Matt Burnell (Spence, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer to help middle Australia with the cost of living, and what approaches were rejected?

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I give the call—

The Treasurer will pause, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will withdraw that comment.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I withdraw.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I give the call to the Treasurer.

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

Thank you to the member for Spence. He's asked more questions of me today than the shadow Treasurer has asked me in more than six months! The member for Spence is an absolute champion for every single one of the 74,000 taxpayers in his electorate who will get a tax cut from 1 July, including the 91 per cent of taxpayers in Spence who will get a bigger tax cut to help them deal with the cost-of-living pressures that they confront. I congratulate the member for Spence for being a champion of the working people of his community.

I was proud to introduce the legislation today, because our legislation means a tax cut for every taxpayer, and a bigger tax cut for more workers, to help with the cost of living. Our tax cuts are better for middle Australia, better for women and young people, better for teachers and truckies and nurses, better for police officers, and better for the economy.

This is all about relief and reform—more relief for middle Australia and a better reform for our economy. It's a better way to return bracket creep—better for labour supply and work incentives, better for women and better for young people, with no extra pressure on the budget and no additional pressure on inflation, which is moderating in welcome ways in our economy.

We didn't take this decision lightly—to change our position on stage 3. We knew it would be contentious and we knew it would be contested.

I want to pay tribute here to the Prime Minister of our country for the way that he leads our cabinet and our country and, most importantly, for the way that he delivers for middle Australia, for the way that he puts people before politics—an approach which is absolutely foreign to those opposite. This is all about giving people help with the cost of living, and the opposition don't like our changes because they would prefer wages to be lower and inflation to be higher, and they want tax cuts to be skewed to the highest incomes. Their position has been indefensible, unintelligible, incoherent and unsustainable, and we saw that again.

Let me give you two examples of the approach we're rejecting. On the same day, the shadow Treasurer called my changes 'Marxism', and by the afternoon he was on 2GB saying he might vote for them. The opposition leader called for an election on a policy that he is now voting for. That would be a pretty strange election and a pretty strange debate. Imagine how angry he would get if this was about something he's voting against? The only clarity we get is from the member for Farrer. She was asked, 'Will they roll back our changes?', and she said, 'That is absolutely our position.' No matter what they say today, they are still out of touch, they still want to roll it back and they still have no alternatives.

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Members on my right, there is far too much noise. The minister for climate change and Minister for Home Affairs, there will be silence so I can hear from the member for Hume. He will not be interrupted. If anyone interrupts him, they will not remain in the House of Representatives.

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

():  My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer rule out any changes to the current tax treatment of negative gearing?

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Minister for Home Affairs is warned.

The Treasurer will cease interjecting.

The member for Page, no-one is to interrupt before a minister speaks. I don't know why that is so hard for anyone to understand. Get it!

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

Saturday was a really important day. Saturday was the sixth-month anniversary of the last time the member for Hume asked me a question. Now that he has asked a question, we all know why. I say to the tactics committee on that side, it's probably not the worst call to deny him a question for more than six months. That's because the Prime Minister and I, in press conferences, have dealt with this question already. We know what this is all about. The position that they have taken is so incoherent, unintelligible and incomprehensible that they can't ask about the tax cuts which are before the parliament as of noon today.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Treasurer will pause. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We're asking for a straight answer to a very clear question: Will he rule out changes to the tax treatment of negative gearing? He needs to give a clear and simple answer, a straight point on relevance or he should sit down.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think we'll deal with this matter now. The Treasurer will just resume his seat. I can appreciate when questions are asked that people would like a yes/no answer. As we begin this week and this parliamentary session, I can't make a minister answer a question 'yes' or 'no'. I want to make that clear to everyone. I can make sure they are directly relevant under the standing orders. I'll remind all members, if you wish to change the standing orders, that is up to the House to decide that. But, as they stand now—you may not like the answer; you may not agree with the answer—I simply can't ask a minister or a prime minister to answer a question 'yes' or 'no', as you would like. The Treasurer touched on his answer, in terms of his previous statement, so he is being relevant and he has the call.

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

It beggars belief that the guy who hasn't asked me a question in more than six months is chirping at me about relevance. What would the member for Hume know about relevance? I say this once again, for those opposite: I've dealt with this question publicly in the recent past, and the point that I make, once again, is that it's almost three o'clock on the day that we introduced legislation to give a bigger tax cut to more workers, to help with the cost of living, and they still haven't asked us a question, at ten to three, about the legislation that I introduced at noon today. We all know what's going on here. They want to ask us a question about all of the things that we haven't said we're doing, because they can't defend their position on the thing that we have said we're doing.