Anne Aly (Cowan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The government went to the last election with a mantra of 'jobs and growth'. We heard it spread throughout Australia at the last election. I must say, that's a very noble vision to have, a vision for jobs and growth. I'm fairly sure that most Australians would agree that jobs and economic growth are fundamental to the viability and the future sustainability of our society. But I'm sad to say that the mantra of jobs and growth has never extended, has never grown and has never emerged as an actual priority for this government.

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2) Bill 2017 was first flagged in last year's budget. They are now reintroducing parts of the bill this year, and we've only been able to commence the debate on these bills in mid-September. This seems to be endemic of the way in which this government operates to pass bills through. They seem to be half-baked, they seem to be unsure of what they're doing, and they seem to want to pass things through quickly so that it appears that they're doing something, while they deal with their own internal unrest and chaos. This bill is actually a hit to the budget that demonstrates the hypocrisy of a government that lectures the Australian people about the need for budget repair. This is a government that used to talk about a debt and deficit disaster and a budget emergency, yet, on their watch, while they've been talking about jobs and growth and spouting that mantra, the deficit has blown out and has crashed past the half-a-trillion-dollar mark.

Just after this year's budget, we asked some simple questions about the actual cost of the full company tax rate plan. We've received several answers to that: $24 billion, $26 billion, $50 billion, $36.5 billion, $65.4 billion—the list goes on. But we've been very clear, since the plan was first introduced, about highlighting the extremely minimal economic benefits that would be an outcome of this huge spend, which ranges anywhere between $24 billion and $65.4 billion—who knows what the actual cost is? Let's have a look at some of those benefits, because they could hardly be called benefits. There will be economic growth of one per cent in 20 years time. That's a very low standard to want to aspire to. There will be an increase in wages of $2 a day in 20 years time—not today but in 20 years time. All of this comes at a time when wages growth has flatlined at a record low of 1.9 per cent and when economic data recently showed that living standards, which had been climbing, have gone backwards in the last quarter.

I like to get out in my electorate and talk to some of the businesses around there. I've issued an invitation to all of the businesses in my electorate—small, medium and larger ones—to come to me and let me know how this tax plan has benefited them and how some of the measures, like cuts to penalty rates and cuts to taxes for businesses, that have been implemented by this government under the banner of jobs and growth have benefited them. I have to say that not a single one of those businesses has come forward and said that they've actually been able to employ more people or increase their productivity as a result of anything that this government has done. In fact, the reality is that businesses have had to lay off people and have reduced their productivity. There's a reason for that, which is that this plan does nothing to instigate any growth in the economy. Along with all of the government's other measures, it actually does not result in any wages growth.

I'm no economist, but we all know that if you want to save money you have to spend less. We all know that if you want to grow the economy people have to be able to have more disposable income to spend in that economy. As a business, if you want to grow your business, you need to have more customers coming in. That's not what is happening. It is certainly not happening in Cowan, where businesses have had to shut down because people are spending less, and people are spending less because wages haven't grown. People are spending less because inequality in this country has actually increased under the watch of this government.

Since July this year, the government have also supported penalty rate cuts, and they seek to raise income taxes for all taxpayers with income above $21,000. I just cannot comprehend how people can make ends meet on an income of $21,000 a year. A worker on $55,000 will pay $275 a year, and someone on $80,000 gets an extra $400. I just don't comprehend that. I don't comprehend how it is that the proportion of my income that went to tax when I was a single mother raising two children on a minimum wage was actually higher than it is now that I am somebody on the highest income tax bracket. I have more avenues available to me now to reduce my tax than I did when I was a struggling single parent on the minimum wage. How is that fair? How does that reduce inequality in our society? More importantly, how does taxing and punishing the lower end of our society and making them pay for these tax cuts to big business result in jobs and growth? It goes to this government's approach and their misguided priorities that their answer for flat wages growth is a cut to pay and higher income taxes.

We hear those that support it say that it's needed to drive investment. But it was only a few years ago that we had the biggest investment boom Australia has ever seen with a headline corporate tax rate of 30 per cent. So where's the evidence to suggest that a cut to corporate tax rates is actually what is going to drive more investment in Australia?

See this speech in context