Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

Again we see this government talking about cutting taxes when it's going to increase taxes on every single working Australian earning more than $21,000. In fact, what this government is going to do over the forward estimates is raise $8.2 billion through this measure, which is an increase in personal income tax. This is $8.2 billion which will not be in the pockets of those working Australians. In fact, over the decade, this measure will raise $43.8 billion. This compares to the medium-term implications of the 2016 tax cuts, which the Treasurer loves to boast about, which will cost the budget $16.3 billion. So the government is reducing tax by $16 billion, increasing it by $43 billion and claiming to be the party of low tax. But, as we say, this is a government that believes in low tax for some and higher tax for others, because the tax increase will apply to everybody earning more than $21,000.

The Labor Party has an alternative plan. It is a responsible plan but one that is focused on those who can better deal with the tax rise. Nobody likes a tax rise. Nobody runs to increase taxes lightly or quickly. Our plan actually raises $4 billion more than the government's proposed rise over the decade but exempts those earning less than $87,000 by keeping the deficit levy in place—because we are still in deficit after all—for those income earners earning more than $180,000. This will ensure that we have a responsible plan but one that is focused on those who can better—not easily or happily perhaps, but better—afford to pay it than those who are on $21,000. This government wants to tax people on $21,000 a year more. Many of those people will be earners of penalty rates, which this government is cutting. Here we have a government which is, on one hand, increasing their taxes and, on the other, reducing their earnings by cutting their penalty rates.

This is all in the name of the sophistry and the misleading statements that this government insists on making about the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which is fully funded and which will continue to be fully funded. It is highly irresponsible for the government to run that scare campaign when, in fact, what it's doing, for no good purpose other than their political convenience, is scaring those who rely on the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

As I said in my remarks previously, another bill in this package abolishes nation-building funds, which the Labor Party opposes. It is not necessary. The government wants to take the money from those funds and put it into the NDIS. We oppose that.

This is again this government seeking to divide and conquer—divide those Australians, who all support the NDIS, and somehow claim that there's a test: if you don't support abolishing those funds, if you don't support the increase in personal income tax for those earning more than $21,000, somehow you're against the NDIS. That is of course wrong, inappropriate and misleading.

So the Labor Party will oppose these pieces of legislation. When it comes to the consideration in detail, I will move detailed amendments. I have already moved a second reading amendment which goes to this government's wrong priorities and points out that it is simply wrong to increase tax on those earning more than $21,000. We'll oppose the legislation because this government has its priorities wrong, and we have a better alternative plan.

The government did not say to the Australian people at the last election that they would increase tax for those earning more than $21,000. It wasn't in their manifesto. It wasn't in the policy speech. It wasn't a promise they made. They announced it on budget day this year. They're very brave after an election. They could have shown the same willingness to engage with the Australian people about tax that this side of the House has shown.

We've said to the Australian people that we'll reform negative gearing. We've said to the Australian people that we'll reform capital gains tax. We've said we'll keep the deficit levy in place. We've said we will limit tax deductions for managing your tax affairs. We have been clear about our plans. We don't mind fighting an election, more than one election, on our plans, because we want a mandate to do these things.

The government treat the Australian people with contempt. They sneak through their plans. They knew the fiscal situation before the election, but they did not have the honesty that's required with the Australian people. If the government are so committed to increasing the Medicare levy for those who earn more than $21,000, take it to the next election, argue your case, justify your position and see how we go with our competing tax plans. We're more than happy to have our plans out there, announced very early—not snuck in a couple of days before an election but out there very clearly, years in advance of an election—for the Australian people to be aware of, to debate, to analyse and to consider their position on.

Here we have a government which are so committed to reducing corporate tax and committed to increasing personal income tax, shifting the tax burden from one segment of the economy to the other. They can argue that, but be honest about it. Don't spout that you're low tax when you're increasing tax. They're increasing tax on some. We know that they want to reduce corporate tax, and they want to pay for it by increasing the taxes on ordinary Australians earning $21,000. Those are their priorities, and they're entitled to them. They're entitled to that view—but just be honest about it. Say, 'We want to reduce the tax paid by Australia's biggest companies, and to pay for it we're going to increase the tax on Australians who can least afford it.' If that's your view, as warped as it is, at least be honest about it, because that's exactly what's happening, as has been outlined earlier by me in relation to the Parliamentary Budget Office analysis.

We'll oppose these bills. They're the wrong bills. I commend the second reading amendment that I have moved to the House. I'll also, as I said, be moving detailed amendments.

See this speech in context