Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to all questions without notice asked by the coalition today.

After 18 months of exclusively running the government of Australia in favour of a few vested interests, the government has discovered an economic policy which is a recalibration of a tax policy which the coalition developed in office, and that is a tax policy to try and eliminate the scourge of bracket creep. Bracket creep is an insidious factor. The more people work, the more likely it is that, in doing an extra shift or undertaking some more hours, they will be subject to a higher rate of taxation.

Getting to a flatter tax system has been effectively the only income tax reform undertaken in the last decade. It is true that we are living in a period where there is a very low level of ambition in Australia, particularly in relation to economic policy. When you consider the 18 months of the Labor Party's government so far, it has been exclusive economic policy for the unions, the super funds and the class action law firms, to the point where not only is policy perfectly calibrated to meet their needs but also we see funding decisions and the like taken in their favour.

Of course, people will be very interested in how this promise was broken, and that is something that we will undertake a great investigation into at Senate estimates. This is a tax policy that Labor at the last two elections said that they were committed to. In fact, the Prime Minister said in December last year that they were not reconsidering the package. You have to ask yourself: Why are we here? Why are we at this point? I would suggest that it has a lot to do with the by-election in Victoria and that this policy, the belated economic agenda of the Albanese government, which is a recalibration of a Liberal Party tax policy, was developed at this juncture because the Prime Minister wanted to ensure that his numbers in the House of Representatives are going to be assured and he wanted to take an economic policy—effectively a policy—to this by-election in Victoria.

That is because at the end of last year the government was completely rudderless. It was rudderless because of the central problem this government has, which is an absence of economic policies designed to solve the problems of today. And of course the great challenge for many Australians, particularly those under the age of 40, is housing. It is getting into a house, or it is paying the rent. The failure of the government to address even its own housing targets is a major issue for the government, which is why people are so unhappy. So this policy was concocted in order to give the government some momentum for this upcoming by-election.

But the trick here is that this is a sugar hit. It is a short-term sugar hit, and it locks in bracket creep over the long term. So, you get a tax cut today, but you get higher taxes tomorrow. You get a tax cut in 2024 but higher taxes in 2025, 2026, 2027 and 2028. You get higher taxes over the long term, because the problem with this tax policy is that it is winding back the clock to reinsert a tax bracket that was abolished. So, the only decent tax reform that was undertaken in the last decade is being unwound because of a by-election. We are now going to base the whole personal income tax system around one man's job and around a by-election in Victoria. That is the problem—that we're going to be hitting aspirational people with a higher tax bracket by reinserting the 37c-in-the-dollar bracket, and that is hugely regrettable.

Reversing a tax reform—the only tax reform in the past decade—means that the limited ambition that we have for economic policy, for economic reform, has now gone to a new low. Of course we don't want to stand in the way of a tax cut for any Australian, but the reality is that the reinsertion of this tax bracket is a bad thing for Australia. It's a tax cut today but a higher tax tomorrow.

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In recent days we've seen an opposition determined to huff and to puff and to blow a policy down—until they actually picked it up and read it. When they picked it up and read it, they liked it, because it's a better economic policy. They picked it up and read it and liked it because it's better for our economy. They picked it up, read it and liked it because it's better for Australian taxpayers, because our Prime Minister got it right; former Prime Minister Morrison got it wrong.

Our policy is right, for all the 13.6 million taxpayers. It's especially right for 11.5 million Australians who will get a bigger tax cut under our government's policy than they would have under the previous government. It's better for 90 per cent of Australian women—5.9 million women who will get a bigger tax cut under Labor's new tax plan, and 98 per cent of younger Australians as well. It is a policy valued and applauded by experts, valued and applauded by economists, because it's better for Australian taxpayers; it's better for our economy. It's better for my community in South Australia, where people are under pressure and where people are telling me they're doing it really tough.

Those people welcome a tax cut. Those people on lower and middle incomes, who got nothing under the opposition's plan, now get a bigger tax cut under ours. They get something under ours, because finally they've got a government that is concerned about the pressures they're under and determined to actually do something for low- and middle-income earners. This is what the Australian people expected of us when they elected us. This is the purpose of us; this is what we're for—to be trusted to do the right thing by the Australian people at the right time.

Your policy is not the right policy for this time. Our policy is. That is why it's so clear. When you picked it up and read it, despite Ms Ley in the other place saying she'll absolutely roll it back—a clever thing to do before you've actually read something!—you've now read it, and you've come onboard, because it's a better policy, it's a better economic plan, it's better for people in my community of South Australia and it's better for 11.5 million Australians who will get a bigger tax cut compared with what they would have got under the Morrison government's plan. That's 84 per cent of taxpayers in this country. Average income earners will get a tax cut of $29 a week, more than double what they would have got under the previous government's plan. A person on a median taxable income, of around $68,000, gets a tax cut of $1,379—$804 more than they would have under the previous government. That is the right thing to do for people in my community. That is the right thing to do for people on average incomes. That is the right thing to do for low- and middle-income earners in this country. The Australian people can trust us to make the right decision at the right time for those people who need their government to step up and help out when times are tough.

For days and days we listened to the huffing and the puffing from the opposition, determined to hate something they hadn't read. They were determined to stick by a policy written in a different economic time; built and written for the few and not for all. They were determined to stick with it, claiming they were going to roll our policy back, complaining, before they'd read it, that the sky would fall down—and then you pick it up and you read it, and it is so clear that this is the right thing to do, and I am proud to stick by it.

Our government, through this measure, is taking action on the cost of living. This builds upon everything we're doing around cheaper medicines, fee-free TAFE, cheaper child care—all the sorts of things that you turned your nose up at when we brought them into this place. Our government can be trusted to do the right thing for the Australian people. The right thing at the moment is a bigger tax cut, which helps them with the cost-of-living pressures that we know they are under. This is the right policy. It's the right economic plan. It's good for our country. It's good for 11.5 million people who will benefit more under it than they would have if the opposition were still on this side of the chamber in government. I am proud of that, and I am proud to be part of a government delivering for low- and middle-income Australians at a time when they need it.

Ross Cadell (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We heard Senator Canavan's question today about the renewables rollout across Australia and the effect it's having on people from the top to the bottom and from the left to the right—right across this nation—and their inability to have a voice. We heard it in the chamber. They went close to getting kicked out, because that is the level of frustration they have at not being heard in this place. They are stuck on the footpath out the front—hundreds of them; thousands of them—trying to get heard here about the distress, about the fear and about the horror this plan is causing on the ground.

We heard an answer that said these are the rules under which we left it. If we have a street built in a neighbourhood, you don't put an entirely different policy at one end of it and make them get to the other end. The situation has changed, and the rules haven't kept up with the things you've got there. We've got entire communities fighting with each other over people that take a wind farm, take a tower or do all sorts of things because the rules aren't right. This isn't about a 2050 target; this is about a race do it in 2030 or 2035 to look good—nothing more than that. It needs to stop now. It needs to pause now so it can be done right, if it has to happen at all. The people aren't talking about more money. They would rather have no money and no transmission lines; no money and no wind turbines on their property.

These people want to sit here and talk about how we can have better consultation—some consultation. Senator Canavan said 92 per cent were dissatisfied—that was in the government's own research. But can we get an inquiry in here to help those people? No. Eight times those opposite and those in that corner have sat here and said, 'We don't deserve to give these people a voice. We don't need to hear the challenges when 92 per cent of Australians affected don't think it's good enough.' We sit here and say, 'We'll consult.'

Let's talk about consulting. Glen Kelly, a farmer in Queensland, was someone referenced in Senator Canavan's question about the Kalapa wind farm. He was in the gallery today. In estimates in October last year, Minister Watt committed to meeting with these Central Queensland landholders about their concerns with the wind farm, and it has not happened. He promised to meet with them in this place. Glen reached out to his office last week and said, 'I'm going to be down here.' He did not hear anything back. I'd be glad to hear if there was any response. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but no response is what we're told.

They've come all the way from Central Queensland. A Queensland senator who said they would meet them in estimates—I have the Hansard with me if it's required—had time yesterday to meet with Farmers for Climate Action. 'If you're one of the eight per cent, I'll meet you. If you're one of the eight per cent, I'll hear you. If you're one of the eight per cent, I'll give you a voice. But, if you're the majority, if you're in the 92 per cent, if you're concerned, if you're part of the people that actually want to keep farming their land, if you're concerned about the process going forward, don't come to me,' he says. 'I don't want to hear about it. I just want to pretend I care about it. Come onboard.' This is the problem with this government in all these things. They talk about wanting to be transparent and clear. If my car windscreen was as transparent and clear as this government, I would crash all the time because you can't see through the mess that it is. The fix is in. If you're going to criticise this process, you cannot have a voice. If you're going to ask for a better deal, you can't have a say. If you want to have an inquiry and listen—we can't get a vote.

I go back to those days, to the heart of the Greens over here when they were up there and to their father Bob Brown and his disgrace about the wind turbines, these turbine farms, that were put all across the land. He knows where it's at because he hasn't turned his back on the reasons he exists. He is about the environment, and these things are not about the environment; they are about destroying the environment. They are about destroying our farmland. Victoria says that, if they don't do offshore, 77 per cent of prime agricultural land will have to become windfarms. It will have to come under transmission lines. It'll have to become solar farms. That's 77 per cent of that land. How will we feed ourselves? But, don't worry, because, even if we do offshore wind, they're still going to take 55 per cent of it. This is a national disaster in waiting. As we sit here doing nothing, our children will sit back in a country this size that can't feed itself and won't be able to power itself, because this stuff is ridiculously inefficient, and they won't be able to do anything. The only things we are exporting are our pollution and our problems.

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You wouldn't know it from the carry-on from the opposition in question time today, but what the government is doing is providing cost-of-living relief through tax reform to people who need it the most. That's actually what's happening here right now. We're providing that relief to low- and middle-income Australians, who we know are feeling the cost-of-living squeeze the most. That is what we are doing. That is what we are focused on. We are focused on those Australians who are feeling the squeeze, and we are providing them with cost-of-living relief through a tax cut.

Since coming into office, we have been focused on the cost-of-living challenge that Australians have been facing. We are focused on the aspirations of Australians to live a good life in this country in the context of a cost-of-living challenge. So, in answer to Senator Bragg, who makes accusations about this government and how we see the aspirations of Australian people, I will say this: we do see the aspirations of the Australian people. We see the aspirations of low- and middle-income Australians to have a fair go into this country, and we see their aspirations to have a $1,500-a-year tax cut if they're earning the average wage in Australia of around $78,000. Those are the aspirations that we are responding to with our package.

We are doing that after a decade of no reform from those opposite. We're doing it after a decade of complete division amongst those opposite. We're doing it after a decade in which those opposite focused on themselves, not on the people that they were elected to actually serve. Because we on this side are actually focused on what people need right now, because we're focused on the help that they need right now, because we're focused on what they need from their government and because we're focused on what they need from their economy, as we come into 2024, wages are actually moving again in this country and job creation is at record highs.

We know that inflation is heading in the right direction too, and this is really welcome progress given the cost-of-living challenges that people face. Inflation being at the lowest rate in two years is very welcome news for Australians. And now, under our tax reform plan, on top of those good measures—the fact that wages are moving, the fact that inflation is down—every single taxpayer in this country is getting a tax cut, and 84 per cent of taxpayers will be better off under our plan. Someone on the average wage is getting $1,500 back into the family budget as a result of our focus on them.

Now, we know that the 'no-alition' don't really know what to do about any of this. They started off, as we know, telling the Australian people they were going to roll back the tax cuts—tax cuts that we know go to every single Australian, tax cuts that men 84 per cent of Australians are better off, tax cut of $1,500 a year for the average-income worker. We know they want to roll back these tax cuts that benefit middle Australia. We know they want to say no to the 14 million Australians who are now depending on our tax cut, the 11.5 million who are better off under our plan. We know how much they want to stay no, because that's all they actually know how to do. They say no to electricity bill relief, no to more social housing, no to cheaper medicine, no to every measure we put forward to get wages moving in this country.

Instead of being able to say no, what we've seen today is the opposition rolling over instead. We've seen them attempt to lodge a political attack on the government for doing the right thing, for responding to the times and for making sure that the average Australian gets a tax cut that they need. They've launched a scare campaign to hide the fact that they're supporting the Prime Minister's plan—a plan that is better for Australians than the plan that it replaces.

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

After almost two years in government, the Labor Party has finally decided to do something about the cost of living, and what a pathetic attempt it is. It is an $800 increase from what was originally legislated for middle-income Australia, but here is the rub. While the Labor Party procrastinated for the first two years, indulging in identity politics with the Voice, wasting $450 million there, the cost of living per person—not per household—rose by $8,000. They are not even giving back bracket creep. The legislative changes we made came in in 2019. Labor has had two years to do something about this as a result of their inability to control inflation. That $800 a year, which works out to about $15 to $16 a week, won't cover the cost of energy. It won't cover the interest rate rises. Today the RBA governor has come out and said that she can't guarantee that there won't be any more interest rate rises. Why is that? It is because she knows that she can't trust the Albanese Labor government to control the cost of living.

Ultimately, at the end of the day, this is Hobson's choice. This is basically trying to deflect from the fact that the Labor Party can't control the cost of living. If they were really serious about dealing with the cost of living, they would have given more generous tax cuts. They would have increased the tax cuts from when we legislated them back in 2019, but they have divided and conquered, which is the only thing they know how to do. These guys love to play the politics of envy. If they are not trying to divide the country between black people and white people, they're trying to divide the country between rich people and poor people. Let me tell you something. Those tax cuts may kick in on 1 July this year, but, because that 37 per cent tax bracket is still in place, that means that everyone going forward on $135,000—so, if you're below that level, once you get your pay rise—and let's not forget that inflation is running at five per cent, so give this a couple more years, and people on $120,000 will be going into the 37 per cent tax bracket. And these people are nurses and teachers, by the way. Up in Queensland, we've actually got a police shortage, so we've got a lot of police officers working overtime. These guys are going to be paying 37c in the dollar. And, of course, what will that do? It will add to inflation. Why? Because people won't want to work extra hours. This is some of the rubbish that's spouted by Treasury—that somehow a tax cut's going to cause inflation. Who do they think supplies the goods and services in this country? It's the workers, so let's cut taxes further.

I will pick up on Senator Walsh's comments that we don't know what to do. I know exactly what to do, Senator Walsh. I've got a master's in tax. I've got a master's in finance as well. That's the whole reason I ran for politics: to reform the tax act. I well remember when I was a Senate candidate that I said we should raise the withholding taxes on profits offshore. I was criticised by none other than the current Treasurer. Apparently, increasing the rate of tax on withholding taxes on profits sent offshore by foreign multinational companies is a bad thing. I've been recommending that for years.

I've been recommending the abolition of section 855, which gives foreigners a capital gains tax break on non-portfolio interests. I recommend the abolition of section 880 of the income tax act that says that foreign wealth funds shouldn't be able to pay tax. I recommended the abolition of section 25.90 that says that, when Australian companies invest offshore, they shouldn't be able to get a tax deduction on the interest they pay on their investments offshore. I've come out and said that Aboriginal land councils should start paying tax. I've come out and said that universities should start paying tax on foreign students. It's about time everyone in this country started paying their way. The last and the best one is the old 28F for the public offer test in the 1936 act, which says foreign banks don't have to pay tax on interest paid offshore. So, if you want tax reform, bring it on.

Question agreed to.