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

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

The Government looking after its own interests instead of 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—

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today the coalition government and their One Nation allies have just shafted 10 million working Australians. Today the Prime Minister and his government have demonstrated their complete contempt for working and middle-class Australians, and Senator Hanson and her One Nation party, such as it remains, have sold out 1.9 million working people in Queensland simply to do the bidding of the LNP. And today the government and their puppets have locked in tax rates costing over $140 billion.

This government are so proud of what they have done, but they have not explained where the money is coming from. They have no idea if the nation can afford this in the next seven years. They have no way of predicting the global circumstances in the next seven years. They have no idea if they will even be here to pick up the pieces in seven years. But what they have done today is put $140 billion on the nation's credit card—on the nation's credit card—with no plan to pay for it at all.

This has been a week when people have demonstrated their true colours. The Labor Party have stood up for 10 million working Australians. We do support people getting the first round of these tax cuts. And we support them getting bigger, better and fairer tax increases from next year, when Labor hopefully will form a government. But the Prime Minister and his allies have revealed their true colours too. They have yet again sold out working people and prioritised the needs of the most well-off over everyone else.

Now I do recognise that at least the Prime Minister is consistent in his arrogance and his out-of-touch views of the world. But One Nation pretend to be different. They cry crocodile tears to be on the side of the people who are doing it hard, but when it matters they line up with the LNP and they keep voting for the big end of town. One Nation have dudded 10 million ordinary Australians today. They have robbed teachers and tradies of Labor's bigger, better, fairer tax cuts, of about $1,000 a year every year going forward, but they have given millionaires an extra $7,000 a year. They have voted for a plan, this One Nation gaggle and rabble; they have voted for a plan which gives 80 per cent of this $140 billion to the top 20 per cent. And we will remind them of that mistake every day until the next election.

To be fair, the Prime Minister also showed his true colours this week. I thought there was almost a eureka moment on Tuesday when the Prime Minister used those famous words, 'I am a snob.' I did think there was a moment of: 'Hallelujah, I've seen the light. At least I can say what I really think, and the truth will set me free.' I did wait for a string of frontbench confessions to follow. There is the lamentable Minister for Health, the Bruce Banner-like character talking about his most recent transformation into the swearing Incredible Hulk. I want to hear the Minister for Communications just finally admit that he wants his own show on the ABC. I thought perhaps the Minister for Home Affairs would declare his undiminished affection for The Guardian. I did wonder if the Leader of the House would finally concede his sneaking admiration of the very strong and tough CFMEU. Unfortunately, none of that happened; it was a short outbreak of Liberal truth-telling.

What this Prime Minister did do, when asked about the circumstances of a 60-year-old aged-care worker in Burnie and why she should have to get the job of an investment banker to get the sort of tax cut that the Prime Minister is handing that person, was to give the gratuitous advice to 'get a better job' or 'aspire to get a better job'. This government expressed such surprise at the reaction which has followed. What the Prime Minister should have realised is that perhaps this aged-care worker doesn't want to change industries and towns and professions; perhaps she just wants to get better pay as a carer. Why should she stop caring for people and have to do a different job in order to get the sort of money that the Prime Minister thinks everyone aspires to? Perhaps she aspires to better penalty rates. Perhaps she aspires to better ratios of staff to patients in these facilities. Perhaps she aspires to better funding for aged care. Perhaps she even aspires to a better Prime Minister.

The government today has used this language of winners. They have said that the Australian people are winners. But some people are bigger winners than others under this government package. Ten million people are going to get $10 a week. The Prime Minister says, 'Where's my bouquet of flowers for looking after people with $10 a week?' He's also happy to acknowledge other winners. The banks get $17 billion under this government. We will not cover up a giveaway to the big banks or the top 20 per cent by simply fobbing people off with $10 a week. Instead, we aspire to a better deal for 10 million Australians. We aspire to the view that they should get better-funded schools and not better tax concessions in negative gearing. We believe that people aspire to better-funded hospitals, not better tax subsidies for the large multinationals and the big banks. We believe that people aspire to be able to afford to buy their first home, rather than their 10th investment property.

The Liberal Party have talked about class war this week. They have form and history when talking about class war. Robert Menzies even spoke about class war during the real war. We are happy to talk about this accusation of the government. I say to the government, if you ask most Australians, it is not class war to demand a better tax cut for 10 million working Australians. It is not class war to demand better-funded hospitals, better-funded schools, better-funded universities or better-funded TAFE. It is never class war to demand better wages and safer workplaces. Instead, class war is when you cut $17 billion from hospitals and give it to the big four banks. Class war is cutting money from Medicare and giving it to multinationals. Class war is cutting penalty rates and boosting the salaries of CEOs. Class war is cutting the pension energy supplement and increasing the working age to 70. Class war is attacking the independent public broadcaster, the ABC, on behalf of vested media interests. Class war is denying the doors of university to 200,000 extra students. Class warfare is cutting 120,000 apprenticeships out of the system. Class warfare is suppressing the wages of working Australians for the last five years.

This is the problem, though: the Prime Minister has always had these out-of-touch views. I was reminded of his remarkable words of 7 November 2005. He said:

The simple economic truth is that if you wish to promote economic activity, if you wish to promote transactions—in this case, employment transactions—you should reduce the cost of entering into those transactions.

Anyway, he clarified himself subsequently. He said:

You have to free the market to do its work and let the cost of setting the clearing price—be it for labour, shares, home units or loaves of bread—be as low as possible …

Our Prime Minister doesn't understand how the real world constructs its finances. Our Prime Minister is the only Prime Minister of this country who's ever compared the working wages of working people to the cost of loaves of bread, and he wants to pay less.

Make no mistake, we on this side of the House will not be lectured about aspiration, because our definition of aspiration is not reserved to investment bankers and barristers and cabinet ministers in this government. We do not think you need to be making $200,000 to be aspirational. We believe in the aspiration of equal opportunity. We believe in the aspiration of being able to buy your first home, to get a quality education for your kids, to access quality health care. We believe in the aspiration of seeing your kids get an apprenticeship or go to university. We believe in the aspiration of leaving the next generation and future generations with a better environment than we inherited—and dignity in retirement. We believe in the aspiration of a decent, first-class NBN. We believe in the aspiration of job security and a good wage, and we don't regard the loss of 8,000 Telstra jobs as just 'what happens from time to time'. We believe in the aspiration of handing on a better deal to your kids than the one you inherited from your parents.

In fact, in Labor, we believe in the oldest Australian aspiration of all: a fair go for all in this country. We say to the Prime Minister: if you really believe your latest talking points that you claim across the dispatch box in this parliament, if you really believe that Aussies want cuts to schools and hospitals, bring it on in the by-elections!

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

What a great day for Australian workers. What a great day for every Australian who, year after year, day after day, gets up, gets on the train, gets on the bus, gets on the road to go to work. They pay their taxes. They miss out on important family events in order to pay ever-higher taxes. It is a remarkable achievement today that we provide, immediately, tax relief to 10 million Australians. Over time, we will provide tax relief to every single Australian.

The only people unhappy, the only people who are down in the mouth about Australian workers getting a tax cut today, are those opposite. The only person who looks like he lost $5 and found 5c is the Leader of the Opposition. He walked in here glum because he didn't want to see hardworking Australians, people who work hard every day, who are law-abiding, who pay their taxes, get a tax cut. Why doesn't he want them to get a tax cut? It is because those taxes fund his irresponsible spending. They fund his pork barrel around the country. But 10 million Australians, from 1 July, will get relief.

Then, in step 2 of our tax plan, Australians will be relieved of bracket creep. Bracket creep is a technical phrase used in this House too much. In essence, it means that people out there are getting taxed more on the same effective amount of income with a lower purchasing parity. We're saving them from paying higher taxes in step 2. Then, in step 3 of our tax plan, which this parliament supported and passed today, every single Australian will get a tax cut. We will get rid of an entire tax bracket, which means 94 per cent of people who work hard every single day will not face a marginal tax rate higher than 32½ per cent.

It is extraordinary today to see the Labor Party opposing this. The Labor Party, who we have spoken about time after time, the so-called party of the workers, have completely abandoned the men and women who I've said work hard every day, fund the system, fund the essential services that we all rely on. This is just another step in our plan to harness aspiration, another step in our plan to fuel the growth in the economy. And what have we seen? We have seen even more people, due to the policies of this government, who will be spared ever-higher taxes. That's the additional one million people who are in a job today who are paying taxes, and who will now get tax relief. But they have a job because of the policies of this government—415,000 Australians last year received a job. They worked for it. They did it. They are the ones who went out and made it happen. But the government creates the environment where those opportunities are there for Australians to grasp. We create the circumstances that give them the opportunity, with their own get-up-and-go, to go out and get that job, work hard every day and pay their taxes. So it doesn't happen by accident. None of it happens by accident. I know the Labor Party thinks it's all a big accident.

The Labor Party had very terrible luck while they were in government. They took a $20 billion surplus to a $50 billion deficit and they took an accumulated net debt position of over $70 billion to rising debt in their six years, all due to bad luck. It was all just bad luck for the Labor Party; it was all very, very bad luck. Well, no, it doesn't happen by accident. None of it happens by accident. It happens because we have a plan. We have a plan for a stronger economy. We have a plan to ensure that Australians are encouraged. Aspiration is a concept that's a bit mystifying to those opposite. We have a plan to ensure that we harness that aspiration, that entrepreneurialism.

What have the Labor Party done? We've seen it very, very clearly in recent days. The Labor Party have run around the country for many years, whether it's the Leader of the Opposition or the shadow Treasurer, trying to run some fake class-war campaign: 'We're going after the big multinationals. We're going after Apple and Google, and we're going after all those terrible, nasty millionaires and billionaires.' I know the Leader of the Opposition knows a few billionaires. But, instead, they've squibbed it. They're not going after them at all.

Regarding the $270 billion of additional taxes, it's not the millionaires and the billionaires and the Apples and the Googles and the big, nasty multinationals they're going after. No. Today, we now have the trifecta of who the Labor Party are going after. Who are the Labor Party attacking to fund their irresponsible spending? Firstly, they're going after pensioners and retirees. The single biggest contribution to their big pork barrel is going after low-income retirees, including pensioners who have self-managed super funds. They're going after pensioners; they're going after retirees. They're the big, nasty millionaires and billionaires: retirees on $20,000; retirees on $30,000, who might be losing up to a quarter of their income. They're the biggest target Labor are going after.

Who is the second target Labor's going after? Labor's going after small business people. Time and time again, Labor want to attack small businesses—small family businesses. Whether it's a shop, a retail store, a cafe or a hairdresser, the Labor Party want them to pay higher taxes; the Labor Party want to deny them a tax cut. That contributes to their big bucket of money for their pork barrel. Today, we saw the absolute trifecta of who Labor are going after. Again, is it the big multinationals? Is it Apple? Is it Google? No, it's everyday Australians who will contribute. If they were in government, their policy is to roll back tax cuts—$70 billion of additional personal income tax on everyday Australians.

The Labor Party think that if you earn an average income and you have a mortgage—you might have two or three children—you're rolling in it; you're a millionaire or a billionaire who doesn't deserve a tax cut. We disagree. Those are the people who fund the entire system of government. Those are the people who get up every day, work hard, pay their taxes and are law-abiding citizens, and today, against the wishes of the Labor Party, they will get a tax cut—delivered by this government, with the vehement opposition of the Labor Party. What a great moment for Australians. What a wonderful moment for Australians.

The Labor Party's spending, which is out of control, means that they have to make these decisions. I'm sure there are so many people in the Labor Party who instinctively know it's just wrong. It's just wrong what you did today. It's absolutely wrong that you would deny hardworking Australians a tax cut. It's absolutely wrong. I know there are a lot of good Labor people who are very embarrassed about this position and, sadly, they've been locked into it. Sadly, this Leader of the Opposition—this unprincipled, untrustworthy Leader of the Opposition—has led them down this path. I know they're a bit ashamed. They should be ashamed. They should be ashamed, again, that the people who fund their irresponsible pork barrel are the people who can least afford it: everyday Australians who work hard, retirees, small business owners. Why go after those people, the people who contribute to and fund the system that we provide?

All of these decisions—whether it's personal income tax, trade deals or company tax reductions—which have contributed to the record jobs growth we've seen over the last 4½ years, create an environment where the government all of a sudden has the means to be able to provide the services that Australians expect. In question time today we saw the Labor Party with a bit of a guilty conscience, I think, because the Minister for Health outlined what the real consequences are of not running a budget surplus. For six years, with a worsening budget position, with a weakening economy, with increasing unemployment, the Labor Party couldn't provide those services— (Time expired)

Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Preventing Family Violence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, what a day. Imagine getting a lecture from these people about morality and shame! You know who should be ashamed? People who are cutting the pension should be ashamed. People who are cutting $17 billion out of schools and giving it to the big banks—that's who should be ashamed. People who are cutting $2.2 billion out of university education—that's who should be ashamed.

Those opposite had the gall to lecture us this week about university education. Malcolm Turnbull, the Prime Minister of Australia, used the phrase 'university educated' as an insult this week. You know who else uses that sort of language as an insult? You know who else went after the intelligentsia? Pol Pot. General Franco. That's what happens when that sort of language is used. That's the sort of thing that goes on. That is absolutely the case when you use the phrase 'university educated'—

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

The member for Deakin, on a point of order?

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, I do this reluctantly, because I know things get quite 'willing' in the MPI, but I would ask that the member withdraw that.

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

I do take the point that in the MPI there is a bit more latitude in the use of terminology, but I do ask the member to withdraw.

Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Preventing Family Violence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

May I speak to the point of order first?

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

Certainly.

Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Preventing Family Violence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the member might like to reflect on the fact that, if he wants me to withdraw, he will need to ask News Limited to withdraw, because it was News Limited who, this morning—

Mr Sukkar interjecting—

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

I'll just hear the point of order, Member for Deakin, from the member for Griffith.

Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Preventing Family Violence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was News Limited who printed a column that compared this to the work of Pol Pot. In fact, they used a much worse piece of language than me. So I expect that there'll be a call on them to withdraw, will there?

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

Member for Deakin, on that point of order. But I make the point that the member for Griffith is losing her time.

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

The standing orders don't apply to media organisations outside of this House. Can I ask again, very politely, that the member withdraw that very, very gross comment that she made.

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

Member for Griffith, I have asked you to withdraw.

Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Preventing Family Violence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm sorry, I didn't realise you'd ruled, Mr Deputy Speaker.

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

I've asked if you would like withdraw.

Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Preventing Family Violence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy Speaker, if it's a ruling—

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

For the good of the House.

Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Preventing Family Violence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If it's a ruling, I'll withdraw.

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

I don't think there was a direct accusation. I think there was an innuendo in the comment. But, if the member's willing, I ask her to withdraw.

Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Preventing Family Violence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given it's not a ruling—I appreciate it's not. I compared the exploitation of people's populist inclination towards anti-intelligentsia sentiments to fascist regimes. This is a situation, Mr Deputy Speaker—

Mr Sukkar interjecting—

He didn't make a ruling—which you would be aware of.

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

I have made my ruling. The member for Deakin will be seated.

Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Preventing Family Violence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To use 'university educated' as an epithet is disgusting. It is anti intelligentsia and you should know better. And it's on a day when universities are under attack. You saw The Australian today; you saw the headline 'How universities are betraying Australia' in the nation's broadsheet. To think it's okay to be attacking universities and university education in those circumstances is disgusting, I think. It's consistent with the behaviour of this government and this Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister had the gall to tell us that we don't get aspiration at the same time that he had the gall to say that we weren't blue-collar enough—that we were university educated. Not only is he a snob about university education but he thinks we should know our place. He thinks it's outrageous that we have a university education. But he can't have both: either we don't understand aspiration, or we're too educated. It is not the case that we don't understand aspiration. We embody aspiration. We exemplify aspiration. There are people on this side of the House, me included, who were the first in their family to go to grade 12 let alone university. For these people to think that we don't understand aspiration shows how out of touch they really are.

They think aspiration is aspiring to be an investment banker. They think aspiration is aspiring to make more money. We think aspiration is aspiring to do better for this country. It's aspiration to make this a better society. It's aspiration to value education. But, you know, it's not just universities they don't like. They don't like TAFE either. The Minister for Education and Training referred to TAFE as basket weaving. Not only do you think we should know our place but you don't even value skills. You don't even value vocational education. How do we know? It's not just the basket-weaving comment; it's the fact that they've cut $3 billion from skills, including $270 million in this budget alone.

No-one in this place understands aspiration like Labor. We build aspiration. We exemplify aspiration. We will always stand up for working Australians. We won't cut the pension like that mob over there. We will stand up for aspiration. (Time expired)

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

What a fantastic day for the Australian people—a day where this government, supported by sensible crossbenchers, stood up and said: 'We are going to provide tax relief to hardworking Australians,' over the vehement opposition of those opposite, who did absolutely everything they could to try to stop ordinary Australians getting much needed tax relief.

The Leader of the Opposition sent out a tweet a couple of hours ago that said:

… Labor will replace Turnbull's tax cut for the top end of town.

He must therefore think that a drill technician is the top end of town, because, under the tax relief that we've just passed, a drill technician will be $2,200 a year better off. A labourer will be $718 a year better off. A miner will be $4,061 a year better off, and a forklift driver will be close to $4,000 a year better off. Those opposite talk about the top end of town and the big end of town and multinationals, but this expanding definition now includes labourers, miners, forklift drivers and drill technicians. Labor is standing in the way of tax relief for ordinary Australians, but today we overcame that absurd opposition. It is to the great credit of the Senate that it saw through the absurd opposition of those opposite.

These guys are all about tax. You can add it up now. Add it up. There are so many different lines to go to. We know that they want $70 billion in personal income tax to be paid by Australians. We know that, and that's what they did today. They voted for that. There is absolutely no wiggle room for them on that. They voted for ordinary Australians to pay $70 billion more in personal income tax. That's just a fact; that's what they voted for.

Also, they were sitting around six months or so ago and said: 'Where can we get some cash out of taxpayers very quickly to fund our extravagant spending plans? Where can we go to get some really big money quickly?' They said: 'You know where we can get a lot of money, billions of dollars a year, straightaway? Retirees.' So that's where they went. Now they're saying $45 billion a year should be taken from ordinary retirees who've done nothing wrong. All they've done is save for their future, provide for their retirement and invest in Australian companies, which is a good thing and something we should be seeking to encourage. And Labor said, 'This is a fantastic opportunity to go in there and rip out $45 billion from grandmas and grandfathers, people who have done the right thing in this nation.'

That's $70 billion in personal income tax and $45 billion from retirees. But what about small business? We hear a lot about multinationals and the big end of town, but, when tax relief was first provided for in the House, those opposite voted against tax relief for a business with $2 million of revenue. That's like a small suburban manufacturer—it might be a farming business, it might be a distributor of rural products in a small town. This is an important point: $2 million of revenue is not $2 million of profit. It's a very small business. It probably has a five per cent profit margin—it might make $100,000 a year—but Labor says it's some sort of multinational that's involved in nefarious activities and must not be provided any tax relief. That's an absolutely outrageous position.

Do you know why they do all this? They want to get more money from taxpayers for them. They want more money so that they can spend more money, and the proof of the pudding is in the history. You don't have to go back very far; it's actually very straightforward. You just have to go back to the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd era, where average spending, real spending, under those opposite went up by four per cent per year on a budget of hundreds of billions of dollars. Under this government, it's 1.9 per cent, and that's a big difference. What that means is: we turned the corner on net debt. We expect to pay $30 billion off net debt in the next four years. Net debt has already peaked, and we are paying off Labor's debt legacy. It's very clear: they want to tax and tax and tax and tax and then they think, 'Do you know what? Let's tax some more.' That's what they do. They want $290 billion of taxes, they want to suppress aspiration and they don't want to support hardworking Australians. We do, and that's what we've done today.

Brian Mitchell (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What an extraordinary contribution! There are some terms that are unparliamentary, so I won't say what they are. Workers on low and middle incomes in this country were held hostage by this government. Like the cowards that they are, they put the low- and middle-income earners of this country in front of their bodies and said, 'If you don't vote for the entire tax package that will give politicians and high-income earners a $7,000-a-year tax cut, you don't get the tax cut for low- and middle-income earners. If there's no tax cut for high-income earners, you don't get the tax cut for low-income earners.' That's what this government said. It's an absolute disgrace. They held low- and middle-income earners hostage to their big tax cuts for the big end of town.

In the electorate of Braddon in Tasmania, 39,000 people earn less than $125,000 a year. The tax cut for these workers in Braddon was held hostage so that the Prime Minister and the company directors of Sydney could get their tax cuts. This government is simply not interested in workers. It was willing to sacrifice the tax relief for workers, if the tax cuts for high-income earners did not pass this parliament. The Liberals' high-income tax cuts give every member of this place and the other place, including Senator Hanson, a $7,000-a-year tax cut. Members on this side of the House voted not to give ourselves a $7,000-a-year tax cut. We think that money is better placed in the pockets of low- and middle-income earners. Under us, low- and middle-income earners would get a tax cut of around $900 a year, nearly doubling the low- and middle-income earner tax cuts that the government is providing low- and middle-income earners—$500 under you; $900 under us. That's the difference, and we wouldn't be giving tax cuts to the big end of town.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Double the money doesn't count!

Brian Mitchell (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No—come on, 'Freedom Boy', you've had your go. We heard you with the member for Griffith—with your so-called commitment to freedom of speech—and you were trying to gag her. This government is all about giving more money to people who already have it. That's what this government is all about. In everything it does, this government is about giving more money to people who already have it. It believes absolutely, down to its bones, in trickle-down—that failed philosophy that says: if you give money to rich people, it will end up one day in the pockets of poor people. It hasn't worked throughout human history. 'But it'll work now. We'll give it another go. It hasn't worked for centuries, but it'll work now.' They're convinced: give more money to the rich people, and one day poor people will benefit. The evidence says otherwise.

If this government cared about workers, it would care about wages, but wages growth is at record lows—around 2.1 per cent growth. Company profits are at 5.8 per cent. According to this government, when companies earn a higher profit it's meant to mean higher wages, but it's not happening. There is 2.1 per cent growth in wages and 5.8 per cent growth in company profits. Where is the pay-off for workers under this government? It's not there.

Companies can continue to get the profits and workers continue to pay the price. If this government cared about workers, it would care about penalty rates, but penalty rates have been cut for 700,000 workers. This is costing workers in low-income and insecure workplaces at least $70 a week, depending on their shifts. And on 1 July, workers' penalty rates will be cut again by 15 per cent. Since the cuts started last year, consumer spending has declined. Maybe that's because workers have less money to spend. And remember last year when this government said, 'We'll cut penalty rates and all these jobs will emerge because employers will have all this extra money'? It hasn't happened. It has not happened!

This government fails workers—

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Monopoly money doesn't count!

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

The member for Goldstein is warned!

Brian Mitchell (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They support cuts to penalty rates; they argue against an increase to the minimum wage; they've legislated to stop workers and employers agreeing to limit labour hire; and they've voted against Labor proposals to make big business liable for underpayment of workers along the supply chain and by subcontractors. On every measure, the list is endless of how this government has failed the workers of this country, and especially the workers of Tasmania.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is, of course, a great privilege to be able to stand up here and be part of a government on the day that passed the biggest tax cuts in Australian history.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think I need to restate that for the members of the opposition. If you're thinking about the aspiration, the opportunities, for middle Australia to be able to realise their dreams—their opportunity and the opportunity of this great nation—nothing could be greater than passing the biggest tax cuts in Australian history. Everybody on this side of the parliament voted for it. And everybody on that side of the parliament voted against it. And they will be judged harshly come the next election.

When I think about the aspiration and opportunity that I seek to represent, as everyone else does on this side of the chamber, I think of the good people of Goldstein: hardworking, aspirational, putting the hard work and effort into it to better their lot—theirs, their family's and their community's, and as a foundational pillar of improving this great nation.

I think about the professionals who wake up every morning and get themselves ready. They get on, say, at Hampton Railway Station and catch a train into town to work for a company or a business of others to be able to provide for their family. I think of the small-business people who live in Bentleigh who have brought together a business on Centre Road and who are doing their best to try and create an opportunity for themselves and for their family.

And I think, of course—like everybody does on this side of the House—about the self-funded retirees in, say, Caulfield South and what they have done. They haven't just worked hard their whole lives, although they have. They have sacrificed. They have saved; they have foregone holidays and other privileges and luxuries to be in a position where they do not take or draw down from the taxpayer.

Those are the people who seek aspiration and opportunity as part of the great middle class of this country. These are the people who benefit from the plan that has been implemented by the Turnbull coalition government. And one of the biggest challenges that they face, in seeking their aspirations and their opportunity, is not just the Labor Party and those sitting opposite but the threat of the policies that they would impose if they ever made it onto the Treasury benches. It's the threat of Labor's retiree tax, where they would directly tax all of those people who have made savings to be able to put themselves in the best position. It undermines the policies that this government has prosecuted, which have delivered more than a million new jobs for Australians. If you want to talk about the gap between those people who do not have opportunity and those who do, it strictly comes down to a very important point: whether people have the opportunity to secure employment. I know there are plenty of people on the other side who don't understand such a basic proposition—

Dr Aly interjecting—

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

The member for Cowan is warned.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

the proposition that working is the best foundation for securing your chance and your opportunity in life.

This government understands that the great middle class of this country needs to be able to keep more of the earnings that they make. This government understands that we need to make sure that we continue to do everything we can to drive up wages. We've seen growth in wages as a direct consequence of this government's policy, because what we've injected into the heart of the economy is confidence. We have delivered security and predictability, and now tax cuts as well. We've seen that the wage price index grew by 2.1 per cent over the last year, a pick-up from the trough reached nine months ago. Key sectors are now experiencing strong growth—2.7 per cent in health care and social assistance; 2½ per cent in arts and recreation; 2.4 per cent in education and training and other services; seven per cent in rental, hiring and real estate services; and six per cent in ICT, media and telecommunications.

This government looked at the challenges that the great middle class of this nation faces—

Opposition members interjecting—

while those on the other side of this parliament yell and complain—and sought to realise their aspiration and opportunity in policy and law, and we're damn proud to be part of it.

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

I will remind the member for Goldstein that banging on desks, even when speaking, is not parliamentary.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I accept that.

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

I call the member for Herbert.

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

Let me say to the member for Goldstein that hard work is not just applicable to the wealthy top end of town. People working in aged-care facilities are generally casual. They don't get enough hours. They don't have the money to buy shares. So get that into your head. Let's be very clear: this Prime Minister has his priorities completely back to front. He is giving himself a tax handout of a minimum of $7,000 after he has already given himself another pay rise, yet he is cutting the wages of more than 700,000 Australians. Shame on this government! Is it any wonder how out of touch they are when you have Senator Lucy Gichuhi saying $200,000 is not much money. Is she kidding? And, of course, Senator Pauline Hanson supported the tax handout to millionaires. It would be great if Prime Minister Turnbull and One Nation would stop lining their own pockets and would actually give a damn about Australian workers.

The Turnbull government needs to come down from its ivory towers and understand the needs of Australian workers and their families. This is how out of touch this government is: it is including a worker on $40,000 a year in the same tax bracket as someone earning $200,000 a year. Outrageous! How on earth can it be fair for a nurse on $40,000 a year to pay the same tax rate as a doctor on $200,000, or for a cleaner to pay the same tax rate as a CEO? How can it be fair that, under this tax experiment, the doctor who earns five times as much as the nurse will get 16 times more tax relief. Research has revealed that, under Turnbull's plan, $6 in every $10 will go to the wealthiest 20 per cent. Sixty per cent of the benefit will go to the wealthiest 20 per cent. Outrageous!

This is a tax plan for Turnbull's millionaire mates, not a tax plan for Australian workers. Under Labor, you can bet that we will look after Aussie workers and middle-income earners and their families. A Labor government will deliver bigger, better and fairer tax cuts for 10 million working Australians. Under Labor, working Australians will pay less income tax, because Labor believes that they are worth far more than multinationals, the big banks and big businesses. Everyone earning less than $125,000 a year will receive a bigger tax cut under Labor compared to the LNP.

What does this mean for my electorate of Herbert? The median weekly personal income in Herbert is $672. Under Labor, a person in Herbert on the median weekly personal income will be $350 better off—that is, $150 better off than under the Turnbull government's plan. Families will also be better off. The median weekly income for a family in Herbert is $1,640. Under Labor, families in Herbert will be $928 better off—that's more than $398 better off than the Turnbull government's plan. Let's put professional workers into perspective with Labor's tax refund. A teacher earning $65,000 will be $2,780 better off under Labor—that is $928 extra a year. A married couple, one serving in the defence forces earning $90,000 and the other working in aged care at $50,000 will be $5,565 better off under Labor—a combined $1,855 each year under Labor.

The reviews are coming in fast regarding Turnbull's wealthy tax handouts and they're not very pretty. Mark Hayes from my electorate wrote to me and succinctly said:

How do we as a country afford to give these Tax cuts to the rich and famous?

We know that they will not generate one single job but go into the owners pockets.

Well, Mark, we don't. And the Turnbull government is doing so at the expense of funding infrastructure, hospitals, schools and universities. And then there's the comment from the Australian Council of Social Services CEO:

The tax cut package is gambling the future of our medical services, aged care services, disability services, and social security payments most of us rely upon at some stage in our lives.

Under Labor, working and middle-class Australians will pay less tax, and we certainly won't be giving an $18 billion tax cut to big business and banks. Labor have our heads screwed on right. With the Turnbull government's tax plan nor millionaires, it's very clear that those opposite have completely lost their minds.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Now I have heard everything from those opposite—to suggest that Labor have their heads screwed on right. Anyway, today is a fantastic day for all Australians because today we've seen historic tax cuts for all working Australians, which will see 94 per cent of all Australians paying no more than 32½c in the dollar, and that is absolutely great news for all working Australians, all families because, you know what? This enables them to take that extra job, to work that extra few hours. It will prevent bracket creep, which was going to have a significant impact on many, many families.

This is, once again, a terrific day. Unfortunately those opposite have chosen, much to their eternal shame, not to support it. But, look, this is all about aspiration. It's all about incentivising our workforce and incentivising Australians. On this side of the House, we believe that a rising tide lifts all boats. We believe that if you provide the appropriate incentives to Australians, they will rise to the challenge. We trust Australians. We believe in Australians. We don't want to keep a lid on them like those opposite, particularly the member for Lindsay.

The ALP have abandoned working Australians. Apparently Bill Shorten, in his maiden speech, talked about the importance of aspiration and incentivising Australians. What happened? What happened to the Leader of the Opposition? How could he have changed so much? How could he have changed from those terrific ideals? Once again, he's shown he will do anything, say anything. You must be really struggling with him as your leader. I mean, you must be looking at him and saying: 'Please, would the earth swallow him up? Give us another leader. How about the people's choice? Give us Albo!' I know. Now there's a man who believes in aspiration, probably the only person on that side of the House who is aspirational. Good luck to him—although we don't want to wish him too much luck because, at the end of the day, Bill Shorten is our strongest weapon.

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

The member for Lyons on a point of order.

Brian Mitchell (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the member could refer to the opposition leader by his correct title, please.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. The member for Lyons is absolutely correct, and I stand suitably chastened. The opposition leader is the Liberal and National parties' secret weapon, so we don't want Labor to get rid of him.

The member for Griffith, in her Academy Award winning speech—

An opposition member: Better than yours!

likened the Prime Minister to—

Brian Mitchell (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You'll get a Razzie!

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

The member for Lyons has had his go.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pol Pot.

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing and Mental Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She did not.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, she did. Once again, those opposite—

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

The member for Fisher will resume his seat. The member for Franklin on a point of order.

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing and Mental Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Fisher is reflecting on a member. I ask him to withdraw. She did not say that.

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

I did ask the member for Griffith if she would like to withdraw. I very much understand that there is more lateral use of terminology in MPIs. It was more of an inference. She was comparing different policies. On that, I do ask the member for Fisher if he would like to withdraw.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, just as the member for Griffith didn't do that, I will respectfully decline.

Ms Husar interjecting—

No. It's not a ruling.

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

The member for Fisher has the call.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker

Ms Husar interjecting—

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

The member for Lindsay will excuse herself from the House.

The member for Lindsay then left the chamber.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What's one of the best advantages of our tax policies? Our tax policies provide a strong economy, and a strong economy provides the government with the economic power to be able to provide good health, good education and great infrastructure. For my electorate of Fisher, in the last budget we saw $880 million for Bruce Highway upgrades between Caloundra Road and Pine Rivers— (Time expired)

Ross Hart (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This week we had a great insight into the prejudices and the true thoughts of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, when he was asked a question in question time, couldn't help but drop his guard and to tell us all here in the House exactly what he thought about ordinary working- and middle-class Australians. On Monday, the Prime Minister and his government took aim at hardworking aged-care workers in Tasmania. He said: 'The 60-year-old aged care worker in Burnie is entitled to aspire to get a better job.' This is a man from a privileged background who has had his choice of plumb jobs his whole life. He certainly feels entitled. Since word of the Prime Minister's out-of-touch comments came to light in my home state of Tasmania, I have been contacted by many hardworking constituents who feel that it is the Prime Minister who should be doing a better job. To be honest, I agree he should be doing a better job. He should be doing a better job for hardworking Australians like the Tasmanian aged-care workers on $45,000 a year who will get a tax cut of just $10 a week, while the Prime Minister's former banker mates will receive tax cuts of up to $7,000 a year.

One of the hardworking constituents who contacted me is Jenny Marshall, a 55-year-old aged-care worker in Launceston. She's disgusted with this out-of-touch Prime Minister. She says, 'People work in aged care not for the money. They do it because they care. They care about people. They're not looking to go and getter a better job. We work there because we care about people. Everyone is disgusted with what he said. How dare he say that? See how he would go doing an eight-hour shift as an aged-care worker $21. 83 an hour. He wouldn't last a minute.'

This Prime Minister and his government should prefer to do a better job for everybody rather than simply doing a better job for the wealthy. He consistently fails low- and middle-class Australian workers. In contrast to this, a Shorten Labor government is ready to do a better job by providing hardworking Australians with a bigger, better tax cut. Unlike this government, which is giving a $17 billion tax cut to the big banks and a $7,000-a-year tax cut to their CEO banker mates who run them, Labor believes hardworking lower- and middle-class Australians need and deserve relief. The government's argument is that if the big banks, which are already making huge profits, make even bigger profits then maybe—just maybe—hardworking Australians might get, if they're lucky, a wage rise.

Workers with lived experience, like the hardworking aged-care workers in my constituency, find this Prime Minister to be seriously out of touch. They know that wages are barely keeping pace with the cost of living, and they're not keeping pace with the profitability of the big end of town either. What has this Prime Minister done for wages? He's refused to do anything about cuts to penalty rates. His plan was to cut wages by slashing penalty rates and arguing against raising the minimum wage.

In contrast, Labor is ready to do a better job for working Australians, by delivering a bigger, better and fairer tax cut for 10 million working Australians. Labor's tax refund for working Australians increases the tax cuts presently legislated under the government's tax offset proposal. This means that under Labor working- and middle-class Australians will pay less tax, because a tax cut for families is more important than a $17 billion tax giveaway to the big banks.

Australians believe in a fair go for all. Our tax and transfer system is—or was—one of the most progressive in the world. This means that the tax that we pay, as well as the benefits we receive, are highly targeted to those who need it—and, of course, it goes to pay for things like public education and public health. Under this government, our egalitarian society that we're all so proud of is at risk. A flat rate of tax is not the way to address that.

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a fantastic day for Australian workers and families today. We should be and are celebrating. I hope that everybody out there is celebrating the fact they are going to get tax relief as a result of the actions of the Turnbull government and the stronger economy that we've delivered since we were elected in 2013. The proof is there: more than one million jobs created in a great economic environment by so many small to medium enterprises that have used their own initiative to get on and employ more Australians in a very strong economic situation.

Our economy has actually grown by over three per cent in the past 12 months. This is happening right now. It's not the never-never plan of Labor; this is happening right now. It puts us right at the top of the pack of advanced economies right around the world. We saw unemployment drop to 5.4 per cent last month. Good and sound financial management is part of the coalition's DNA. Bad financial management is part of Labor's DNA. We see it repeatedly. As we know, the sooner we get the budget back into surplus, the sooner we'll pay off Labor's debt and the sooner more low- and middle-income earners will pay less tax. We support and respect hardworking Australians, like the thousands in the south-west, in my electorate. By contrast, Labor will attack working Australians, our low- and middle-income earners, by charging them $200 billion worth of new and higher taxes. Our long-term economic plan ensures that we can guarantee the essential services that Australians rely on and expect from a government, provide income tax relief—delivered today—and bring the budget back into balance.

We are guaranteeing the essential services that really matter and make a difference in communities. This includes services as simple as the new headspace centre I fought for and opened in Busselton last week. Mental health is health. As the stigma attached to mental health issues declines—and it's for us to work to make sure that that happens—more and more people are willing to actively address their mental and emotional health issues. Headspace provides absolutely invaluable support to young people aged 12 to 25. Now at the new centre in Busselton, one of the fastest-growing regional cities in Australia, these young people do have someone to go and talk to, whatever their issues are—psychologists, social workers, counsellors—all the professionals that these young people need to talk to. But these services and opportunities are only made possible by delivering a strong enough economy to be able to deliver them.

And something else that's so important in my area that Labor never, ever did was to improve mobile phone coverage, something the government has, and continues to deliver in rural, regional and remote Australia. There have been 19 mobile phone towers delivered in the south-west. None of those were delivered during Labor's time—not one! This will continue under a new Mobile Black Spot Program we've announced—again, only made possible by the stronger economy that we are delivering.

And our plan for a stronger economy does include five key pillars encouraging hard work by Australians through tax relief. That was delivered today. I can't say it enough times: delivered today! We are creating more jobs by backing business, by backing personal investment, by guaranteeing essential services, by—importantly—keeping Australians safe and by ensuring that the government actually lives within its means—something that Labor never, ever did, and I suspect never will. Labor does not understand.

As I said, the Turnbull government is supporting low- and middle-income earners through our plan that passed today, a plan that delivers immediate tax relief for low- and middle-income earners, allowing them to keep more of their money, the money they earn. This is not the government's money; it's their money. And, as of today, with the passage of this tax package, more low- and middle-income earners will be able to keep more of their own money.

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

The discussion has now concluded.