Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We know that the Prime Minister likes to speak out of both sides of his mouth. He loves an each-way bet, fighting Tories and playing political games. On over a hundred occasions, the Prime Minister looked Australians in the eye and told them that Labor had no plan to alter the stage 3 tax cuts. This continued throughout January, even though Treasury had already been preparing this Goliath breach of trust. In fact, even the ad agencies had been briefed. Yet he continued to mislead; to not tell the truth: the Dunkley deceit.

Why is this policy backflip so egregious? It's because the Prime Minister campaigned on an increase in transparency and integrity—the 'my word is my bond' statement. Well his word is no longer a bond. In fact, it's about as feeble as tissue paper in a hurricane. No-one can ever believe a world he ever says again.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hughes, I'll just caution you on your language.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting President, I have not said the word that the President doesn't like us to say.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are many other words.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well no-one can ever believe a world he says again. There may be some credence to his defence if it were the first time he'd broken faith with the electors, but, alas, this is now just the next broken promise. There was $275 off your power bills—the Voldemort of figures, the number that shall never speak its name, for those opposite. No changes to superannuation, yet here we are with significant and unprecedented changes, especially the ludicrous proposal of unrealised capital gains. What's next? The family home, capital gains, a death tax or negative gearing? How will we know? What we do know is that we cannot believe that what they say is what they will actually do. (Time expired)

Fatima Payman (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm proud to say that as of 1 July the Albanese government will deliver a tax cut to every Australian taxpayer—that's 13.6 million taxpayers, not just some. Under Labor's plan, a teacher on $80,000 will get a tax cut of more than $1,600, and a nurse on $76,000 will get a tax cut of more than $1,500. Labor's tax cuts are designed to provide meaningful and immediate cost-of-living relief without adding pressure on inflation. This is a fair and responsible plan, responding to the economic conditions of 2024.

I was truly shocked yesterday to hear that the 'no-alition' said yes to Labor's tax plan. Honestly, I thought that they'd forgotten that word after saying no to cheaper child care, no to cheaper medicines and no to cheaper electricity. By supporting our tax cuts, the opposition recognise that our plan is better for Australia. But what I don't understand is why the opposition didn't look at our other cost-of-living reforms and do the same. Honestly, I'm constantly confused about what the Liberal and National parties really stand for. They say that Labor should do more, yet they come in here and vote down every cost-of-living relief measure without shame. They say they're supporting Labor's tax plan, but they take every opportunity in media to talk it down. Just the other day, I was appalled to hear Senator Hume say that our plan won't make a difference to the weekly household budget. Labor's tax cuts will make sure that there's a difference for working families, which is why Australians overwhelmingly support our plan. Senator Hume should spend less time in the media and more time on the ground to hear what matters to everyday Australians.

Labor's tax plan is better for the economy, better for families, and better for the household budget. Why can't those opposite just admit it? (Time expired)