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

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024, and I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes:

(1) this Government has mismanaged the economy and made a deliberate decision to break promises and raise taxes;

(2) the Coalition is committed to lower, simpler and fairer taxes;

(3) because Australians are hurting from the Government's mismanagement of the economy, the Coalition will not oppose the reduction in the 19c tax rate to 16c;

(4) the Coalition is committed to going to the next election with a tax reform package that is in keeping with the stage 3 tax cuts; and

(5) the Coalition's package will:

a. deliver lower, simpler, and fairer taxes;

b. fight bracket creep and enshrine aspiration in our tax system;

c. reward hard work and support a strong economy where every Australian can get ahead; and

d. unite, rather than pit Australians against each other".

It's important understand why this bill is before us today. There is a very simple and important reason for that, which is that Labor has absolutely failed in managing the economy and the result of that is Australians are being hurt on a scale that I haven't seen in my lifetime. In my lifetime!

Since coming to office, this government and this Prime Minister have made the wrong decisions, have been distracted and have consistently broken promises. The Prime Minister spent all of last year dividing Australians based on race; he was distracted by his $450 million failed referendum. Meanwhile, throughout the course of that year, he hadn't noticed that Australians were being smashed. They were seeing their household budgets being hurt in a way that they hadn't anticipated and that he promised would not be the case—he promised he was going to be a Prime Minister who was dealing with the cost of living.

Let's look at the facts of what has happened to household budgets in the 18 months that those opposite have been in government. It's very important to get to the bottom of the numbers. These numbers came out in the national accounts late last year. We on this side know this, because we see it every single day. Whenever I go into an electorate, as much as I can I go to one of the local food banks and I ask them, 'Who are you seeing?' They're seeing people looking for help in a way that they have never seen before. This is a tragedy we're seeing unfolding right around this country as aspiration is being smashed, as people's standards of living is being smashed and as their ability to make ends meet is being smashed. What we saw in the national accounts that came out—

You should listen to this! The numbers behind that came out in December last year. In 18 months, the average Australian household has lost 8.6 per cent of its real disposable income. It's a phenomenal amount, if you think about it. The average Australian has lost $8,000 in 18 months from their disposable income.

They're seeing this coming through in three different ways. First of all, prices have gone up far faster than wages. That means, in technical speak, their real wages are going backwards. What that means in practical terms is that their purchasing power is disappearing from their pay packets. Their purchasing power over the last 18 months has been disappearing from their pay packets. The second thing they saw in the course of that 18 months was 12 interest rate increases. That means that a family with a mortgage—about a third of Australian households have a mortgage—has not lost $8,000 of their real disposable income, it's more like $20,000, or $30,000 or more. And they have to find that $20,000 or $30,000 a year in after-tax income.

Australians are stumbling through this because the government spent all of last year ignoring it. It was distracted and focused on other things, and no-one was more distracted than this Prime Minister. The question so many Australians ask me as I get out and about is: Is this all going to go back to normal some time soon? Is this going to revert back? Am I going to get my $8,000 back? Is this 8.6 per cent hit to my disposable income going to return? Are interest rates going to go back to where they were? Are prices going to go back to where they were? There has been an almost 10 per cent increase in prices—of course far more for some goods and services in the last 18 months. Are they going to go back to where they were? And are the tax increases I've seen going to back where they were?

To put those tax increases in perspective, we saw a 27 per cent increase in personal income taxes being paid in 18 months. I'll hand it to the Labor Party; they are good at one thing: tax collection. They are the masters—27 per cent! How could it be that there's a 27 per cent increase in taxes? Well, it's true that there was record population growth during that time period, but that was only 3½ per cent, so the rest of it was all Australians paying more tax.

Right at the heart of that was the greatest thief in the night that a big-spending Labor government absolutely adores, and that's bracket creep. Australians see bracket creep in a very clear way. They don't call it bracket creep. To them it just means: why is there so little money in my bank account? Because the hand of big government is pulling it out, and it's doing it through inflation and it loves inflation. It doesn't want that bracket creep to go away. We heard the Prime Minister yesterday demonstrate that he doesn't even understand bracket creep. He's got no idea. But it has resulted, along with other things, in a 27 per cent increase in the personal income taxes being paid by Australians in the period of 18 months. That increase in prices, mortgage payments and personal income taxes is responsible for Australian households seeing a decimation of their income.

We know that Labor's policies are causing this. We heard the Reserve Bank governor tell us that inflation was homegrown. Inflation comes from Canberra. It's not coming from the Ukraine, as the Prime Minister liked to say for a while until he was corrected by the Reserve Bank governor. It is homegrown. This Labor government has been responsible for gross and egregious economic mismanagement in Australia, and every Australian is paying the price. They have botched energy policy. They promised a $275 price reduction, but of course it never arrived. They promised cheaper mortgages, but of course we've seen 12 interest rate increases under this government, and any Australian family with a mortgage is seeing a decimation, a smashing, of their disposable incomes, as I said earlier.

At the heart of this is a government that loves to spend money. In fact there's been $209 billion of extra spending since they came to power. That's over $20,000 of extra spending for every Australian household. But, when you're taxing lots, that's what you do; you spend it all, if you're a Labor government. And they have spent almost every bit of it, despite what the Treasurer likes to say.

A government member interjecting

Well, it's the truth. You've added $20,000 of spending for every Australian household, but the member opposite seems to think this is terribly funny—the plight of Australian households—and it's not. It's a crisis, and this Labor government has exacerbated this crisis in a very significant way.

This is where we stand. We stand in a situation where Australian households are in a dire situation. It's certainly far worse than anything we've seen in my lifetime. Perhaps it was as bad during the Depression, but this is really next level. That's why we are supporting the tax relief in this legislation—because that's what's left. There is nothing else this government is offering. When they fail on economic management, that's what you have to do. We won't get between Australians and lower taxes because we are ultimately the parties of simpler, lower, fairer taxes.

There is a second reason why this legislation is in front of us in this form.

I'll take the interjection. I think I've just answered your question. What we're doing is voting for tax relief that is required because of the Labor government's failed economic management, disastrous economic management and unprecedented economic management. Those opposite should take responsibility for their failures. There's a second reason why this legislation is in front of us in this form today, which includes an egregious broken promise. Those opposite have chosen to fund that tax relief by taxing a group of Australians more. That's $28 billion of bracket creep that they're going to impose on Australians right now.

The Prime Minister fessed up to this last night on 7:30, where he admitted that they had seen options, none of which had been seen by the Australian people or by the opposition, but he reckoned this was the best option. Of course, taxing a group of Australians substantially more is always going to be the best option for a Labor prime minister, particularly one with a background like the Prime Minister. He spent last year dividing Australians based on race. I'm sure he's going to spend this year dividing Australians based on income. He doesn't believe that Australians can get ahead and benefit other Australians in the process by employing them, by making investments, by enhancing productivity and by supporting higher wages. He doesn't believe that. He thinks the only way anyone can get ahead is by taking money from someone else. That is the option this Prime Minister has chosen. It's his choice. He said it last night on 7:30. There were options in front of him, but this was the one he liked. In the process, he broke a promise that he had made not once, not twice, not three times, not four times, not five times—look, I've only got 18 minutes left; I can't keep counting up to over 100, because that's how many times he and the Treasurer made the promise that he would not repeal the stage 3 tax cuts—over 100 times.

We learnt in the last couple of days that, miraculously, Treasury was working away on breaking an election promise without instructions from the Treasurer. Does anyone believe that? I did notice that, when this was discussed in the House, the Treasurer was looking down. He didn't really want to look anyone in the eye. He certainly didn't want to look me in the eye when this was going on, because no-one believed him. The truth is that this Treasurer and this Prime Minister have been working away on this for a long time. We know that, and it's time for them to admit that. We don't want to see them misleading the House. That's not a good thing for them to do. They need to fess up. What we do know, regardless, is that this has gone to two elections, that those opposite voted in favour of these tax cuts and that, between the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, they promised it over 100 times.

To take it even further, it is in legislation and there are many Australians who have made commitments, to their detriment, on the back of the assumption that they were going to get what was legislated and had been promised over 100 times. But no promise from those opposite counts for anything. This is a prime minister who said his word was his bond. Tell you what: you want a better bond than that one. That's as hopeless a bond as you're ever going to get. The result is that we're going to see $28 billion of extra taxation in the coming years.

He, of course, claims that no-one is going to be impacted by this. Well, let me tell you something: that tax bracket that he is whacking back in will see three to four million people in that tax bracket in the coming years—it's growing at about eight or nine per cent a year—and they are aspirational Australians who want to get ahead and are fighting to get ahead and who are working hard for their families and for their futures. In the process, they're investing; they're creating jobs; they're taking risks. That is how you grow the economy. Those opposite, of course, are taking us in exactly the opposite direction. I should say that those opposite refuse to accept that we are in a GDP-per-person recession right now. That's where we're at. From an individual point of view, that's a recession; that's the real deal.

We saw the Reserve Bank yesterday, telling us that, actually, it's worse than we'd thought. As they scale down their GDP forecast—

The member opposite should take a look at this. The Reserve Bank has recognised that this government is hopeless when it comes to economic management.

I said that the government was taking from one group of Australians to give to another. It didn't need to be that way. We do support taking the 19 per cent bracket down to 16 per cent. What we don't support is taking it from another group of Australians to achieve that—robbing Peter to pay Paul. That's why we will take to the next election strong tax reforms that are in the spirit of the stage 3 tax cuts, that are in keeping with stage 3 tax cuts.

I'll tell you what: those opposite need to understand how egregious this broken promise is. Before the election, the Prime Minister said:

An Albanese Labor Government will deliver the same legislated tax relief to more than 9 million Australians …

That was at a press conference on 26 July 2021. On Sky News on 29 May 2022, he said:

… I've said on the stage three tax cuts, that they've been legislated, people are entitled to operate on the basis of that certainty.

I'll go on. On Radio 4CA on 20 January 2022, he said, 'Now that they are legislated we do need economic certainty going forward for people, and we make no apologies for that.' That's what he said. Again, in that same interview, he said, 'We're not going to interfere with the legislated tax cuts which are there,' and that his word was his bond. That's what he said. On Sky News, again, on 11 February back in 2015, he said, 'If you make a promise and a commitment, you do have to stick to it or you'll be punished.' That's the Prime Minister: if you make a promise and a commitment, you do have to stick to it or you'll be punished! Gee, that's a doozy!

Worse, since election, the Prime Minister—along with the Treasurer—has gone on to repeat that promise more than a hundred times. In fact, I'll go through an interview from less than two weeks ago:

MACDONALD: You're on ABC Radio Sydney with the Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in the studio. There are calls to stop the Stage Three Tax Cuts coming in this year. Are they definitely, absolutely, going ahead as written and planned?

PRIME MINISTER: Well, of course there will be tax cuts. We'll go ahead in July. We haven't changed our position.

We have not changed our position—a lie repeated over a hundred times by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer is of profound significance to every Australian.

Of course it's not the only time he has misled Australians. He said he wasn't going to touch taxes on superannuation. Well, he's going after those! He's taxing unrealised capital gains. Every small-business person knows that a capital gain that's realised—you might be able to pay some tax on that, but I don't know how you're supposed to pay tax on an unrealised capital gain. But most of those opposite have never been in business, so they wouldn't have a clue! He's increasing taxes on franking credits, he's raising taxes on traditional industries that create enormous wealth for this country and he's ended small-business tax concessions. This is all, as I said, despite the national accounts showing a 27 per cent increase in personal income taxes being paid. But the truth is that we all know higher taxes are in Labor's DNA.

The question this raises for every Australian is: what's next? The Prime Minister and the Treasurer were asked yesterday about negative gearing, and I tell you what—they're not ruling it out. There was no effort by either of them to rule it out, because they want the housing stock that's rented out, particularly to younger Australians, pensioners and others across Australia, to be owned by offshore funds and superannuation funds. That's their model of rental housing in this country. That's where they want to go, and getting rid of negative gearing is their way of achieving their great vision of the corporatisation of house ownership in this country.

They're going after small businesses and farming trusts; we know that. They were asked about this again today. They're not going to rule that out. That's the next one on the list—the small-business tax rate. The best way to unionise a workforce is to get rid of the small businesses in that industry, isn't it. We know that. That's why the industrial relations reforms they're pursuing with such passion are all about making sure they can re-unionise workforces. I have worked with good unions over the course of my career, and I've seen enormous value added by sensible work done by unions working with businesses to improve workplaces and improve wage outcomes for workers. But getting rid of small businesses and punishing small businesses because they're not unionised is not the pathway to prosperity in this country.

Then there's capital gains tax on the family home. The Prime Minister gave a very slippery answer on this yesterday: 'No-one would do this.' That means nothing coming from the Prime Minister. There is no doubt he would love to impose capital gains tax on the family home. These tax increases are all on the table. Sadly, the result of all of this is that tax reform, which is one of the crucial ways you deliver a stronger and more prosperous economy, an economy that provides opportunity and aspiration to every Australian—tax reform in this country appears to be dead. Innes Willox of the AI Group has said that abandoning the stage 3 tax cuts 'demonstrates that the government attaches little weight to addressing the problems created by Australia's economic situation'. He continued:

The Government's new tax scales will barely touch the sides on improving incentives to invest, employ and save.

Of course, that's quite right. The only way you return the $8,000 lost to the average Australian in their real disposable incomes is to manage the economy properly with a back-to-basics economic agenda. What does that look like?

There is a better way. There is nothing this great country can't achieve with the right policy framework, and that is lower, simpler and fairer taxes. It is fighting bracket creep and enshrining aspiration in our tax system, not adding $28 billion of thief-in-the-night bracket creep, which takes from every Australian's bank account. It's a tax system that rewards hard work and supports a stronger economy where every Australian can get ahead, a system that unites Australians rather than pitting Australians against each other. But this Prime Minister loves to pit Australians against each other, because it's all politics to him. In fact, the Treasurer admitted that in an interview in recent days, where he said, 'We had to do this before Dunkley.' Well, that just tells you: it is all politics for this government, this Prime Minister and this Treasurer.

A back-to-basics economic agenda extends beyond tax, even though tax reform is obviously enormously important. It's about supporting small business aspiration and entrepreneurship. That's why we've said that the small-business accelerated depreciation concessions should be back where they were, but Labor has scaled them back. I've already gone through how they dislike small business.

We need an economy that rewards and focuses on work, not on more welfare, and that is why we championed from very early on in this term of parliament older Australians being able to work more without being punished for it. You do, if you're go to a back-to-basics agenda, have to contain the growth in government spending, and that is why we opposed $45 billion of spending through this parliament. We opposed it for good reason—$18 billion of interest payments are in the budget. All of these are examples of government overreach. Getting the basics right, knowing where government has a role to play and where it doesn't, making sure you get your competition policy right is not just crony capitalism. Looking after your mates at Qantas, that's not competition policy; that's crony capitalism, but the Prime Minister loves a good bit of crony capitalism.

Government needs to be prepared to pull every lever to fix this crisis and that means sound economic management, ending waste, workplace laws that are sensible and flexible and not putting union officials in charge of our workplace. You have to allow employers and workers to get together and work out how to make the workplace more productive and pay people more in the process. That's how you do it. Back in the eighties, that's what the Labor Party used to believe in but that's all by the wayside now.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The radical Left has taken over.

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

I will take the interjection. The radical left has taken over. That's why we are seeing the economic outcomes we are. We don't live in an economy which is zero sum. We live in an economy where, if you give opportunities for people to get ahead, to realise their aspirations in that process, they create opportunities for others—jobs, investment, opportunity for all. Those opposite will continue to play class wars. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer will continue to state the politics of envy, but, on this side of the House, we will continue to support aspiration, opportunity and prosperity for all.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Peter Khalil (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, what a performance by the shadow Treasurer. I've never actually seen him in full flight. He hasn't asked a question in six months. I've not had the amazing opportunity to see him in full flight, and what a performance it was. I mean, did he talk about the Australians who are struggling? Did he talk about ordinary Australians that need cost-of-living relief? No. It was just a bunch of hollow talking points.

I remember the Treasurer in question time talked about the dregs of the former government. The shadow Treasurer was reaching into the dregs of the talking points, the hollow talking points he was referring to. That was probably one of the worst performances I have seen. Not once did he mention the needs of the Australian people, the people who are feeling the pinch. Now, we, as a government, know it's getting harder and harder for many Australians to pay for the essentials. We know hard it is to pay the rent, the mortgage, the food and the bills, and that they're feeling the financial pinch. That's what we're focused on—the needs of the people that we represent.

We know some Australians are having to choose between paying rent or seeing their GP or paying for essential medicines. We don't need to be told that there is a cost-of-living challenge in our economy. We know that. Everyone is seeing it. Everyone is feeling it, maybe not the Shadow Treasurer, but we certainly are. We know some of this is not in our control. The war in Ukraine has raised energy prices even higher, and the problem in supply chains post pandemic has pushed up the cost of goods. We know that. They are just facts. Despite the challenges, many Australians rightly expect a good government to do whatever it takes to support them, not to play politics with this but to support them, and that's what we're focused on.

This bill includes policy reforms that are fair for working Australians. The Labor government is, and always will be, the party of progressive policy and reform. That's why every single Australian will get a tax cut under Labor's tax cuts. The two amendments to the Treasury laws are being introduced for the purpose of ensuring more Australians are better off. That's what we're focused on. The first relates to cost-of-living tax cuts. Many Australians, including many of my constituents in my electorate of Wills, have been talking to me, writing to me and calling my office, expressing their angst and their issues with Scott Morrison and the Liberal Party's stage 3 cuts. Many were worried about these cuts worsening services and placing additional pressure on lower-income Australians, who are already struggling. Many were worried about the cuts resulting in increasing income inequality for Australians. Many expressed concerns about the Liberals' benefits only reaching the top percentile of income earners. The message has been loud and clear: the majority of Australians wanted the Albanese Labor government to take action to reduce that pressure on the cost of living.

We on this side agree, because we're focused on the needs of the people who we represent. That's why we understand the policies that we're putting forward; the changes to these Treasury laws are so impactful and important to relieve that cost-of-living pressure. Most of us, I would say, ran for political office to support, put forward and advocate for policies that ensure a fairer and more equitable society for all Australians. That's what we're here for—at least, I think I can safely say that about those of us on this side. I've always advocated for Labor to implement tax cuts that will benefit millions of working- and middle-class Australians. When the former coalition government brought these tax cuts to parliament, the stage 3 tax cuts of Morrison, I called on them publicly to split the tax cuts bill so that Labor could support the passage of tax cuts to low- and middle-income earners. When it became obvious that they were all about politics—that's all they were about—and that the former government were not going to split their tax cut bill, then federal Labor, in opposition, made the decision to support the tax cuts in full so that working-class Australians wouldn't suffer or miss out. It was so that low- and middle-income earners wouldn't miss out on those tax cuts.

We were given an all-or-nothing situation because that's all former prime minister Morrison did: play politics. That's what the former government was about. And I see no difference in the comments and statements in the speech of the shadow Treasurer—it's more of the same. We did what we could do to advocate for low- and middle-income earners. We did what we could in opposition to push for progressive tax reform, because we wanted to ensure that working- and middle-class Australians did not miss out on tax benefits. That's why, now that Labor is in government, we're putting these tax cuts forward for low- and middle-income earners. Eighty-four per cent of all Australians are going to be better off with our policy, with every Australian still getting a tax cut.

These cost-of-living tax cuts are part of a broader plan by the government to provide relief for the Australians that we represent by boosting incomes, reducing costs and putting the budget on a stronger footing. We will deliver a bigger tax cut for all of middle Australia. It's going to help with the cost of living. These are real challenges—not that I heard any of that discussed by the shadow Treasurer. These changes are critically important for people, day to day. As I said, 84 per cent of Australians will get a bigger tax cut and be better off because of the changes that we're putting forward in this place.

Under the Liberal's tax cuts, these Australians would have got absolutely nothing. We managed and we did the work and the hard yards—great credit goes to the Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, the economic team and the Prime Minister for actually having the courage to find a better way to provide more cost-of-living relief for more Australians. Of course, the opposition leader, the shadow Treasurer and all those opposite said they were against these tax cuts, even before we announced them. I think it's probably true to say that the coalition and the Greens political party have a choice. Are they going to stand with Labor and vote for a tax cut for every Australian, and for more tax cuts for 84 per cent, or are they going to block relief for working Australians and force us to keep Scott Morrison's 2019 cuts?

I cannot stress enough the importance of these cuts and the significance of making them now. In my electorate of Wills, 78,000 people will receive a tax cut and 85 per cent will receive a bigger tax cut under Labor. We know for a fact, too, that single women over 55 are undergoing the greatest rental distress. That demographic is feeling the greatest pinch from the cost of living.

There's a woman in my electorate by the name of Freema. She's one of those women. She's a teacher living in my electorate. She's an immigrant and a single parent. She has remained a renter, and, in October last year, her rent went up by $282 per month. At the start of this year, she was forced to sublet one of her rooms to ensure that her rent was being paid. She has two daughters—a 14-year-old and a 17-year-old. She is on a single income of $80,000. Women like Freema will be able to receive up to $1,700 in tax cuts. That's up from $875 under the coalition's plan. That means something. That additional cost-of-living relief means the world to Freema and her daughters. At $1,700 in tax cuts, it's almost double the tax cut she would have received under the Morrison government's plan. This means Freema is better able to manage her rent as well as the increases in the cost of living. It's worth highlighting that 90 per cent of women who pay tax in this country will receive a greater tax cut under this new plan. That means a lot to them.

I'm part of a government on this side—on the Treasury benches—that ensures that those under the greatest pressure receive the biggest cuts. That's the difference between us and them. We actually care about the people that we represent. We know the pain that they're going through, and we're targeting our efforts and policy at supporting them. All Australians—Australians like Freema—will benefit from the Albanese government's reduction of the lowest rate of income tax from 19 to 16 per cent for those low-income earners. This means that every working Australian will pay less tax on the first $45,000 that they earn. This means that part-time workers earning $40,000, such as waiters and waitresses, retail workers and cashiers in grocery stores, will get a tax cut of $654. That means a lot to them. Under the Morrison tax plan, these people would have received absolutely nothing.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why did you vote for it, then?

Peter Khalil (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll take that interjection from the member for Deakin, because he wasn't listening to the early part of my speech when I said very clearly: we were focused on the needs of low- and middle-income Australians. We supported the tax cuts for them. We sought to split the tax bill, which you refused to do when you were in government because you cared about politics over all else—not about the people and their needs. But our policy will give the biggest tax cuts to the people in the greatest need. That is the big difference between us and you. We care about the people that we represent, and we put forward policies that make a difference to their lives. Whether it's Freema, or whether it's people who are on $40,000 or $45,000, they will get a tax cut when, under your policy, they would have gotten absolutely nothing. They would have gotten zero!

For incomes between $45,000 and $135,000, Labor is reducing the 32.5 per cent tax rate to 30 per cent. That reduces the burden for those who need it the most. The impact on reducing the tax liability for those in the first two brackets is allowing a woman like Freema to better care for her daughters and to abate that rental stress that she's feeling. The member for Deakin might want to listen to this. For childcare workers and mechanics—

Maybe he gets his car fixed by one of these mechanics! Why don't you tell your mechanic next time you see him or her that, in my electorate of Wills, a mechanic or childcare worker who is earning $50,000 will receive $920 in cuts under Labor's plan instead of receiving a paltry $125 under your tax cuts policy. Maybe you can ask your mechanic to buy you a coffee with that extra money, because you might not want to spend it on him or her. A primary school teacher in the seat of Wills earning $80,000 will receive almost double the tax cut that they would have received under the coalition's plan. We know that most of the primary school teachers are women. That is the predominant gender in that workforce, and these teachers are now going to keep $1,679 in their pockets—almost double what they would have received.

We are also increasing the threshold at which the 37 per cent rate will now apply, starting from $135,000 instead of $120,000, and increasing the threshold above which the 45 per cent tax rate applies from $180,000 to $190,000. Overall, we're lowering the tax rate in two brackets and increasing the threshold of taxable income in the other two brackets. These changes mean that families with a combined income of $130,000 are so much better off than they would have been.

Schools across Australia have just opened. Households are feeling the pinch at the supermarket and at the uniform shops. Mums and dads are feeling the pinch at the chemist. Even a little bit of entertainment—taking the kids to a movie, where there's a lot of popcorn and candy—costs a fair bit. With one parent earning $80,000 and the other earning $50,000, households will now receive a tax cut of over $2,600 combined. That's significant. It means something to them. Under the Coalition, they would have received under $1,000. We think the economic circumstances facing households right now warrant this greater action. The need is so great. That's why we're taking that action.

In conclusion, I want to say that this is just an example of one of the instances where this government is going in to bat for working Australians, because we care about those people. Low- and middle-income Australians, who are facing the most pressures due to the rising cost of living, are receiving the largest tax cuts. That's significant. Eighty-four per cent, as I said, across the country will benefit from the changes that are before us today. They'll get a bigger tax cut. And 100 per cent of Australians will receive a tax cut.

Further, the changes, I should note, to Medicare, ensure that, as to the levy, people on lower incomes pay less on or are exempt from the Medicare levy, which is also an additional relief for those people. I'm proud to be part of this government that is taking this action. Policymaking can be complex, but sometimes, at its core, it's really quite simple. In this case, it's about ensuring more Australians are supported through this tax cut for every taxpaying worker. It's about a simple proposition: look after those who need it the most with the greatest support.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024, but, in doing so, I wish to talk about the need for bipartisan support for genuine taxation reform. This is not the first time I've spoken about this need for taxation reform, and nor am I alone in this place. It was, in fact, only today that I spoke on the member for Curtin's matter of public importance on tax reform, citing the need for a fairer, more efficient and simpler system.

In making the announcement that the legislated stage 3 tax cuts would be replaced with the proposal before us, the Prime Minister justified the changes on the need to assist with the cost-of-living crisis that's faced by so many Australians—a crisis that I believe is, in some part, of the government's making. In this term of government, we have had successive rate rises, that have seen the repayments on a mortgage of $750,000 rise by around $2,000 a month—a staggering $24,000 of after-tax money per year that Australians must find. Inflation, the driver of these mortgage rate rises, has been running hot, and part of that is because the government has added $209 billion of new spending.

We have also had record immigration, which has put enormous pressure on infrastructure demand. Anyone in the market for a new house will be immediately aware of the absurd price rises over the last couple of years. Housing has contributed more than six per cent to inflation and is a direct consequence of a migration strategy that is poorly timed and simply too large. Adopting a 'big Australia' policy at a time when we do not have sufficient supply was always going to result in upward pressure on prices. That is simple economics.

In 2002, the Intergenerational report projected that Australia's population would reach about 25 million by the year 2042, an increase of around 30 per cent, and it assumed a net migration of 90,000 people per year. Now here we are in 2024, and we have already reached 27 million, nearly 20 years ahead of projections. In the last 12 months, our population increased by a record 624,000. To put this into perspective, this is greater than the population of the ACT or Tasmania. Consequently, we are having to add the equivalent of an entire state or territory every year. Last year, we recorded 737,200 overseas arrivals and 219,100 departures—a net migration of 518,100. This equates to more than 80 per cent of the population increase.

The government controls migration; therefore, it is on the government to explain why it has allowed so many people to settle at a time when we already have housing pressures and natural demand that have flowed on from this. It is inflationary. Much of last year reminds me of the inflation that we suffered during the Whitlam years that I remember studying at university.

This approach to migration is not sustainable and is unfair to the most marginalised in our community, who now find themselves homeless, or living in poverty, or with rents or mortgages consuming most of their take-home pay. I receive emails every day from people who cannot find a place to live. They are unable to access medical appointments or find places for their children in schools. Is this really the Australia that we want?

These tax cuts are due to take effect on 1 July this year. Yet, in the same week that we are discussing personal tax changes we've had an increase to the fuel excise rate from 48.8 cents per litre to 49.6 cents per litre. Beer, spirits and pre-mixed drinks have also risen this week. The tax on a pint of beer has increased by 90 cents, while the tax on a slab has risen to $20.

In the year to September 2023, bread prices were up 12.6 per cent, fish prices rose 8.7 per cent and dairy by 10.2 per cent. These increases, along with mortgage and rent rises, are already being experienced by everyday Australians. Don't even get me started on energy price hikes! I've spoken at length in this place, detailing awful stories of elderly constituents going to bed after dinner because they could no longer afford to run their heaters during winter.

So, yes, a tax break is necessary, but it doesn't even come close to covering the additional costs that every household has experienced in the last couple of years, and this will not be assisting any age pensioners or people on disability support pensions.

The debate we are now having highlights the structural problem of our taxation system. It is inefficient, unfair and overly complex. It is broken and requires immediate reform. We are over-reliant on personal and corporation tax, which account for more than 60 per cent of total tax receipts in the country. With respect to personal tax, it is prosecuted time and time again within the lens of political and class warfare. Our personal tax regime is progressive, and that is appropriate, but our over-reliance on personal tax has resulted in much higher tax rates and lower income bands to which they apply. The median weekly earning in Australia is $1,300 per week and attracts a tax rate of 30 per cent. The equivalent earnings in the United States are a mere 12 per cent. The top tax bracket under this bill is imposed on incomes exceeding $190,000 with a rate of 45 per cent, plus the Medicare levy. In contrast, the top tax bracket in the United States is only 33 per cent and applies to incomes exceeding $890,000 when converted to Australian dollars. In the United Kingdom, a worker on A$95,000 is in the 20 per cent tax bracket. To reach the top tax bracket of 45 per cent he would need to be earning more than A$240,000.

This legislation will see Australians earning more than $190,000 paying the top marginal rate of 45 per cent, plus the Medicare levy. I don't deny that this is considered a high income, but it's hard to justify that for every two hours of work that one is rewarded with payment, the other is gifted to the Taxation Office. I recognise many of the jobs that earn a higher income are often hot and very difficult jobs to do, such as in mining or construction; jobs where people are away from their families, or health professionals who work long hours and long hours overnight—particularly doctors.

Let's not reduce this debate to a discussion of rich versus poor. We all accept that a progressive taxation system appropriately taxes higher income earners more than lower income earners, but we shouldn't accept an inefficient tax system that overtaxes individuals, stifles productivity and neuters incentives to work harder.

We also need to look at incomes at the household level. Many households are limited to one income for various reasons. For instance, one partner may stay home to care for children or may not be able to work due to a disability or caring for another person with a disability. Because we tax at the personal level, we can have two households earning the same aggregate income but paying completely different levels of income tax. For example, a household with one primary caregiver and one primary income of $130,000 per annum will pay $35,767 per year in tax. If this legislation passes, they'll pay $32,388. However, a household with two incomes of $65,000, totalling $130,000, will only pay $25,000 tax per year, or $23,126 if this legislation passes. That's a difference of $10,033 and $9,262, respectively.

If you're in the highest tax bracket it's even worse. A household of one primary care giver and one primary income earner on $190,000 per annum will pay $59,967 in tax per year, or $55,438 if this legislation passes. However, a household with the same amount of money coming but with two people earning $85,000 each will only pay $39,584 in tax, or $35,976 if this passes. That's a difference of $20,000 or $19,000, respectively.

It is inconceivable that two households with the same gross income can have a difference of $20,000 in tax paid. How is it fair that the family in one household can have an extra $20,000 in disposable income because of the way we treat personal taxation? We spend billions of dollars on childcare assistance, but if a mother or father cares for their children at home and relies on a primary income earner they are financially penalised thousands of dollars each year. To me, this is a tax on family values.

Many years ago, we had a dependent spouse rebate which gave some taxation relief to households that I've just described. We need to give more choice back to families and not follow a policy pathway that only rewards parents that work to the detriment of parents that are sharing working and child-rearing responsibilities. I regularly receive emails about this, and I call on the government to give serious consideration to the adoption of a household taxation threshold for couples in addition to the existing personal threshold taxation rates.

The electorate of Mayo has 76,000 taxpayers who will receive an average cut of $1,475. Around 65,000 Mayo taxpayers will be better off under this proposal, representing 86 per cent of taxpayers in my electorate. But I do respect that there will be 14 per cent that will not receive what they were expecting to receive, and some of them will be quite disappointed. It's important that we also remember that the benefit that will be felt by this will not flow for another five months, and I hope that in the coming budget we will see relief for working families, and age and disability pensioners in particular.

This bill will result in a small but better outcome for the majority of taxpayers in the electorate of Mayo. I support the bill, but I call on the government—in fact, I call on everyone in this parliament—to consider broader taxation reforms so that everybody can be rewarded for their hard work.

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

I rise today to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024 which implements the government's cost-of-living tax cuts for middle Australia. This legislation delivers a tax cut to every taxpayer in Lyons, to every taxpayer in Tasmania, to every taxpayer in Australia from 1 July. I'm proud to be a member of a government that recognises the economic realities of 2024, which are different to those that were around five years ago, and I'm proud to be part of a government that listens when people tell us family budgets are under pressure. The government understands cost-of-living pressures are in front of Australians right now, and it is determined to take action to relieve those pressures. Labor's fairer and better tax relief plan delivers for every single taxpayer. Every single one of Australia's 13.6 million taxpayers get a tax cut—11.5 million get a bigger tax cut, and 2.9 million low-income Australians, who wouldn't have received any tax cut at all under the Liberals, also get a tax cut under Labor. In his speech the shadow Treasurer mentioned how the government was apparently dividing Australians. Well, when the majority of Australians are getting a bigger tax cut, you're not dividing Australia; you're bringing it together, with bigger tax cuts for more Australians.

This legislation from 1 July 2024 will reduce the 19 per cent tax rate to 16 per cent for incomes between $18,200 to $45,000, reduce the 32.5 per cent tax rate to 30 per cent for incomes between $45,000 and the new threshold of $135,000, increase the threshold at which the 37 per cent tax rate applies from $120,000 to $135,000 and increase the threshold at which the 45 per cent tax rate applies from $180,000 to $190,000. This means Australians earning the average annual wage of $73,000 receive a tax cut of $1,504. That's $800 better off than under the Liberal plan. It's more than double!

In my electorate of Lyons, 46,000 taxpayers receive a tax cut averaging $1,279, and 40,000 get a bigger tax cut than under the Liberal plan. Overall, nine in 10 Tassie taxpayers get bigger tax cuts under Labor than under the Liberals. It's a no-brainer. The vast majority of Tasmanians are better off under Labor's tax cut plan than under the Liberals' stage 3.

This is so important, because I know many of my constituents have been doing it tough—like Josh from Bridgewater. He's a young man, married and raising a young family with his partner. Both Josh and his wife work full time and recently purchased a home. Josh contacted me to let me know that, as a mortgagee and a father, he's very aware of the pinch that is being felt across the country by many working families. Another of my constituents is Ruth, a grandmother from Cressy, who was concerned about how cost-of-living pressures might impact her grandchildren as they grow up and look to pursue educational and employment opportunities and save to buy a home. As their local member, I've shared these concerns with my Labor colleagues, and they've shared their concerns with me. It was clear action had to be taken, and I thank the Treasurer, the Minister for Finance and the Prime Minister for being so willing to listen and for acting so decisively. I know it was a difficult decision to change the government's position, but it was the right decision for the country, made for the right reasons. As a result of this decision, millions of Australians are going to be better off. I was thrilled to be able to head back to my electorate last week and tell Josh, Ruth and all my constituents that the Albanese Labor government had listened to them and was taking immediate action.

I also want to shout out to my friend Lyn, who's been talking to me about the need for reforming stage 3 for some time. I held the government line about the fact that we'd said what we said. But she's right. They needed to change. They have changed—we are changing them, and millions are going to benefit as a result. So well done, Lyn, for sticking by your principles there.

In the days after the government announced its tax cuts plan, I hosted the Treasurer at a steelworks in my electorate, and I thank Steve and the team at Haywards for their hospitality. It was great to talk to the guys in the workshop—and they were all guys—including a new batch of apprentices, and let them know how Labor's tax relief plan will benefit them. Nearly nine in 10 steelworkers get bigger tax cuts under Labor than under the Liberals.

If you think that's high, Deputy Speaker, listen to this. For nursing support and personal care workers—there are 80,000 of them—98 per cent are better off. For primary school teachers—170,000 of them—98 per cent are better off. Workers in aged care and disability care, 150,000 workers—97 per cent are better off. Child carers, are 97 per cent better off. Chefs—97 per cent are better off. Registered nurses, truck drivers, secondary school teachers, welfare support workers and receptionists—97 per cent are better off. Storepersons, accounting clerks, retail managers and commercial cleaners—96 per cent are better off. Sales assistants, call and contact centre customer service managers, general clerks, checkout operators and office cashiers—95 per cent are better off. Office managers—94 per cent are better off. Sales representatives, contract program and project administrators—93 per cent are better off. Miscellaneous labourers, waiters and motor mechanics—91 per cent are better off under Labor's tax cut plan than under the Liberal's stage 3. Yet the shadow Treasurer had the hide to stand in this place and say that the Labor government is dividing Australian workers. What an absolute joke!

On 24 January, just two weeks ago, the deputy opposition leader stated:

… when this legislation hits the parliament will fight it, we will fight it all the way …

She said:

I'm digging in along with my colleagues and our leader Peter Dutton to fight this fight really, really hard.

She went on to say later that day, weirdly:

We're not prepared to give up on this and we know that hardworking Australians who deserve to keep more of their money don't want us to give up on this.

That's even though every single hardworking Australian gets a tax cut under Labor and the vast majority of hardworking Australians get a bigger tax cut under Labor than under the Liberal plan, as I've just enunciated.

The deputy leader wasn't alone. The shadow Treasurer, the bloke who kept secret a wholesale power price rise until after the election, added his two cents too. He said: 'Of course we're going to try to stop it. The move away from the stage 3 tax cuts will not be something we can support.' But a move away from the stage 3 tax cuts is now absolutely something that the shadow Treasurer is going to support, because the Liberals have apparently decided to support the government's legislation—not that you'd know it from all the hot air they've been circulating.

The shadow Treasurer delivered an absolutely unhinged speech earlier, long on rhetoric and short on facts. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer truly believe their stage 3 plan is superior to Labor's tax cut plan, they should do the honourable thing and not vote for our plan. They should stand up in this House and defend their stage 3 plan and tell nine in 10 Australian workers why they deserve less than half the tax cut Labor is delivering, just so one in 10 Australians—high-income earners, including politicians—can double their tax cut. Under the Liberals, politicians get a $9,000 tax cut; an average worker's is around $800. Under Labor, politician's tax cuts are halved, but average workers' tax cuts are more than doubled. I'm proud of that. If the member for Farrer and the member for Hume really believe politicians should double their tax cut but average workers should halve theirs, they should come into this place and explain why that is better for the country. They should come in here and vote against Labor's plan. But if they are not prepared to do that then clearly they agree with the government that our tax cut plan is superior to their stage 3 because it delivers bigger tax cuts for more Australians. And it doesn't add to inflationary pressure and it doesn't put any extra strain on the budget.

Speaking of the budget, in his speech the shadow Treasurer signalled that he would flatten the tax scales if he were ever given opportunity to be Treasurer. He didn't tell the House how much that would cost the budget, but I can say that it would be billions. He didn't say how he was going to pay for it; it's absolutely economically irresponsible. He was the worst energy minister the country's ever had. Certainly, if he were ever to get his hands on the Treasury he would be the worst Treasurer that the nation will be likely to see. If they're voting for Labor's tax cuts, we really have to ask what all the noise has been about over the past week or so from the opposition benches. It's just been the same old negative Liberal politics. Even when they're going to vote yes, they're saying no.

Of course, Labor's tax cuts are on top of the measured and targeted action already put in place by the Albanese Labor government when it comes to the cost of living.

We have delivered on cheaper child care, cheaper medicines, more bulk-billing, more paid parental leave, energy bill relief, the biggest rate boost to rent assistance in 30 years, fee-free TAFE and unashamed support for higher wages after a decade of the Liberals keeping wages deliberately low. These are all real, practical measures that are already easing cost-of-living pressures. Our tripling of the Medicare bulk-billing incentive has resulted in 360,000 additional bulk-bill visits to GPs in just two months. Tasmanians alone have saved about $1 million in GP gap fees over November and December. In my electorate, bulk-billing has gone up five per cent.

We have also commissioned an independent review of the food and grocery code to investigate allegations of price gouging. We want to make sure the code is working to give farmers and families a fair go on grocery prices. We have enhanced the work bonus for age pensioners and eligible veterans by providing new entrants with a starting income bank balance and retained the higher work bonus maximum cap to provide more choice and flexibility to participate in the workforce.

I mention this because I've had a lot of positive feedback on this specific change from working pensioners and Lyons, like Mick from Old Beach, who told me recently how helpful the increase to work bonus had been, enabling him to earn more before his pension was affected.

Today we have directed the Australian Communications and Media Authority to make it mandatory for telcos to provide financial hardship assistance to all customers experiencing difficulties paying their bills, including prioritising keeping customers connected. I mention all of these things because the tax cut bill before the House today is one of a suite of measures this government is taking to address the cost-of-living pressures Australians are facing.

The Albanese Labor government's cost-of-living tax cuts for middle Australia are all about putting more money back into household budgets. We want Australians to be able to earn more and to keep more of what they earn. We are getting on the job that we were elected to do—providing good stable decent government that always puts the national interest first and that is just what we are doing. I commend the bill to the House.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this evening in support of the cost-of-living tax cut bill, a decision I've reached after close assessment of how these changes will affect the people in my electorate of Indi. As an independent member of this place, I make every decision on every vote. I try very hard to look at what is best for the people I represent, to look at the evidence, to look at the ethics and to do what I believe is right.

The evidence from my electorate is clear. People are doing it tough at the moment. The cost of living is increasing, every trip to the supermarket seems to get more expensive and energy bills are sky high. As I have said in many times in this place, the cost and availability of housing is a major issue and more work is needed to address this and other things, especially in regional Australia.

The cost of living tax cuts bill when compared to the arrangements for this financial year will amend the threshold amounts of three of the five personal income tax brackets and reduce the tax rate for one of the five brackets. The first bracket, known as the income-free threshold, will remain unchanged. The second bracket for incomes between $18,200 and $45,000 will be taxed at a reduced rate of 16 percent instead of 19 percent. The third bracket for incomes between $45,000 and $135,000 will be taxed at a rate of 30 percent. The fourth bracket for incomes between $135,000 and $190,000 will be taxed at a rate of 37 percent, and the highest tax bracket from incomes above $190,000 will be taxed at a rate of 45 percent.

So, in Indi, the 43,000 people earning between $18,200 and $45,000 who received zero tax cut under the previous plan will now will receive a tax cut of up to $800 per year. Their tax rate will be lowered from 19 percent to 16 percent. For the more than 45,000 residents in Indi earning between $45,000 and $135,000, they will receive $804 more under this bill than under the previous plan, with a total tax cut of $3,050. For the 6,000 people in Indi earning more than $135,000, they will receive a tax cut of up to $4,500.

The second bill before us, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living—Medicare Levy) Bill 2024, will increase the Medicare levy exemption thresholds. The Medicare Levy Act states that people earning below a certain limit are exempt from paying the Medicare levy, and this bill will ensure that these amounts are increased by 7.1 per cent to match the inflation we've seen in the last few years. This means that 1.2 million lower income earners, including individuals, families, and pensioners, will remain exempt from the Medicare levy.

What this all means is that 112,000 Indi residents earning between $18,200 and $135,000 will have more money in their pockets from July as a result of these changes. So, yes, I do support them. I support these changes because the previous deal was a shocker for the people of Indi, and I've long said so in this place. Under the previous plan, more than 60 per cent of taxpayers in Indi would have received zero benefit, zero tax cut. That's 68,000 people in my electorate who would have watched more than $300 billion in tax cuts go to higher income earners over the next decade without seeing a single cent themselves. At a time when the cost of living is affecting everyone, this would have been completely unacceptable. It wasn't fair in 2019 and it isn't fair now.

On average, Australian households are experiencing a nine per cent drop in real disposable income compared to 2020. This means less money for food, less money for health care, less money for petrol and less money to save for the future. If the previous plan, legislated in 2019, made no sense when economic circumstances were radically different, then in 2024 it was frankly absurd. The previous plan was a dud deal for Indi, a dud deal for rural and regional Australia more broadly and actually a dud deal for Australia. I have consistently supported changes to these tax cuts so that they provide relief where relief is needed most. The previous plan provided tax cuts to the cities at the expense of the bush, with Indi being one of the worst-off electorates in the country. The new plan is better, with rural electorates like Indi seeing significantly higher tax cuts. That's why I am supporting it.

This is a plan that increases workforce participation across the economy, particularly so for women. Workforce participation is expected to increase by a staggering 920,000 hours every single week because of these tax cuts. This means more women, students and low-income earners taking on an extra day of work knowing that the tax system won't disadvantage them as a result. Think about where these people mostly work. They mostly work in the care economy, and we are desperate for them to take on an extra day or two of work. The evidence both across regional Australia and in Indi is clear. That's why as an Independent I'm happy to support these bills that will make things a little easier.

But this cannot be the end of cost-of-living relief from the government. These measures will not make any difference to the 25,000 people in my electorate whose income is below the tax-free threshold. These are the people on the lowest incomes or with no income at all, and they can't be left behind. Many of these people, whether retirees or people unable to work, are struggling just as much if not more in this cost-of-living crisis. They deserve our support, and these tax cuts do nothing to help them.

Yesterday, I asked the Prime Minister what new actions the government will take to address cost-of-living pressures for these people, because these bills give no benefit to almost one-quarter of my constituents. That's right—one-quarter. While I support the bills, I call on the government to provide immediate cost-of-living relief to these people. The budget's too late when people are struggling with the cost of groceries, child care and housing right now. A tax cut in July is too late if you might not have a roof over your head by March. The government needs to provide more immediate cost-of-living relief to those doing it toughest right now. For those in my electorate who rely on government payments, such as JobSeeker, the disability support pension, student payments and the age pension, I know that the decisions they make as costs go up are just so much harder.

As Australians, we can be very proud that we have such a safety net, but too often I hear that the level of support offered through these payments is not enough to keep a roof over people's heads and food on the table. It's why people are couch-surfing and living in tents by rivers. It's why people are very, very desperate. To be clear, the rate of JobSeeker is just not enough. The government must increase the rates of JobSeeker, youth allowance and the disability support pension to provide cost-of-living relief to more Australians. This is an issue on which I will continue to speak because it is so important for so many of my constituents.

While I support this bill, I would also like to address the way in which this policy shift was announced. I am disappointed that the government waited so long before clearly signalling its intention to change course. I could see the tax cuts were a bad deal when first legislated in 2019, and I've supported change every day since. If the government became aware of the need for a change before Christmas, as they've said, they could have and should have taken Australians into their confidence then by indicating that they were considering designing a better approach to the tax cuts, an approach that would be more inclusive and deliver relief to more Australians.

Integrity is important, and it's really clear that Australians get this. When the PM did explain to the nation his change of tack, Australians were willing to listen. In my mind, a broken promise can be justified if the outcome that it delivers is better than the initial promise. I think the Prime Minister was justified in his decision, but I would say I think he could have trusted us with that a little earlier. However, these bills—the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living—Medicare Levy) Bill—are important steps in supporting Australians who are doing it tough in this cost-of-living crisis. The cost-of-living tax cuts bill will ensure that tax cuts benefit more taxpayers in my electorate of Indi, not just the very small number of high-income earners there. As the Independent member for Indi, I am proud to vote in the interests of the majority of my constituents.

The government still has much more work to do in providing cost-of-living relief, particularly for the 25,000 people in Indi receiving no benefits from these tax cuts. Yesterday, in response to my question, the Prime Minister said that the government was looking at further measures for these people, and I can tell you I will be keeping the pressure on to make sure that that happens. The government must bring forward immediate cost-of-living relief because, for so many Australians, the May budget is simply way too far off. I commend this bill to the House.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you listened to the shadow Treasurer before, you would think that he was voting against this legislation. It was a pitiful, pathetic performance by the shadow Treasurer. You see the crocodile tears from those opposite when it comes to issues of cost-of-living relief. Who could forget their vote in this place when we were providing energy relief? Who could forget their opposition to pharmaceutical changes that would help people across the country by allowing 60-day scripts, not just 30-day scripts? Who could forget their opposition to the Housing Australia Future Fund while they were complaining about the fact that people are doing it tough in terms of housing? Who could forget their opposition to fee-free TAFE? They opposed it! They've either voted against cost-of-living relief or made public statements against it. They simply say one thing in this place but vote differently—and we saw the shadow Treasurer do that. They vote against what they say should be done, whether it's with housing, energy or making medicines cheaper.

The legislation before the chamber is about cost-of-living relief, but those opposite do exactly the opposite. Don't listen to what they say; look at what they do. It's what they do that really counts. It is the doers of the word who are righteous, as it says in the Good Book, and not those opposite when they come to this issue. This legislation is about a progressive taxation system, a fairer taxation system, that will provide tax relief to every Australian. This is a good piece of legislation. This will benefit 90 per cent of the taxpayers in my electorate. That is a good thing in a rural and regional electorate in Queensland—

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I thank the honourable member for Blair.