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

I have just a few very brief points. The first is that these parts we are opposing are in relation to step 3. The government would be aware and the chamber should be aware that we have a range of amendments across step 2 and we are seeking to insert Labor's tax plan. We seek to knock out the tax changes that would apply only from 2024-25. Senator Cormann sought to rebut some of what I said. He said, 'It's not a fiscal risk.' Well, you don't have to take my words for it. Take John Daley's words. His evidence at the Senate inquiry was:

… economically, the chances of a significant economic downturn over the next six or seven years are pretty large …

He also said:

… we do not think it is prudent to be providing tax cuts of this magnitude that far in the future—certainly not to be legislating them …

Second, he said that it's still progressive. Miranda Stewart of the ANU said that these changes are 'both an inefficient and a retrograde step that undermines 100 years of progressive income tax rate structure in Australia'.

And he said that they're fair. The ANU's Ben Phillips has estimated that the effect of the government's plan is as follows: the top 20 per cent of taxpayers will see a 2.2 per cent rise in their income and the bottom 20 per cent will see a 0.2 per cent rise in their income. So the top 20 per cent of Australian taxpayers get more—a 2.2 per cent rise—and the lowest 20 per cent of Australian taxpayers get 0.2 per cent. Guess how much of this government's tax package will go to the top 20 per cent of households in Australia by 2027? Sixty per cent. I urge the chamber to support our proposal.

The CHAIR: We are dealing with amendments (4), (6) and (8) on sheet 8450, as moved by Senator Wong. The question is that the tables dealing with tax rates for resident taxpayers, non-resident taxpayers and working holiday makers for the 2024-25 year of income or a later year of income stand as printed.