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

In accordance with the resolution agreed to on 13 February, the bill will be taken as a whole.

Garth Hamilton (Groom, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the request of the member for Hume, I move opposition amendment (1):

(1) Clause 1, page 1 (lines 5 and 6), omit "Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Act 2024", substitute "Treasury Laws Amendment (Broken Promise) Act 2024".

This amendment would change the name of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill to 'the Treasury Laws Amendment (Broken Promise) Act'.

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Garth Hamilton (Groom, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note the groans from those opposite. It gives me great pleasure to read an amendment raised by Mr Albanese, our Prime Minister, for the original stage 3 tax cuts amendment that went through. He moved that the short title of the bill be amended to read 'Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Relief So Working Australians Keep More of Their Money but Not for a Really Long Time) Bill'. So this is in keeping with that spirit of renaming amendments around the stage 3 tax cuts. I think it's very important that we maintain that, because, as we saw in the last election, Mr Speaker, integrity matters. It's important that things have the appropriate name, as the Prime Minister was so keen to point out when he was on the opposition bench.

Opposition members interjecting—

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How wonderful!

Garth Hamilton (Groom, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hear the interjections: 'How embarrassing!' How wonderful to move this, exactly the same as the Prime Minister, and then to hear the question: why would we do this? Well, I guess, if it's good for the goose it is good for the gander.

I'm reminded of a quote from the Prime Minister, which is that he promised to change the way politics was done in this country. Of course, we haven't seen that. What we've seen instead is a desire by this Prime Minister to break promises. This has been the best broken promise that we have seen from this Prime Minister so far, amongst a list of other broken promises. We can remember, of course, the promise to have cheaper mortgages. Well, that turned out to be a broken promise. We can remember the promise of a $275 reduction in electricity prices—another broken promise. And we saw my favourite promise, which was that groceries would be cheaper—another broken promise. How appropriate, then, to take the opportunity to provide that integrity to the Australian people—

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

Order! The Treasurer will cease interjecting.

Garth Hamilton (Groom, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and appropriately name what this bill is: a broken promise to the Australian people.

I'm reminded of a different pathway when you do change your mind on tax, and I offer this humbly. When you do change your mind on tax, there's always the option John Howard took when he changed his mind, which was to take the changed position to the Australian people and seek a mandate for that changed position. That's courage. It takes courage to do that. Of course, having done that—having stood by his decision and having taken it to the Australian people—he was rewarded by the Australian people with continued government. What a great comparison we have between the golden era of John Howard and, sadly, the leadership of today. Rather than take that changed position and seek a mandate, this Prime Minister has simply chosen to mislead the Australian people. He has misled the Australian people on over a hundred occasions. 'Yes, of course we'll keep stage 3,' he said, but when push came to shove he broke his promise. That is why it is so important to capture that today.

Of course, there could be another name. We could seek another name for the bill. Maybe it would be the 'Dunkley By-Election Emergency Bill'. Maybe that would be appropriate as well, seeing the timing of this and hearing the clear politicisation that we've heard from the government on this bill. How much legitimacy, how much integrity, can there be in making these changes when we hear the Prime Minister repeatedly challenge us to oppose them? If you really were standing by this, if you were seeking a mandate, how could you hold that position? This is clearly cheap politics and deserves to be renamed so that the Australian people can see what it is.

There's another great name we could have for this bill. It could be the 'My Word Is My Bond Bill'. I think that would be great, because everyone could get to remind themselves of the great promises made by this Prime Minister and that, when push came to shove, when the pressure came on, when it came time to actually stand by his commitments, he chose to break his promises to the Australian people.

I commend this fantastic change to the title. I think it's one of the clearest demonstrations we can make to the Australian people of exactly the character of the government, what their real position is when it comes to integrity, their intentions for how they're going to govern this nation and the continued broken promises we've seen. Maybe there will be more. Maybe I'll have another chance to rename a bill as it comes with the next set of broken promises, but for now I think this is the most substantial promise that the government made, and it deserves full consideration.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is indeed a great day! It is a great day on so many levels. This is a day on which every Australian taxpayer will get a tax cut—all 13.6 million of them. The difference between this side and that side is that we want people to earn more and we want workers, all taxpayers, to keep more of what they earn. They want people to work for longer, for less.

I've got a bit of advice for the backbenchers there, including the member for Menzies—and it's not too late for him to have a rethink before he stands next. When a frontbencher gives you an amendment in their name and says, 'You move it on my behalf,' that doesn't show courage. That shows gutlessness. That shows cowardice. That shows them hiding behind their own backbench. It's unbelievable. I've been here since 1996. I've never seen this before. 'I move the amendment circulated in the name of Mr Taylor' is what it says. He's the shadow Treasurer. He's here. I say to the member for Menzies, 'Don't do it.' He's right there. If it's so good, put your name to it, Shadow Treasurer. Give a speech in favour of it. The second reading amendment you moved said this:

… 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 …

A government member: That's rollback!

Rollback is back! I'll give the shadow Treasurer the big tip: if you vote against the legislation, the Morrison tax cuts stay. By voting for this legislation, you are voting against the position that you took to the last election. You're voting against the position that you took to the election before. You're voting against the position that we said in 2019 was a triumph of hope over experience, saying that you knew what the economy would look like in 2024. That was why we expressed our concern at that time. The equivalent would be for this Treasurer to introduce legislation saying what the system would look like in 2029. That's the equivalent of what they are doing.

For people who are voting for this legislation, they're pretty hostile to it. It shows their real position. They always will take every opportunity to oppose things for Middle Australia, to oppose things for people who need a hand up. Their idea of aspiration is people who go to a few of those schools, who get the leg up in life, who live a life of privilege. Our idea is to use government to create opportunity, because we understand that every Australian has aspiration, which is why our tax cuts change every single level of tax—

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

The Manager of Opposition Business will cease interjecting. There has been a lot of noise, but we're just going to dial it down for this and the remaining minutes.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They're very loud and angry for people who are voting for this legislation—very angry. Why are they voting for it? Because they know that this package is a good package. This package doesn't leave behind people who earn under $45,000 a year. This is a package that provides extra assistance as well, through our changes to the Medicare levy. It provides for aspirations so that people on average incomes will get double the tax cuts. No wonder we don't hear any questions from them about cost of living. And bear in mind what this amendment is. This amendment is to remove the words 'cost-of-living tax cuts' from this bill, because they don't care about cost of living. They think they're okay. As long as they get double the tax cut, they're okay. Yes, politicians will get less from this legislation, but average workers will get more.

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

The question before the House is that opposition amendment (1), circulated in the name of Mr Taylor and moved by the member for Groom, be agreed to.

Keith Wolahan (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move opposition amendment (2), circulated in the name of Mr Taylor:

(2) Clause 1, page 1 (lines 5 and 6), omit "Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Act 2024 ", substitute "Treasury Laws Amendment (Entrenching Bracket Creep) Act 2024".

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

Order! The Treasurer will cease interjecting. The member for Menzies has the call.

Keith Wolahan (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While I am on my feet and the Prime Minister is here, can I congratulate you on your wonderful news last night.

Before I moved this amendment, an amendment was moved by the member for Groom in the name of Mr Taylor, and we recently divided on it. And it was moved because, of course, we recognise that Australians are hurting. Of course we recognise that they need more money in their pockets. That is why we are supporting this amendment. Let's take that off the table; that's not what these amendments are about. I heard all the interjections that were made. But how this change is done matters and the timing of it matters. We know that the timing was about politics and the Dunkley by-election.

This amendment (2) is about a key feature of our tax system that is hurting everyday Australians: entrenching bracket creep. Bracket creep has been described by the shadow Treasurer as 'the thief in the night'. It is a thief in the night because it is a thief that comes for every hardworking Australian.

A lot of things happened with the government over summer. During the government's first summer, the Treasurer decided to reinvent capitalism. This summer the Treasurer thought, 'I'll leave reinventing capitalism and I will turn my mind to changing the narrative that our party'—your party—'doesn't represent working Australians anymore.' There was a real question about that last year. The question put before the Treasurer was: how can we re-engage with the 80 per cent of our electorates who didn't agree with us on the Voice? You're out of touch with your own electorates. That is what is driving this change.

When we speak about aspiration, it's more than just a word or a talking point; it is something that resides in our hearts and minds. All of us in this place go to citizenship ceremonies and welcome new Australians to this country. The thing that drives them here is aspiration for a better life for them, their children and their families. At the moment, housing affordability has made this a key topic of conversation around dinner tables. In Melbourne, where I'm from, there are 354 suburbs. A household on a median income can afford a house in zero suburbs—zero. In 200 of those 354 suburbs, to afford the median house you need a household income of $200,000. So the original reform that was put forward, removing the 37 per cent tax bracket, wasn't just about giving more money to people in those brackets; it was about telling young Australians who aspire to be in those brackets, 'We want you to take that second job, do that extra shift or otherwise work harder so that you will have a better future for yourself and your family and you too can own a little bit of Australia, particularly in the cities of Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide.' When we put extra brackets back into the system—and that's what the 37 per cent is—we're putting a brake on aspiration and we're telling young Australians, 'You may not be in that bracket now, but that thief in the night will come for you and your family, and the idea of homeownership is that little bit further away.'

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

You're voting for it.

Keith Wolahan (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Treasurer has interjected saying that we're voting for it. Of course we are. But you're not in the opposition anymore; you are in the government. Where is your actual proposal for tax reform?

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

The Treasurer will cease interjecting.

Keith Wolahan (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

New governments get a chance. You get some capital to change this nation in a way that governments can't later on. You spent that capital on the Voice. You should have spent it on actually reducing the cost of living and tax reform.

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

The member for McEwen will cease interjecting. There's far too much noise.

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

Today the working people of this country are one step closer to a bigger tax cut to help with the cost of living. This bill is all about backing in the hard work of the truckies, the nurses, the teachers, the police officers, the steelworkers, the plumbers, the sprinkler fitters and the early educators. Thirteen point six million Australian workers will get a tax cut because of this legislation. Unlike those opposite, we will be voting for these changes enthusiastically because we believe that, when people work hard to provide for their loved ones, they should be able to get ahead. We believe that people should be able to earn more and keep more of what they earn. We reject the approach taken by those opposite, who say that the only way to prosper as a country is for the Australian working people to work longer and for less pay, and that's what this bill, at its very core, is all about.

The Australian people are closer to getting a tax cut because of this legislation before the House today. Now, if those opposite are supporting these tax cuts, they have a funny way of showing it. We heard once again from the member a moment ago and his mate before him. They're going out of their way to bag these tax cuts and they want the Australian people to believe that they support them. Of course they don't, because they are abandoning Middle Australia in opposition just like they abandoned them in government for the best part of a decade.

I want the whole House to know that the effect of the amendment moved by those opposite is to take the words, 'cost of living' out of title of the bill. I mean, oops. Did they really think that through, to take 'cost of living' out of the name of the bill? They don't just want to take 'cost of living' out of the name of the bill; they dare not mention 'cost of living' all week, not in question time, not in the name of this bill, not in the questions they ask or the speeches they give, and that's because they couldn't give a stuff about the cost-of-living pressures that Australian people are facing. We know that because the deputy leader of the Liberal Party, when asked about rolling back the tax changes, said, 'That is absolutely our position.' So if they're supporting these tax cuts, they have got a funny way of showing it. After all of the hyperventilating and all of the red-faced incoherence that we've heard from those opposite, they want the Australian people to believe that they support our tax changes. Of course they don't. They might be voting for it, they might have been dragged to this kicking and screaming, they might vote for it reluctantly in a few minutes, but we know what they really think about the working people of this country.

So I say to the member for Menzies, the member for Groom: ordinarily, when you're asked to speak to an amendment moved by a frontbencher, usually it's because the frontbencher is not available. Now, the frontbencher is right there. He might not be up to it, he might not be the sharpest tool in the shed but he's available. He's right there in the front row. So when the shadow Treasurer gives you an amendment to move and says, 'I'm available to speak to it but I don't want to,' that should ring the alarm bells for the member for Menzies and the member for Groom. Have a yak with the member for Forde; he's been around a little bit longer and he'll give you the heads up.

We on this side support these tax changes enthusiastically. We're very proud that every Australian taxpayer will get a tax cut because of the changes that we are putting through the House today, and 11½ million Australians will get a bigger tax cut to deal with the cost-of-living pressures that we understand, even if those opposite don't.

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

The question before the House is that opposition amendment (2), moved but the member for Menzies, be agreed to.

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move the amendment circulated in my name:

(1) Clause 1, page 1 (lines 5 and 6), omit "Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Act 2024", substitute "Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts but Not Actually Dealing with the Cost of Living) Act 2024".

We've heard both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer wax lyrical about the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024, and certainly in the Treasurer's contribution just now he waxed lyrical about the cost of living. Well, my amendment goes to changing the wording of the title to 'Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts but Not Actually Dealing with the Cost of Living)', because what we're actually seeing in this legislation is nothing that's dealing with the cost of living. When we look at the cost of living over the past 18 months—with the price of food up by over nine per cent, housing by over 12 per cent, electricity up, insurance up, gas up—all those things do not include the 12 interest rate increases and the costs of people's mortgages. We are seeing nothing in this bill with the cost of living; $15 a week is not going to scratch the surface when people are at a minimum of $150 a week worse off. And if you take into account their mortgage cost, they're closer to $600 a week worse off.

Looking at some of those people in my electorate that the Treasurer and other members opposite have referenced in their contributions during the substantive debate, these ordinary hardworking Australians: a truck driver in the electorate of Forde on an average wage will get a tax cut of $804, but his cost of living has gone up by a minimum of $8,000 a year, plus the interest on his mortgage of $20,000-odd a year. So he's at least $600 a week worse off—for a $15-a-week benefit that those opposite are crowing about.

Let's have a look at an electrician in the electorate of Forde. They're $8,000 a year worse off in real terms—

Hon. Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Order! I can't hear the member for Forde, because the member for Hume and the Treasurer are engaging in dialogue. So we just might cease that so I can hear from the member for Forde.

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Speaker. And it's instructive for those opposite to listen to this, because all the people they've said will be better off are actually worse off in real terms. For the benefit of $15 a week, people in my electorate—hardworking Australians, such as an electrician in Forde—will be in the order of $7,000 a year worse off, before including the additional costs on their mortgage.

A receptionist in my electorate working in one of the professional services firms will be in the order of $7,000 a year worse off. Also, those opposite failed to take into account in their earlier contributions the removal of the low to middle income tax offset. Nowhere in this debate have those on the government side really spoken about the cost of living. They have spoken about the tax cuts. But every example they've used in their answers to questions and in the debate do not reflect the totality of the situation for ordinary people on the ground. Ordinary people on the ground in my electorate of Forde, as a whole, because this government has failed to deal with the cost-of-living issues that I pointed out earlier, are not better off as a result of this bill. They are still worse off under this bill, because the cost of living has gone up so substantially.

We hear those opposite say regularly, at the end of every answer—and it's even been mentioned a couple of times today—that they want to see Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn. Well, can I say to those opposite, that is exactly what is not occurring under this bill, because the cost of living has gone up to such an extent that Australians are worse off now than they were when this government came to power 18 months ago. We see no evidence whatsoever of this government doing anything to deal with the real cost-of-living issues that everyday Australians are facing, and I urge support for this amendment.

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

The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Forde be agreed to.