Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

The minister at the table's talking about tax reform. I remember when everything was on the table, but suddenly it's not, hey?

Mr Fletcher interjecting—

The—I don't know, what are you? The communications minister is now badmouthing Cate Blanchett, one of our most distinguished Australians. That's a proud moment for you. Good on you.

We had the 2020 summit that first brought this onto the national agenda. We had the work of the member for Maribyrnong, the then parliamentary secretary for disabilities, who did a very widespread consultation. We had the member for Jagajaga designing, implementing and doing the patient policy work of getting this to the stage where every Australian could expect to be supported in reaching their full potential by being given—not meted or doled out access to the services that they relied on to fully participate in society and the economy, but whatever they needed to reach their full potential, to meet their dreams. Without their patient policy work—the member for Maribyrnong, the member for Jagajaga—and the commitment of the then Treasurer, the member for Lilley, to funding this extraordinary program and the leadership first of Prime Minister Rudd and then of Prime Minister Gillard bringing this home, we would not see this scheme today. It's very important to acknowledge the contributions of all of those people in the development of this magnificent scheme.

But the truth is, you know, that these bills that we are discussing today are not before us because the NDIS needs them. These funding cuts, these savings, these tax increases are before us because of the economic incompetence—the utter and absolute economic incompetence—of those opposite. Do you remember when those opposite used to talk about the debt and deficit disaster? Well, since those opposite have come to government, they have managed to triple the deficit. Then Treasurer Hockey did a deal with the Greens to get rid of the debt cap, and we now have gross government debt past half a trillion dollars.

How proud those opposite must be, having finally addressed the debt and deficit disaster that they spoke so movingly and so tellingly about during the election campaign that I recall in 2010. It is incredible seeing those opposite facing ever-increasing debt and deficit, and what is their response to ever-increasing debt and deficit? A $65 billion big business tax cut and a $19 billion tax cut for those on incomes of over $180,000 a year. I can tell you how you can deal with debt and deficit without slugging ordinary Australians. How about we give up on $65 billion of big business tax cuts, mostly going to multinational companies? How about giving up on the $19 billion of tax cuts going entirely to people on incomes above $180,000 a year? How about we do something about negative gearing and capital gains tax to save $37 billion a year instead of holding people who are hanging out for the National Disability Insurance Scheme to ransom with these rancid bills?

This legislation is here because this government thinks that giving a $65 billion big business tax cut is more important than properly funding the NDIS or protecting ordinary Australians from the sorts of tax increases that are before us. Our alternative proposal protects seven million Australian taxpayers from the Medicare levy increase. Our alternative policy raises more money more fairly by retaining the deficit levy and by applying the increased Medicare levy only to those in the top two tax brackets. This is supported by independent modelling from ANU's Centre for Social Research and Methods which shows that twice as many households will be worse off under the Turnbull government's policy and that our approach will raise $300 million more over the forward estimates and $6.8 billion more over 10 years. By taking this approach we protect Australians on low and middle incomes and we place the greater burden on those who have the greatest capacity to pay.

The tax hikes and cuts in these bills form the centrepiece of the unfair 2007 budget. That budget also included increases in university fees and lowering the HELP repayment threshold to $42,000 a year so that Australian students would pay more for poorer quality education and would repay fees sooner. Budget analysis published in The Sydney Morning Herald showed that for a couple renting, where one partner had left uni and the other was still studying, the effective marginal tax rate is over 97 per cent once they clear an income of just $37,000. That's what those opposite are talking about. They're super keen to give a tax cut to those on incomes above $180,000 a year, but, if you're a couple on $37,000 a year, their measures would see an effective marginal tax rate of 97 per cent.

The member for Petrie talked about people on $180,000 a year—the smallest violin in the world, and worrying about them and the tax they pay. He said it was on their whole income. I presume he knows that it's only on the share above $180,000 a year. But he's not worried about the couple on $37,000 a year. He's not worried about the analysis that was done by the National Foundation for Australian Women that found that women on around $50,000 a year would face an effective marginal tax rate of more than 100 per cent out of the 2017 budget. A woman graduate who works and earns $51,000 a year, relies on child care and receives family payments would actually have less disposable income than a man on $32,000 a year. We hear so much from the Prime Minister about how he and Lucy believe that women hold up half the sky. Well, they don't get half the tax benefits when the government is thinking about making tax changes, do they? They don't get anywhere close to half of the tax benefits.

We know that increasing inequality in this country is a problem. I'm actually gobsmacked that every now and again the Treasurer says, 'Yes, the real problem is that wages aren't growing,' and he is actually right about one thing. The trouble is that everything that he and this government are doing is exacerbating the problem of stagnant wages growth, leading to greater inequality in our country.

The collapse in aggregate demand that is the result of stagnating wages growth is a problem for us all. Those opposite say the solution is trickle-down economics and, if only we put our faith once again in trickle-down economics, we will fix this problem. We say that instead we should restrict negative gearing to newly constructed homes, remove the capital gains tax subsidy on housing, tax at a minimum of 30 per cent family trusts that are used primarily as tax minimisation vehicles, redress the imbalance in the industrial relations system to restore a bit of power to those who are bargaining for greater pay, crack down on multinational profit shifting and reverse the cuts to penalty rates. These are the sorts of measures we should be taking to strengthen our economy.

I'll finish with this. Trying to get rid of the Education Investment Fund is so short-sighted. Those opposite have tried before to do this, and they have turned their backs on the excellent projects that have been funded out of the Education Investment Fund. They tried to do it in the 2014 budget. We fought them off. We will fight them off again because the sorts of projects that were funded through this when the government was still spending money from it were extraordinary. I tell you what: a heap of them were in National Party-held seats, and it is extraordinary that not just the Liberals are turning their back on the investment in higher education but those National Party members who have seen the benefits in their electorates are turning their back on this spending too.

See this speech in context