Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for McMahon proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The Government's failure to prioritise working and middle class Australians.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

After that bizarre question time performance from the government, you wouldn't know that we are in the middle of a very important debate in Australia about two competing tax plans. Today the battlelines have been drawn. The Labor Party have made very clear what we will do and say about the government's tax plans. But what have we had in response from the government in relation to tax? We just had that bizarre performance in which we were lectured about aspiration. We were told that an aged-care worker in Burnie shouldn't be satisfied with helping Australians who are in an aged-care facility and, after having worked hard all their life and at maybe the final stages of their life, they should aspire to a better job as an investment banker. That's what the Prime Minister said during question time.

We were lectured that members of the Labor Party should not aspire to go to university—because, how dare we aspire to go to university! It's a bad aspiration, apparently, to be the first in your family to go to university—and, if your parents or grandparents didn't go to university, you should know your place. That was part of the government's great defence of their tax plan, and we were told other things about aspiration. We are happy to have a debate in this House about aspiration—more than happy. There are lots of Australians who aspire for their children to go to a good, well-funded school, which may be a public school or a Catholic school. There are lots of Australians who aspire to know that their local hospital will be well funded if they need it, at any time of the day or night. There are lots of Australians who aspire to work on a weekend and get decently paid for it. There are lots of Australians who aspire to work and then retire sometime before they're 70. There are lots of Australians who aspire to those things. On this side of the House, we support that aspiration.

I tell you what: we also support the aspiration of low- and middle-income earners to receive a bit more support. This government must think that low- and middle-income earners are fools. This government thinks that a $10-a-week tax cut will make them forget that they've lost $77 in penalty rates, or make them forget that their wages aren't growing, or make them forget that their kids' school is receiving less money, or make them forget that their school leaver's TAFE is underfunded, or make them forget that this government has tried time and time again to rip away the social safety net in this country. I tell you what: the Australian people are not the fools that this government takes them for.

Even more cynically than all of that, this government thinks that they can say to low- and middle-income earners: 'We are finally going to provide you with some modest tax relief, but there are strings attached. We are not going to give you that tax relief on 1 July 2018 unless we can bully our way to ensure that the tax cuts also go to high-income earners in seven years time.' The Australian people, the government thinks, will buy that. I tell you what: I don't think the Australian people will buy that. As I said, the battlelines are drawn. The choice is clear. There is a better way than this government is proposing, and there is a real alternative on the table.

Sometimes, governments do unfair things, particularly Liberal and National Party governments, and sometimes Liberal and National Party governments do fiscally reckless things. This government has a habit of doing both all at the same time, which is a special talent. I do give tribute to those opposite; it is a special talent. This government's tax plan is unfair, unaffordable and irresponsible. No responsible opposition would support it, and we won't be supporting it. We won't be supporting their unfunded tax cuts.

The tax plan is expensive. Not only is it expensive; it's unfair as well. Take the government's tax plan; it will cost $25 billion a year when it's fully implemented, if it's ever fully implemented. Fifteen billion dollars of that each year goes to Australia's top 20 per cent of income earners. That's the fact. The most regressive part of their plan is stage 3 of the plan. Stage 3 of the plan will grow when it is implemented at a rate of—wait for it—12 per cent a year. The member for Rankin and I have good relations with all our colleagues but if a colleague came to us and said, 'We've got a scheme which is really expensive, which will benefit high-income earners and will grow at a rate of 12 per cent a year,' we would tell them to think again—but not this government. They say, 'Approved! Great idea! Let's run it through the parliament and let's make it a condition. We won't support low and middle-income earners unless we get that through.'

This government thinks it's a good idea that everybody earning $200,000 should pay the same marginal tax rate as somebody earning $40,000 a year. This is a government which—when you take stage 3 of their tax cuts together with their big business tax cuts—wants to drain the public purse by $25 billion a year. And they lecture us about budgets! They have the hide to lecture us about responsibility. Well, we'll have a debate about responsibility and we're happy to have an election about responsibility as well as fairness. We are more than happy to do that, because under our tax plans every Australian earning less than $125,000 a year is better off. They would be better off now and better off next year in the first years of a Labor government.

Even if they got stage 2 of their tax plans through, every Australian earning less than $95,000 a year would be better off under the Labor Party's plan—70 per cent of working Australians better off—a fairer plan which is more responsible and better targeted when it comes to the budget. We'll provide tax cuts almost double what the government is providing, we'll provide them to 10 million Australians and we won't make them conditional on some never-never plan to benefit high-income earners either. We'll actually say to the Australian people, 'We'll provide tax relief that is fair, affordable and responsible, and we're more than happy to take it to an election.'

Let me make it very clear: we will take no part in this government's reckless, irresponsible and unfair plans, and we'll be voting accordingly in this House. If the government wants to try to hold the tax cuts for low- and middle-income earners hostage, as they've indicated they will do, then there are two possibilities. They can split the bill—they can surrender and split the bill—and we'll pass that legislation today through the parliament. We'll pass it tonight; we will even sit late and we'll pass it, if the government wants. Or, alternatively, if they won't pass it—if they won't relent and split the bills—then an incoming Labor government will provide that tax relief.

In the way the government has designed the tax rebate, it could be passed at any time in this financial year. It doesn't need to be passed by 1 July this year. It can be passed by 1 July 2019. That would give an incoming Labor government time to implement it, and we will if they won't. We will actually go to the people with a tax plan which is funded and which is affordable. We'll deliver it—unlike this government—and we won't put those conditions on it. The fact of the matter is that the lines are drawn and the choice is clear. And if the government really believe their rhetoric, if they really believe the case they're putting to the Australian people and if they really have the courage of their convictions then there is something they can do.

The Prime Minister had another line of attack during question time. He said, 'Okay, you don't like stages 2 and 3 of our tax plans, but why don't you vote for them anyway?' I can understand why he'd say that. He would understand a lack of conviction. He would understand a Prime Minister who wouldn't vote for his beliefs! I understand a Prime Minister who said he wouldn't lead a party that wasn't as committed to action on climate change as he is—now look who sits behind him as he is Prime Minister of Australia! So I understand that that's his approach, but we have a different approach on our side of the parliament. It's a novel approach for members opposite: we vote for what we believe in and we vote against what we don't believe in. And that's what we'll continue to do.

We'll vote for better tax cuts, for fairer tax cuts and for real relief for low- and middle-income earners, and we'll vote against schemes which are unfunded and unfair. We'll vote against them in amendments and we'll vote against them in the substantive legislation as well. We'll vote against them continually in this House, and I tell you what, we will also take that position to the people.

If the Prime Minister really believes his rhetoric, there is one thing he can do with the courage of his convictions. There is a building down the road, it's not far away. It's called Yarralumla, and he can get in a car, he can drive down there and he can say to the Governor-General: 'I can't get my tax plans through the parliament. It's all very terrible. The Labor Party are insisting on bigger tax cuts for lower- and middle-income earners but they won't let me get my scheme through. Governor-General, I'd like an election, based on our tax plans.' 'That's what he can do! He can get in his car, he can drive down there and he can call an election based on our competing plans. And do you know what we'll say? 'Bring it on!' That's what we will say, Mr Deputy Speaker.

We are ready. We relish it. We relish this argument. The Treasurer could have turned up to take this debate. He's in his office doing other things. He could turn up to take this debate to defend his tax plans, but he won't do it. I tell you what, he won't be able to hide if there is an election campaign on. (Time expired)

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The hide of the shadow Treasurer! The hide of this man today, to come to this dispatch box and talk about working- and middle-class Australians on a day when he stood up and said to 10 million Australians, 'We want a bit more of your money and we are going to deny you a tax cut.' That's what this shadow Treasurer got up and said today, and now he is desperately trying to scramble and desperately trying to justify it. But, once again, we see a shadow Treasurer who just wants to reach his hands a bit deeper into the pockets of hardworking Australians.

We see it time and time again. We saw the bluster of the shadow Treasurer at the dispatch box—the bluster, the faux-hairy-chested shadow Treasurer, running around the country talking about his faux class welfare. The only people that the shadow Treasurer wants to go after are those who work hard or those who are vulnerable. He is running around the country talking about going after billionaires and millionaires. Who are the groups that he has gone after? Who are the two groups that contribute the most to the $220 billion of additional taxes as proposed by this shadow Treasurer?

Well, it's not all of the millionaires and the billionaires; it's not the Apples and Googles of the world. The two groups that this shadow Treasurer's going after, the two that contribute the most to his cash grab, are retirees, with his retirees tax; and small-business owners, who own small retail shops, who own cafes and who might employ one or two people.

Dr Aly interjecting—

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Cowan is warned.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These are the people that this Shadow Treasurer is going after. Again, today he stands up and he says to 10 million Australians, 'You don't deserve a tax cut, and we're not going to give it to you.' We always knew the shadow Treasurer was going to find an excuse. We knew that in his DNA he did not want to provide or assist us—

Ms Husar interjecting—

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Lindsay is warned.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

in providing tax relief for hardworking Australians. We always knew he'd find an excuse, and luckily he found it.

Ms Husar interjecting—

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Lindsay will remove herself under 94(a).

The member for Lindsay then left the chamber.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today he had to front up and say to 10 million Australians, 'No, you are not getting any more tax relief.'

On this side of the House, for hardworking Australians, for those who are on low and middle incomes, this government has delivered in spades and will continue to do so. Last year, we had 415,000 new jobs created. The shadow Treasurer said five years ago that there was absolutely no way the coalition commitment of one million jobs within the first five years could be met. Well, no: we met it in 4½ years.

Mr Bowen interjecting—

Are you denying it? Is the shadow Treasurer denying that he—

Mr Bowen interjecting—

The shadow Treasurer believed us. Well, that's wonderful. If the shadow Treasurer believed in that commitment, he should walk out of this chamber, do a press conference and say, 'I always believed that the coalition government could deliver it,' but we know that he didn't. We know he said it was impossible, and last year 415,000 jobs were created. Every single one of those people—and let's remember, nearly 80 per cent of those jobs were full time—are better off because of the decisions made by this government.

Now we've got the shadow Treasurer saying to 10 million of them—4.4 million of them who will receive the full tax benefit of $530 and the remainder getting up to $530—that they don't deserve a tax cut. How on earth can the shadow Treasurer justify to those people that they don't deserve it, in addition to every other policy of this shadow Treasurer that seeks to hurt those individuals. This shadow Treasurer's capitulated on energy policy. He's capitulated to the 50 per cent Renewable Energy Target as outlined by the shadow environment minister, which is just going to see energy prices rise further and further and further.

This shadow Treasurer, sadly, has form. We knew the shadow Treasurer when he was in the Gillard-Rudd governments, as the worst immigration minister that this country's ever seen—even worse than the Manager of Opposition Business, which is a pretty high bar. But then he went on to become shadow Treasurer, and we all remember the very infamous coined term of the 'Bowen $16 billion black hole'. Now we've seen a black hole again. This week we saw a very, very big black hole from the shadow Treasurer. We remember a couple of months ago when the shadow Treasurer said: 'We have a very calibrated, well-thought-through policy on our retirees tax. It's very calibrated and it's very well thought through'. Then the shadow Treasurer, within a fortnight, backflipped. This well-thought-through, well-calibrated policy was changed on the run.

Now, again, we see that the shadow Treasurer's been caught out with a huge black hole in his costings. But we're used to that from him. We're used to that from when he was the Treasurer—$16 billion. Now we see it again, with $1.1 billion over the forward estimates. It isn't a surprise from this shadow Treasurer, because we see it time and time again. We say to the shadow Treasurer: come clean on your approach to small businesses. We know the shadow Treasurer refers to the owner of a small cafe that employs one or two people or a hairdresser that employs a couple of staff as a millionaire or billionaire who doesn't deserve a tax cut.

The shadow Treasurer is going to go to the next election and say: 'We're denying 10 million Australians a tax cut. We're going to reach our hands into the pockets of retirees, people who are on low incomes, and reduce their income by up to 25 per cent by denying them refunds on franking credits. We're going to increase taxes on small and medium businesses.'

Ms Butler interjecting—

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Griffith!

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the shadow Treasurer who runs around saying that he's going to attack large businesses and go after the top end of town. Well, he's not going after the top end of town; he's going after these hardworking Australians that he's referring to in this MPI.

The shadow Treasurer, in his contribution, referred to the top 20 per cent of taxpayers. How much does the shadow Treasurer believe that the top 20 per cent of taxpayers should actually pay? The top 23 per cent of taxpayers pay 65 per cent of all tax. How much more should they be paying? The shadow Treasurer never says that, because that would require him to go out and say to people who are getting up at 6 am every day, working hard, missing out on family obligations, saving and trying to do things for their family: 'You're not contributing enough and you don't deserve a tax cut.' How much do you want those 23 per cent of people to pay? Or, if we talk about the next 53 per cent, who pay another third of the income tax, that 70 per cent of Australians carry our tax system, and the shadow Treasurer got up today and said: 'You do not deserve a tax cut. In fact, you're not paying your fair share, and we're going to go after you a bit more.'

In the end, the shadow Treasurer has spent two years running around this country, saying, 'We're going after the bad millionaires, the bad billionaires and the big multinationals,' and what's it all boiled down to? It's boiled down to him attacking working Australians on low and medium incomes, going after retirees, people who are on low incomes, and denying them up to a quarter of their income—

Ms Butler interjecting—

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Griffith!

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and going after small family businesses, people who might have one or two employees and treat them more like family than staff. He's saying to them, 'No, you don't deserve a tax cut either.' This shadow Treasurer is so divorced from what ordinary working Australians need that he thinks they don't deserve tax cuts—in fact, they should contribute a bit more because, apparently, carrying the whole system is not enough for those 70 per cent of taxpayers. And, in addition, to top it all off, they should be paying higher electricity costs in order to fund mad green schemes, because Labor has capitulated to the Left. On this side of the House, we will always fight for those people who want to strive hard, who have aspiration and who want to do better for their families. (Time expired)

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Special Minister of State (House)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the member for Deakin's contribution just now, he managed to do two things which, until then, I had thought would be impossible. First of all, he made the member for Bradfield sound like Martin Luther King and, secondly, he made that Liberal Party punch-up at charcoal chicken seem enlightened in comparison to his contribution. In his defence, the Prime Minister is no better. We had a question time where the Prime Minister did some extraordinary things which I suspect he might be seeing in some campaign videos between now and the next election. But he also did something else: he quoted one of the Labor greats; he quoted Paul Keating in this parliament.

A lot of people on this side of the House know and admire Paul Keating. The member for Lilley does; the member for McMahon knows him well. Paul Keating has been right about a lot of things in his political life, but he's been especially right about the Prime Minister. He was the one who described the Prime Minister as a fizzer, and he got that spot-on. The other thing he got right, which we don't talk about enough in this place, is that the current Prime Minister went grovelling to Paul Keating, with Richo in tow, and begged him for a Senate seat, saying, 'Please give me a Senate seat.' So devoid of principles was the current Prime Minister that he was prepared to show up here in any party. Paul Keating was right to say, 'No, off you trot!' He was especially right to predict that Malcolm Turnbull would bob up somewhere in the party with the lowest standards. That's what we've seen.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Petrie, on a point of order.

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Rankin needs to refer to the Prime Minister by his correct title.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take the point. The member will refer to people by their correct title.

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Special Minister of State (House)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The other thing Paul Keating was right about is something we're very proud of: the Labor Party is the party of aspiration. The Labor Party is the party of aspiration. Those opposite wouldn't know the first thing about aspiration. They don't have the necessary affinity with working people that we have to understand that aspiration is fundamentally about working hard, studying hard, getting ahead, providing for your family, looking after your community, making a contribution to your community and making a contribution to your country, as the member for Jagajaga said. What our parents wanted for us we want for our kids and for every Australian kid: the opportunity to get ahead in this country. The government don't have the necessary affinity with working people to understand that. They don't understand that the key to this country and the thing that makes this country extraordinary is social mobility. The fact is that someone in a suburb like the one I was born in, like the member for Lalor's electorate and like all of our electorates can work hard and get ahead in this country. They just don't get it.

What we were treated to today from the Prime Minister was the sickening spectacle of a Prime Minister who, from that despatch box, thinking he was being clever—he had the angry teapot out and he was doing all of those sorts of moves—boasted that, 'I've seen a lot of wealthy people in my time.' How sickening is the sort of stuff that he goes on about! The thing that really stuck in our craw was when we asked him about a 60-year-old aged-care worker, and the Prime Minister of Australia said to a 60-year-old aged-care worker, 'If you don't like the tax cut you're getting, go and get a better job.' A disgraceful slur! A disgraceful slur on the aged-care workers of this country! They just do not understand.

For a party that likes to talk about how much they hate the redistribution of wealth, those opposite sure are doing a lot of it. The key fact about the tax cuts that they want to impose on this country is that 60 per cent of the benefit goes to the wealthiest 20 per cent in this country. That's redistribution. By anyone's definition, that is redistribution. That's what they are into.

Australia will continue down this dangerous and perilous path of rising inequality and less social mobility for as long as these characters are on that side of the parliament. That's why the member for McMahon was so right to say that there are two ways to resolve this big barney we're having about tax right now in this parliament. One is to split the bill so that we can vote for genuine tax relief for 10 million working Australians. But we can also have an election and take it to the people. Let the people of Australia resolve this. Let the people of Australia choose between our bigger, fairer tax cuts and the trickle-down Reaganomics proposed by members opposite. (Time expired)

David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Rankin says the Labor Party is the party of aspiration, one of the most ridiculous things that has ever been said in this chamber. Just today, the Labor Party said, 'Let's increase taxes on Australians by $70 billion.' That's just today. The government says $140 billion of tax relief to Australians across the spectrum; the Labor Party says no. They want to cut that by $70 billion. That is the exact opposite of supporting aspiration. They wouldn't understand aspiration if it came up and hit them in the face.

They also say that a business that has $2 million of revenue is some sort of big multinational that mustn't be provided with any tax relief, so they voted against that. A business with $2 million of revenue is a small, striving, suburban, regional business—precisely the sort of business that should be supported. These are precisely the sorts of businesses that create millions of jobs in this country. Yet they say, because they voted against it, that that business should not have any tax relief.

Fortunately, the rest of the Senate was sensible and supported tax relief for those businesses and, as a key consequence of that, we have rampant and record job creation in this nation—the greatest job creation in Australian history under this government, with some 415,000 jobs created in 2017. That was no thanks to those opposite, who seek to crush and sit on aspiration at every opportunity that they get. They want to put a $20 billion new tax on the housing market, going after the most important asset of the vast majority of Australian households. They want to put a $20 billion new tax on housing and, perhaps most shamefully of all, they also want to go and pick the pockets of Australian retirees.

What happened over there was that as they sought to finance their extravagant spending—because they can't control government spending; we've seen that before when they're in office—they said, 'Where can we get some money?' They said, 'We know where we can go; we can go to Australian retirees that have saved for their retirement and smash them with a multibillion-dollar tax increase.' That would come in immediately, basically, if those opposite came into government, affecting some 900,000 Australians—an absolute disgrace. They say that it is a bad thing to get to a position where 94 per cent of Australians pay a marginal tax rate of no more than 32½ per cent.

We say that's a fantastic thing, because it will encourage aspiration. It will mean that people earning anywhere between $41,000 and $200,000 a year will pay no more than 32½ per cent of their income to the government. That is good, because that means those people are going to keep more of their own money. It's their money, it's not the government's money; it's the employee's money. Those opposite want to take more of it and it is an absolutely inappropriate policy. We believe that people should keep more of their own money.

Under this policy, the people who earn over $200,000, who are in the top bracket, will pay an even higher proportion of tax than they do today. So it is a policy which is still progressive, but it is a policy which says to the average Australian worker who's out there aspiring: 'Go for it! Work harder! Work hard for that promotion. Work hard to take on those extra responsibilities and you will not go up into a higher and tougher tax bracket'. That's exactly the sort of thing that governments should be doing.

We believe in this passionately. Those opposite do not believe in it because they believe that all money resides with the government. They believe it's the government's and they believe that it's some sort of act of largesse if the government lets you keep some of your money. We believe the absolute opposite: money earned by employees is their money and we should take the bare minimum of that to finance the operations of the government. And we should encourage aspiration, we should promote aspiration and we should celebrate those people who go out, work hard and build the economy of this nation. We should not smash them with hundreds of billions in taxes, as those opposite would do.

Anne Aly (Cowan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Aspiration, aspiration, aspiration! I tell you what, Mr Deputy Speaker, sitting here in question time and listening to the Minister for Defence Industry, who has been a member of parliament for the good part of forever, talk about aspiration just epitomises how out of touch this government is. They say that they believe in aspiration, but we know that they certainly do not believe in the aspirations of working- and middle-class Australians because of their failure to prioritise them—their complete failure.

I come from a very proud working-class background. My dad was a bus driver and my mum was a nurse. In fact, my mum worked in aged care. She was a very proud aged-care worker—I believe she looked after Mr John Howard's mother in her day. If the Prime Minister suggested to my mother, as he did today, that she should 'aspire' to a better job than being an aged-care worker, I hazard to guess what my old mother might have had to say to the Prime Minister.

It's a long time since I was a struggling single parent but not that long ago that I was a middle-income earner. I will tell you just how out of touch this Prime Minister is. This Prime Minister is so out of touch that he wants someone on a $200,000 salary, which could hardly be described as middle income, to pay the same rate of tax as someone on $40,000—someone like Renee, from Marangaroo in my electorate. Along with her husband, she is raising her two girls, Aisha and Sarah, on a $40,000 middle income. And not only that; this government's grand plan for working-class and middle-income Australians includes an $80 billion tax cut for corporate Australia, $17 billion of cuts to schools, $270 million cut from TAFEs, unfair cuts to pensions and a requirement for people to work until they are 70. How is that going to work if you are a roof tiler or a carpet layer? There will be a $77-a-week cut to the penalty rates of hardworking Australians. Families and pensioners are paying $20 a week more for private health cover. Parents are paying $40 a week more for child care, and there are record costs to see a GP. Australians are now another $9 out of pocket when they go to see a doctor.

Having been a struggling single mother living from pay cheque to pay cheque, I have seen it all. I have seen how it adds up—$20 here, $9 there, $40 there. It all adds up. And what does this out-of-touch government have to offer? A measly $10 a week. It is insulting that this government thinks it can throw crumbs to hardworking Australians who have lost penalty rates, who haven't seen wage increases for years and who can't access TAFE or higher education for those who aspire to more. It is insulting to parents like me who today are feeling the sting of having to leave half their groceries at the shopping centre counter because they simply can't afford it.

In question time the Prime Minister talked about aspiration, as he often does. I am convinced that he doesn't actually know what aspiration means. Aspiration, according to this out-of-touch Prime Minister, is directly correlated to the size of your pay packet. As a low-income earner who aspired to send her kids to school, to get an education and to lift her family out of poverty, apparently I was not one of Malcolm Turnbull's aspirational Aussies—because I didn't earn enough, because I wasn't a banker and because I didn't have rich parents.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Petrie on a point of order.

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, the member for Cowan should refer to the Prime Minister by his correct title.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could the member for Cowan refer to members by their correct title.

Anne Aly (Cowan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. We could pass real tax cuts today for working and middle-class Australians, ensuring tax relief goes back into the pockets of 10 million Australians. We won't hold tax cuts for teachers, tradies, bus drivers and nurses hostage to tax cuts for bankers and millionaires. (Time expired)

Andrew Gee (Calare, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It must be very disheartening for the Australian people to listen to the sanctimonious and hypocritical blather from those opposite. They come in here and preach about looking after all Australians when at the same time they are planning to rip billions and billions of dollars away from hardworking Australians. The hypocrisy is breathtaking; it is arrant hypocrisy. I think Australia has actually woken up to it. To come into this place and on the one hand say that you are the friend of the Australian people while on the other hand you are ripping away tens of billion dollars from Australia's most vulnerable—Australia's retirees—is shameful in the extreme. Our retirees are people who helped to build our nation. They worked hard, they saved, they took out mortgages and they did the right thing by putting away money for their retirement. Now 800,000, 900,000 or a million of them are going to find that the hand of the Labor Party is going to go into their super accounts and take their retirement funds away. It's disgraceful.

But it's not just wealthy Australians who will be hit, even though that's how they portray it. You've got to remember that the median income for retirees is just over $31,000. As reported in Australian Financial Review recently, retiree Toya Adams, a former nurse and flight attendant, is angry about it because she and her husband are going to lose $20,000 every year under the Labor party's proposal. She said that it's 'mischievously misleading' for Labor to attempt to portray this as just for wealthy people. She said, 'I am not a privileged mega-wealthy tax bludger'. No, Toya, you're not. You're one of the hardworking Australians who helped build our nation and build a future for your family. That is now at risk because these people are out to destroy your retirement savings. It' an absolute disgrace.

There is a $9.9 billion black hole in the costings. No-one should be surprised about that, given these are the people who brought you the pink batts fiasco. They can't manage anything. It's a management issue. We're talking about the cash blowouts for school halls, the Rudd money that was literally shovelled out the back of a truck. They squandered the wealth of our nation. That's what they did. Now they're coming after vulnerable retirees—people who've worked hard and helped build our nation.

I reckon the best thing that we can do to help Australian people, besides leaving their retirement savings alone, is to give them a job. Wasn't it wonderful to see the unemployment rate dropping to 5.4 per cent? It continues to drop. But it's not just in the cities that we're seeing these drops. If you compare how we're going with the days of Rudd-Gillard-Rudd, we're travelling extremely well. Last year jobs growth was the best on record, and, in May 2018, the level of employment increased to a high of 12,518,300—2.5 per cent above the level recorded a year ago. As I said, if you compare that to the shaky days of Rudd and Gillard, the contrast is stark. I'd like to draw your attention to a few examples in my own electorate.

Since June 2013, unemployment in Lithgow has dropped 4.7 per cent from 10.1 per cent under Rudd-Gillard-Rudd to 5.4 per cent. Oberon, in the high country out in the Central West, unemployment went from 5.5 per cent under Rudd-Gillard-Rudd down to 2.5 per cent now. These are real figures. These are impacting on people's lives, because we're giving them jobs. In Bathurst, unemployment was 6.2 per cent in the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd era. It's down to 3.5 per cent. In the Mid-Western Regional Council area it is down from seven per cent to 4.3 per cent. In the Cabonne council area it is down from 4.1 per cent under Rudd-Gillard-Rudd to 2.3 per cent. In Blayney—you can't forget Blayney—unemployment was 5.1 per cent in 2013 under Rudd-Gillard-Rudd; it's down to 3.2 per cent.

Total employment has increased by over one million jobs since September 2013. That's an 8.8 per cent increase since the government came to power. These are real results, and they're making a real difference to the lives of people, not only in the cities but also in country areas. One of the most important things that we can do as a government is make sure that our people in the cities, but most importantly in the regions, actually have jobs. Compare this to those opposite, where the days of high unemployment reigned supreme—and now they're coming after retirees' savings! (Time expired)

Milton Dick (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We've just heard it from the member for Calare: all is well; we don't have to worry about anything; put your feet up. That is the government's approach when it comes to managing our economy. Listening to question time today, there were the top-five hits that we focussed on inside the Labor Party. I think my favourite was when the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services got up to answer a question and said 'What's the point?' Then we had the message from the Prime Minister—as the member for Rankin, my colleague and friend, when defending aged-care workers, referred to—'If you're an aged-care worker and you're 60 years old, you haven't amounted to much and you should get a better job.' Then there was the hypocrisy from the government in saying that somehow members on this side of the chamber who attended university don't have a right to be in this place, or that somehow members who have achieved something from humble beginnings, if they'd gone to university, have risen above their station. Talk about class warfare. Talk about attacking those—like my family and my father and my mother, who came from very humble beginnings and who were lucky to finish year 7—who didn't go to university. My grandparents didn't go to university. The Prime Minister of this country says, 'You have no right to be in this place.' It's outrageous. What a pack of snobs.

Ms Henderson interjecting—

And the member for Corangamite, a second-generation politician, is laughing at me. Give me a break! Do not come in here and lecture this side of the chamber. We saw the assistant minister, in his grand defensive today, defending everyone and everything. Of course, defending payday lenders is his—

Ms Henderson interjecting—

All those opposite sit in complete ignorance about what is happening out in the real world. Let's be clear. Let's get some real facts into this debate. Labor members and the government have an opportunity this week to ensure that working and middle-class Australians will receive income tax relief starting in 12 days time. This could be passed today, as the Leader of the Opposition said, and passed in the Senate. If you are true blue about giving real tax relief, you will join us and make it happen.

No matter what the hissy fit, no matter what the dummy spit, like we saw from the Prime Minister and all those opposite in question time today, it doesn't hide the fact that the government are standing in their own way to deliver real tax cuts to millions of working and middle-class Australians. Instead, the priority of this Prime Minister and every other member of the Turnbull government is to give tax cuts to big business and high-income earners—at a cost to the budget of $25 billion a year in 10 years time. Over the medium term, this tax cut will cost the Australian economy a whopping $140 billion.

We also saw today that the Prime Minister was quite happy to see an executive earning $200,000 a year pay the same rate of tax as a cleaner earning $32,000 a year. That is the definition of fairness under the LNP. Come and speak to the cleaners in my electorate and come and speak to the food-processing workers who are struggling to make ends meet. In my community, a teacher in Mount Ommaney on $65,000 will receive a tax cut of $928 a year and a couple working in Forest Lake earning $90,000 and $50,000 respectively will receive a tax cut of $1,855 a year under a Bill Shorten Labor government. That is under a real government that will deliver real tax reform for those who need it. Almost 70,000 people in my community would be better off under a Shorten Labor government, with our bigger, better and fairer tax package—because we live in the community; we live in the real world every single day.

Let's vote on it and let's make it a reality today. But, if you don't want to do that, take it to an election. Take it to an election and, in the seat of Corangamite, Libby Coker will be standing up for real working people—in contrast to the sellout that we are seeing with the current member. In every electorate, whether it be Corangamite, my electorate or the 150 electorates in Australia, we will be reminding the Australian people that, when it comes to real tax reform and genuine tax relief for those who need it, only a Shorten Labor government will deliver it.

Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's my great pleasure to rise and speak on this MPI. The member for Oxley spoke about Libby Coker, who is currently a councillor with Surf Coast Shire. I've never seen a more pathetic and hopeless councillor than Libby Coker. She can't even stand up for the people of Anglesea. She had an idea to create the Messmate Track bypass—an idea which has been comprehensively rejected by the people of Anglesea. She had this 'great' idea to destroy the Anglesea Bike Park, and 5,500 people signed a petition supporting that bike park. She had no plan to find an alternate location; nor did she have any funding. She has now had to crawl back from her position. She has been a weak and pathetic councillor and would make a terrible member for Corangamite. She does not have the guts to stand up for the community she represents in Anglesea, let alone for Corangamite. Today and every single day, I will continue to hold to account those who fail the people of Corangamite, like Alcoa, who botched the demolition of the power station, which has asbestos in it, as far as we know—and she has not said a thing. The member for Oxley has made a pretty big error in raising Libby Coker's track record, because I can tell you that the people of Anglesea think it's absolutely pathetic.

He talks about being a second-generation politician. Yes, very proudly, my mother was a politician. I want to place on the record that my mother did a lot of other great things in the community: she worked as a secretary; she ran Legacy; she established Do Care; she worked for Deakin University; she worked in a dress shop; she ran her own business making sandwiches; and she raised a family.

Dr Aly interjecting—

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Cowan is warned!

Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like most hardworking Australians, many of us work very hard to make sure our kids have a great future. My mother did that, and I am incredibly proud of what she did for our family and the contribution she made to the Geelong community.

There's one thing for certain with this dishevelled and unprincipled opposition—lies and taxes directed at the most vulnerable Australians. There was no bigger lie than Labor's 'Mediscare' campaign, a big fat lie directed at senior Australians to scare them and to make them fear for their future. This was the most disgraceful lie—a deliberate, deceptive, disgraceful campaign. Australians, I'm very pleased to see, will be protected from this deliberately deceptive behaviour because of the legislation that we have now passed.

And now what are we seeing from Labor? We're seeing a plan to deliver more than $200 billion of taxes. Australians don't need campaign videos to know what this mob is all about. The biggest slug is on retirees—$5 billion a year—including some pensioners, and self-funded retirees, many of whom are sitting just above the pension threshold. Nine hundred thousand of the most vulnerable Australians are under attack by Labor. What hypocrites are members opposite! They're quite happy to provide the tax deduction from franked dividends to high-income earners but, if you are a low-income earner and you rely on the cash refund from the ATO to pay bills and to put food on the table, Labor says, 'Tough; don't worry about it!' Labor know they have huge problems with this policy. They know that this policy, more than any other, attacks the most vulnerable of Australians. It's a $57 billion tax slug over 10 years—but, of course, as we know, Labor can't even get their costings right.

Aspiration is not about having your life savings ripped out from under you, which is what Labor is all about. Consider what we've seen from Labor's plan to attack businesses. Let's not forget that a few years ago Labor supported lower company tax rates. The Leader of the Opposition and others argued that this was good for business and good for jobs and investment. Now, in an unprincipled reversal of that position, we have seen Labor declare a war on business—and they were the Leader of the Opposition's very own words. This pathetic and weak Labor Party is so unprincipled that it can't stand up for Australia's coal workers and it's now planning to drive jobs offshore by this terrible policy, including the $70 billion it is penalising Australians with. (Time expired)

Anne Stanley (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I come from an area in Sydney that is undergoing rapid change. The south-west is experiencing unprecedented growth, and one welcome result of that growth is the increasing number of young families moving into my electorate. These people are optimists. They are often in their first home and starting a family. However, they're also the first to feel the effects of the increased cost of living that we're seeing now. They're the ones who most need tax relief, not the big end of town.

Locals in my area are struggling because of the Medicare freeze, where fewer doctors are able to sustain bulk-billing. They're struggling because of the massive price increases in electricity after Liberal governments, both federal and state, sold off infrastructure to private interests and because there has been a vacuum where energy policy should be. They are struggling because of childcare costs. They're struggling because of the lack of infrastructure, which sees them spending more time in their cars in traffic jams than with their children and not able to find parks at railway stations after 7 am.

Being in government is about choices, and I'm afraid that this government has not chosen the working and middle class in my electorate or Australia-wide. What they are saying to locals in my area is that they are happy with inequality and happy to see them continuing to struggle. Moreover, they seem to think that a person earning $200,000 is struggling just as much as someone who's earning $40,000. Apparently, in the bizarre world of this government, it is actually the families struggling the most in my area that should be doing more for the top 20 per cent of income earners. It simply isn't fair, but those opposite don't seem to understand that.

This is just the latest chapter in the story of this government's continuing attacks on the quality of life of locals in my area. They've chosen to give a tax cut to the big end of town, with $17 billion to the big banks rather than $17 billion to properly fund our schools. They have cut penalty rates, and now workers in retail, food and accommodation are set to lose up to $77 a week. They've stood by while private health insurance premiums have increased by $20 per week and childcare costs are up by $40 a week. The cost of seeing a GP is now at a record high, over $9 out of pocket for each visit.

These pressures mean that middle-income and lower-income earners have more financial pressures to contend with than ever before. Australian households have one of the biggest debt-to-income ratios in the developed world. They are struggling. These pressures will only continue to grow under this government's unfair plan. In my region it is difficult enough to physically access these essential services. Transport is scarce and driving is an increasingly costly necessity, with the New South Wales Liberal government's plan to extend the toll on the M5 for another 40 years. From what I have seen in the New South Wales budget today, it's going to take them 10 years to build the road that will access the airport.

How can young people in my area be expected to obtain their full potential if they can't access decent schools and universities? How can their families support them if parents are working and commuting for longer periods just in order to cover the essentials? It's the job of the government to ensure that support is there for everyone to have a decent quality of life no matter where they live. Moreover, we all have a responsibility to ensure that no aspect of a child's background is a decider of their potential. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer do not see this inequality. To them, it would appear that welfare is about the few and not the many, as they support a package that would deliver more inequality. On the other hand, they have the option of supporting bigger, better, fairer income taxes today—tax cuts that actually target those who need them most. Labor's plan would mean that those earning up to $125,000 a year would be better off when compared to the government's plan over the next four years.

Labor is ready to vote today for tax cuts for 10 million people from 1 July 2018. We're ready to work constructively to provide better tax relief for the Australians who need it most. What we're not prepared to support is the creation of a situation where someone on $40,000 pays the same tax rate as someone on $200,000. This is unfair, and this government should know better. I call on everyone opposite to show some real compassion for working- and middle-class Australians like those in my area, and to work with Labor today to deliver the tax relief they sorely need.

Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It has been a day for inspiration. I've never heard inspiration mentioned so often.

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Minister for Law Enforcement and Cybersecurity) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about a bit of aspiration?

Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And some aspiration on top of that! I note that the member for Rankin has left the chamber, but I would like to congratulate him for his contribution. He actually could describe what an aspiration was. He knew what it was and he could explain it. I thought it was a very good explanation, unlike the member for Sydney's earlier in the day, who went with the INXS song 'Mystify'! I think it's a very difficult proposition to put forward for some.

We are here to talk about working-class and middle-class Australians. I haven't heard a lot of contributions from the other side that have actually focused on those people we are here to represent. It is about them, and there are many of them in my electorate. In fact, in my electorate, the per capita annual income is just $34,000 a year. That is not a substantial amount of money, but they manage to make do. They manage to put their kids through school; they manage to do all the things that normal families would do. What are we doing for them? That is our job as the government. We are here to encourage them and provide them with opportunities. We're going to provide them with tax relief. In my electorate, almost 49,000 individual taxpayers will benefit from the low- and middle-income tax relief that will occur in 2019 if, of course, we can get it through the Senate.

I note the contribution from the member for McMahon. The Labor Party are making threats about what will and what won't pass the Senate. I notice he didn't mention that in the House of Representatives they supported the bill. It went through the House, it went to the Senate and they've changed their mind. So, in this instance, who do you trust? It's clearly not those opposite. It is clearly not the Labor Party. People in my electorate want tax relief. They want us to continue to build the economy. They want us to continue to provide opportunities for them. Those are the almost 49,000 taxpaying individuals in my electorate. I'll give you some examples. If you're a high school teacher on $75,000 a year in my electorate, you'll have an extra $530 in your pocket in 2019. Five hundred and thirty dollars is a significant contribution in an area where the per capita annual income is just $34,000. If you're a shop assistant on $45,000 in my electorate, you'll have an extra $440 in your pocket from the budget year of 2019 onwards. That is a substantial increase. Whether you're an apprentice, a hairdresser, an accountant or a takeaway food operator, there are opportunities for you. It is your hard-earned cash that we are trying to inject back into your pocket.

What's the alternative? What's been put forward by those opposite is an additional $200 billion in taxes. No matter what they say, they're not Robin Hood: they are not robbing from the rich to give to the poor; they have their hands in your pocket through their retiree tax, their housing tax, their investment tax, their tax return tax, their higher income tax, their family business tax and their savings tax. We can go on. Who can forget the tradies tax. All of these are about taking more money from hardworking people in low- and middle-income areas.

We heard the contribution from the member for Calare. He spoke about the impact that this would have on self-funded retirees, pensioners and those who have put away a little bit of money. The proposal to take away imputation credits is wrong. If you are earning money through shares in a company, that company has paid tax on your behalf at a particular rate. If that rate is not what you would usually pay when it comes to tax time, like every other Australian in this country who pays tax you can put forward what your actual rate is and it is adjusted. Sometimes you pay a bill, Mr Deputy Speaker Hogan, as you may have. On other occasions, people may get a return, and I think that's great for them. In my electorate, we are doing everything we possibly can to provide more opportunities for those in the low- and middle-income area, and that includes developing local infrastructure.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I'm sure you saw the announcement on the Bruce Highway: the Cooroy to Curra section, section D, the final piece of the puzzle—an $800 million contribution from the federal government to complete that section of the Bruce Highway. Once again, I congratulate the member for Wide Bay on his sterling lobbying work. This will make a substantial difference to all of the people in both of our electorates because our people drive on that highway. We know how dangerous it is. It will make a real difference to the people who are working in, living in, retiring in or travelling to the capital cities for any reason. I certainly look forward to that work commencing. The state government is making a lot of noise up there through the member for Maryborough, who, I must say, is wrong, because we are ready to commence that work when the state government hits the 'go' button.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for discussion has concluded.