes on and on and on and on. So we have these handouts to the top end of town. We have these income tax hikes and cuts which affect people on low and middle incomes in this country.

As I said before, it is shameful that those opposite try to pretend this is somehow about the NDIS. The NDIS was funded. We created it on this side of the House. We are proud of it. We know how important it is to the lives of people with a disability and their families and loved ones. The costs of the NDIS are already built into the budget bottom line. They have been since the 2013 budget. The government has been reporting those costs for the past four years.

Very inconveniently for those opposite, the Productivity Commission came out with a very important report—I think last week—where they said that the issue with the NDIS was not the funding. The costs are not blowing out. The issue is with the implementation, whether it be the IT or the handling of complex cases. The challenge in the NDIS has not been the funding. The funding has evolved as we expected. The challenge has been in the rollout. We want to make sure that it is rolled out effectively. Enough of this rubbish about it not being funded! Enough of this rubbish that the costs are blowing out! The Productivity Commission said that the costs are broadly on track.

The 2013 budget, as others have mentioned in this place—principally the member for Jagajaga, who was such a key architect of the NDIS—set out the 10-year costs in 2013. It set out all the difficult decisions. She worked with other members in here to fund the NDIS. There were issues around changes to the fringe benefits tax, personal income tax offsets, tobacco excise and import processing charges. There were lots of those kinds of savings, difficult decisions that were taken then to make sure that we raised something like $66 billion over 10 years to pay for what we considered to be a very high priority, which was fully funding the NDIS.

We have an alternative when it comes to income tax as well. We believe in budget repair which is fair, but as part of that we want to make sure that the most vulnerable people in the economy and in our society are not asked to carry the can for the budget failures of those opposite. We do not support hiking income taxes for people earning up to $87,000 a year. We'll cop it over $87,000 a year. Our priority has to be people on middle and low incomes in this country.

Our plan is better and fairer. It is better for the budget. Our combination of leaving people under $87,000 alone and maintaining the deficit levy at the top end raises $4 billion more than the government over 10 years, which is important when you consider that we have record net debt for the next two years and record gross debt for as far as the eye can see, and rising. On Friday we had something like $506 billion in gross debt, more than half a trillion dollars, a new record under those opposite.

So we're conscious of those things. We know that we need to be sensible with the budget. We think there are better ways of going about it. We should not be jacking up taxes on people on middle incomes. We should not be shovelling $65 billion in the direction of the biggest companies in this country, including the big banks. We shouldn't be shovelling $16,000 a year towards people who are earning $1 million. We have a better alternative. True to form, it is fairer and more responsible. Those opposite should support it. They should stop pretending that these tax hikes are to fund the NDIS when they're just part of a dangerous and damaging trickle-down agenda.

Debate adjourned.