Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

One of the very good things about this place is that we get to hear a range of views. I can assure those still in the chamber that you are about to hear some very different views to those that you heard from Senator Leyonhjelm, because some of us accept and believe that it is important to collect taxes from people, especially those who are well-off, in order to fund the social services, the infrastructure and the various other benefits that society so much depends upon.

I've spoken a little bit already about the government's tax plan, particularly in the adjournment speech last night, so I don't intend to use my full 20 minutes, but I did want to reiterate some of the key points that I think are extremely important for those members of this chamber who are still contemplating how they will vote on this bill. I should say, also, how proud I am that the Labor caucus and our leadership today took the right decision to oppose, particularly, the second and third stages of the government's tax cuts, which are unfairly weighted towards wealthier Australians. I think that is the right decision to take on grounds of principle.

We want to make sure that we retain a truly progressive taxation system in Australia, and I've listened, over the recent weeks, to the Treasurer and many other members of the government try to conflate ideas of what it means to have a progressive taxation system. They've been trying to mount this argument and eliminate one of the tax thresholds, which will actually have the practical effect of meaning that someone like me on $200,000 a year or thereabouts, a very high income, ends up paying the same rate of taxation as someone who cleans my office or drives me to and from parliament and who earns a middle income or a low income. There is absolutely no way, in Australia, that Australians believe that it is fair that someone earning such a high wage should be paying the same level of tax as someone on a low or middle income. But that is exactly what the government are trying to do with this bill, and I think they are about to get a rude shock when they actually get back out into their electorates and talk to Australians about what they're seeking to do here and once Australians have more information about what the government are trying to provide.

For the Treasurer and other members of this government to argue that, even with these changes, high-income earners will still pay more tax in dollar terms than people on low- and middle-income earners, and that is what makes this tax system progressive, is complete nonsense. Of course someone earning $200,000, $300,000 or $400,000 year is going to be paying more tax in overall dollar terms than someone earning $40,000, $50,000 or $60,000 a year. I would be willing to wager quite a lot of money that someone who is earning a high income like that is not going to miss the extra taxation that they would otherwise be paying as much as someone who is earning a lower income. A progressive taxation system is all about making sure that people who are earning higher amounts of money pay their fair share to ensure that we have the social services that we all depend upon. That's the way it should stay, and I'm very confident that most Australians support that view.

Arguably, the worst thing about this government's tax plan that we're debating now is that it so grossly discriminates against poor electorates right around the country. Then, to make the problem worse, it gives the biggest tax cut to the wealthiest electorates in this country. I am not aware of a more unfair plan for taxation that has ever been brought into this parliament than the one we are debating now. It is so clear that this tax plan will be delivering so little to low- and middle-income earners from the poorest electorates in this country, only to provide a massive tax cut to the wealthiest individuals in our community—a tax cut that in many instances they don't actually need.

The Australia Institute has published some very revealing data about what the practical impact of these tax cuts will be. They have been able to show that, if you look at all 150 electorates around the country, the 10 electorates that will get the least benefit from the tax cuts the government is proposing here—effectively the 10 poorest electorates in the country—are mostly in regional areas and in the outer suburbs of our big cities. I previously rattled off a few examples, but I will just say them again. Of the bottom 10 electorates in Australia in terms of the amount they will receive from this tax cut, three of them are in my home state of Queensland: the electorates of Hinkler, Wide Bay and, interestingly, Longman, which is the subject of the by-election that we will be fighting on 28 July.

Just to focus on Longman for a little bit: if anyone has spent any time in Longman—I've had the great fortune to do so, having already done about three door-knocking sessions in this campaign, and I'm sure I'll be doing a lot more before the campaign is over, and I'm yet to find anyone in Longman who is excited about the idea of a massive tax cut going to high-income earners, people earning $200,000 a year or more, at the expense of people earning low and middle incomes. That is because in an electorate like Longman, as is the case with so many other electorates around the country where people are largely on low and middle incomes, there are very few people who are earning six-figure salaries in the order of $200,000 a year or more. So it's no surprise that, when you're out there door-knocking in Longman and you ask people, 'Are you aware that what the government is trying to do is to cut taxes for people earning more than $200,000 a year, but there's very little benefit coming to households on $40,000 or $50,000 a year?' they're rightly outraged about that. If you mention at the same time that this government is also the one that is trying to give massive tax cuts to the big banks and to big business, you should see the reaction on their faces. I would encourage members of the government to spend a little bit of time in electorates like Longman, like Braddon, which I know Senator Urquhart will speak about, and which is also in the bottom 10 electorates nationally in terms of the benefits here. The government members here and any of the crossbenchers who are thinking of voting with the government are making a very big mistake if they think they are going to get political rewards in the by-elections in those electorates from people who are getting very little out of this government's plan.

To spend a little bit of time on regional Queensland: as I have mentioned in a previous speech to this chamber, every single regional Queensland electorate, mostly held by National Party aligned members of parliament, will be getting a below-average tax cut under what this government is putting forward. We've been raising this over and over during the course of this week, and I don't know if the National Party senators who are here actually know this and are actively turning their backs on their constituents by continuing to vote for tax cuts that will deprive their own constituents in regional and rural electorates and deliver a massive tax cut, on the other hand, to Liberal held electorates in wealthy parts of Australia. I'm glad Senator McKenzie, the Deputy Leader of the Nationals, is here. I don't know whether senators like Senator McKenzie and other National Party senators have actually looked at the information here and are aware that what they are doing is condemning their own constituents to getting a tax cut well below the national average. Every single National Party electorate in Queensland will get below the national average, and I think about four out of the bottom 10 electorates in Australia that are going to be getting the least benefit from this tax cut are National Party held. I don't know how many times we have to come into this chamber and point out to the National Party that, if they want to be serious about representing rural and regional Australia, like they say they do and say they are committed to, it is about time they stood up for the interests of these people and took on the Liberal Party.

The Liberal Party is doing so well out of this deal. They are ensuring that their own voters are pocketing huge amounts of money, but poor old National Party voters and people in National Party electorates are being left behind. What's worse, they're actually getting their services cut by this government in the form of funding for health, for schools, for training and for pensions. All of these cuts are happening right across regional Queensland and, no doubt, other parts of regional Australia, all to help fund a massive, unaffordable tax cut that is going to electorates like the Prime Minister's own in wealthy parts of Sydney. Our National Party representatives either know what they're doing and know that they're ripping off their own constituents to help out rich Liberals—it would be disgraceful, if they actually know that—or they haven't bothered to ask the hard questions in their party room and haven't bothered to ask the Prime Minister why it is fair to give Liberal Party-held electorates in wealthy parts of Australia a massive tax cut when regional Australia is being left behind.

Of course, there is one tax plan that is before this parliament that actually would offer some benefit both to regional Australia and to low- and middle-income earners right across Australia, and that is the plan that Labor is putting forward. The reason it has so much benefit to most people in our community, whether they be in regional Australia or urban Australia, is that the Labor tax cuts are heavily targeted towards low- and middle-income earners. If anyone's going to get a tax cut in this country, it should be low- and middle-income earners. It shouldn't be millionaires. It shouldn't be people earning $500,000 a year when we are actually cutting services in order to pay for those tax cuts.

I will give you a few examples. If you run down Queensland, from the north to the south, every single electorate actually stands to gain a lot more from the Labor plan that is before this chamber than what the government is offering. Starting in Queensland's far north in the electorate of Leichhardt, where I know Senator Moore spends a lot of time as the duty senator, 77 per cent of taxpayers will be better off under Labor's tax plan than under the government's. In the electorate of Herbert, so ably represented by Cathy O'Toole, 79 per cent of taxpayers will be better off under Labor's plan than under the government's. In the electorate of Dawson, 76 per cent of taxpayers would be better off under Labor. In the electorate of Capricornia, where I spend a lot of time as the duty senator, 74 per cent of taxpayers would be better off. In the electorate of Flynn, 70 per cent of taxpayers would be better off under Labor's plan than under the government's plan.

And it's not just regional Australia. Let's look at some of the marginal seats held by government members in South-East Queensland. In the electorate of Dickson, 76 per cent of taxpayers would be better off under Labor's plan. In the electorate of Petrie, 78 per cent of taxpayers would be better off under Labor's plan. In the electorate of Bonner, on Brisbane's east side, 74 per cent of taxpayers would be better off under Labor's plan. And in the electorate of Forde, between Logan and the Gold Coast, 78 per cent of taxpayers would be better off under Labor's plan than under what the government is offering. So, if there's anyone on the government side who's actually serious about trying to give low- and middle-income earners a leg-up via a tax cut, the simple thing to do is to support what Labor is putting forward to separate this bill. Let's hive off the high-income tax cuts that the country can't afford and actually aren't needed and concentrate our efforts on providing tax cuts to low- and middle-income earners. That's what Labor want to do, that's what we think is the fair approach and, frankly, that's what we think most Australians want to see.

In conclusion, the other group in this chamber who have got a massive test awaiting them as this debate continues are the two remaining One Nation senators. I've had a lot to say previously—and I won't go into it in too much detail—about the number of times our One Nation senators, particularly from Queensland, despite all their claims about supporting battlers, come down into this chamber and vote with the government to hurt battlers on penalty rates, pension cuts, apprenticeship cuts, health cuts—the list is so long, I can't even remember them all. This one will be a very good test for One Nation. If One Nation want to follow through on their claims to support battlers then they will back Labor's amendments, they will oppose the government's plan to give tax cuts to high-income earners and they will ensure that all of that money is directed towards tax cuts for the people who really need them in electorates like Longman, Capricornia, Flynn and Dawson, battlers in our urban and regional areas who need support from our government and deserve more than what the government is offering and, in fact, deserve what Labor is offering. This will be a real test once and for all of whether One Nation are really about battlers or whether they're for the billionaires that the Prime Minister and his Liberal Party colleagues seem so intent on supporting. So I'm going to be very interested to see how this debate unfolds over the next few days.