Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I think you are embarrassed, actually. The other constituency that is adversely affected is of course the small business community. What is the coalition doing in this legislation? Increasing the tax rates on small business. So it is a tax hike for low-income earners and a tax hike for small business through changing the threshold for the instant asset write-off. This increases the tax burden for small business and it also increases their red tape burden. The instant asset write-off was a Labor measure that enabled business to make an investment that it could write off quickly with a minimum of paperwork and an improvement to cash flow. When we came to office the threshold was $1,000. We increased it to $6½ thousand in a measure welcomed by small business around the country. We made an election commitment to increase it further because we want to back investment by small business and employers. What does this government do, the party of small business? It takes it right back down to $1,000. It was at $6½ thousand, increased by the Labor government. We promised to increase it to $10,000, but this government said, 'Actually we're going to reduce it right down to $1,000'—in other words, you start paying tax far earlier for any investment and on a far greater proportion of income. There is also a change in the depreciation of motor vehicles. That is gone under this legislation. So the government is radically changing not only the instant asset write-off but also the way in which it applies to motor vehicles—again hitting some of the very people the government purports to stand up for.

In the last few minutes that I have left I want to deal with the attack on the cost-of-living support for Australians that is contained in this legislation. What we see in the bill that is before the chamber is the abolition of the schoolkids bonus, which is $410 a year for primary school students and $820 a year for high school students. Of course, this adds up if a family has a couple of kids. Over the course of their schooling life, it amounts to around $15,000 worth of support—all gone under this government. On a daily basis over recent years, and certainly in this last period of time, the Prime Minister has been beating his chest about what he claims is a $550 reduction in the cost-of-living pressure for Australian families, a figure which is questionable in itself. If you look at what the government are now saying, they are moving away from that figure because they know it is not sustainable.

Senator Colbeck interjecting—

Well, the Prime Minister acknowledged $820 a year—it is obviously substantially more for a single high school student—which is abolished in the legislation that he is putting to this chamber. That is only one of the measures which this government has put forward. I described this budget at one point as a vicious assault on low- and middle-income Australia. I think Senator Abetz at the time took issue with what I was saying. But if you look at who this government is asking to bear the burden of its budget, it is low-and middle-income Australia, the people who are least able to afford the cuts which are being imposed by this government. Among the worst things about this budget is that it has been brought down against the backdrop of the lies told by this Prime Minister prior to the election. Australians were told repeatedly that there would be no cuts to health, no cuts to education. They were not told about so many of the cuts that are contained in the government's budget—and that is the backdrop to this legislation. It is not only this legislation, and the cuts in it, that the Labor Party opposes. What we oppose is a government that told Australians before the election that they would not have to worry about cuts and then handed down a budget which, as its centrepiece, has cuts to health and education.

In conclusion, the reasons for opposing this legislation have not reduced since it was last rejected in the other place. In fact, they have increased because of the arrogant approach of this government—the attacks on the retirement incomes of Australians, on low- and middle-income Australians, making it harder for people to save for their retirement. The government has said on a number of occasions that it simply wants to get rid of all the associated spending measures with the MRRT. What I would say to this chamber is this: the government should be able to stand up in this place and articulate to new crossbench senators the reason why these are bad policies that should not be a priority. They should come in here and tell Australians why it is that billions of dollars should be spent on gold-plated paid parental leave but low-income Australians have to take a tax hike on their super. They should come in and explain why it is that they want people to work longer and harder before they can retire. They do not want people to be leaners but, at the same time, they are making it more difficult for people to save for their retirement.

The measures in this bill are bad policy and they are set against a budget which is not only full of broken promises but an attack on low- and middle-income Australia.