Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer explain why lower taxes are important to growing a stronger economy? And, Treasurer, what are the consequences of any higher taxing policy alternatives?

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Fairfax for his question. He brings to this place his experience in small business—experience which is absolutely missing from those opposite. In his electorate, more than 20,000 small businesses will be able to access the extended instant asset write-off which was announced in this budget; more than 63,000 taxpayers will be getting tax relief as a result of our announcements and our tax package; and around 25,000 of them will get the full $1,080 in the income tax offset.

Our economy—with 5.3 per cent unemployment, with a record number of people in work and workforce participation at a record high, with inflation at 1.6 per cent, with a trade surplus, with a balanced budget—is by those objective indicators a good economy. Now, whose words are those? They are the words of Australia's longest-serving and most successful Treasurer, and the architect of 10 budget surpluses, Peter Costello. That is what he said today about the Australian economy.

Part of our economic plan is tax cuts. These are tax cuts that have been legislated through this parliament, which will abolish a whole tax bracket, the 37c in the dollar tax bracket, and create one big tax bracket between $45,000 and $200,000, and will see more than 90 per cent of Australian taxpayers pay a marginal rate of no more than 30c in the dollar.

There was a clear contrast in the tax policies that were put to the Australian people at the last election. We supported lower taxes and we're delivering lower taxes. The Labor Party took to the last election $387 billion of higher taxes which are still on their books. If Labor had got into government, from 1 July this year retirees would have been hit with Labor's retirees' tax. People with superannuation would have been hit by Labor's superannuation tax and family businesses would have been hit with Labor's family business tax. The reality is that the Labor Party will always be the party of higher taxes chasing higher spending. The coalition will always be the party of lower taxes and a stronger economy.

Ms Burney interjecting—

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

The member for Barton has been warned.

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. When global factors help our economy, the Prime Minister takes credit. But, when global factors hinder our economy, the Prime Minister says it's not his fault. Why won't the Prime Minister be honest about the floundering economy and admit he doesn't have a plan to deal with it?

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

From Wayne Swan's prodigy, they are rich words indeed. When the Australian government, this government, see the global conditions that face the economy—I'll tell you what we do. What we don't do is what the former Treasurer, Mr Swan, did—for whom the member previously worked—we would not go out there and assume those conditions would exist forever.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will ignore the interjections.

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

I'm just going to say to members on my left that I'm not going to ignore them. The member for Hunter seems to have forgotten yesterday. The Prime Minister has the call.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When Labor were budgeting and there were iron ore prices of $180, what they did in their budget was assume those good times and those resources prices would be there forever. And, on the basis of that, the Treasurer under Labor came to this dispatch box and said:

The four years of surpluses I announce tonight …

The difference between how Labor budgets and how Liberals budget is that, when times are good, we don't always assume they will be that way globally. We actually factor that in, with conservative forecasts. That is why in the last three years we have seen an improvement on the original budget outcome. Because of the conservative estimates that have been built into the budget, we have overachieved each and every year. The reason we do that is we do not take the global environment for granted. When the global environment takes a downturn, that equally has an impact, but in our budget we have been taking that prospect into account for many years. That was the budget we took to the election and that is the budget that is in surplus now.

When times are better, those opposite think they will go on forever, and you can never assume things will go on well forever under the Labor Party, because they know how to wreck the economy, and wreck the budget with reckless spending and policies of panic and crisis. We will take a calm, stable, methodical and measured approach to the nation's finances to ensure we can deliver now the essential services people rely on and to ensure we can be there to provide the resilience for those services in the future.