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

The Prime Minister, I apologise. Whenever the Prime Minister talks about tax cuts, his policy is to increase tax.

I saw the Prime Minister on Insiders on Sunday. He seemed offended that he could possibly be asked: 'Aren't you putting tax up on the one hand? Won't your taxes need to be so big just to justify what you are taking off?' He seemed surprised to get this question. He was offended to be asked about this. Maybe he needs some help from the minister for revenue. Remember she told us negative gearing was going to send house prices up and down at the same time? Maybe she can help the Prime Minister explain why they are putting taxes up and down at the same time. She could ride to his rescue. She'd do a better job of explaining it than the Prime Minster has done. The fact of the matter is when Australians on an income of $60,000 will be $300 a year worse off that is a tax rise. They can call it a levy, a charge or an imposition—they can call it whatever they like—but they are increasing the personal income tax paid by those Australians.

Again the Prime Minster on the weekend was reminding us that they had actually introduced a tax cut. They had taken the threshold from $80,000 to $87,000. That's true. With our support that was passed through the parliament. That was a tax cut. What that did was give $5.1 billion back to the people who received the tax cut. What does the tax raise that they want to impose, the Medicare levy increase, take off people? They have given back $5.1 billion but want to take from people $8.2 billion over the same period. This just goes to show that whenever the government talk about lowering tax, they are misleading the Australian people because they want to increase tax. That's what they want to do.

The government don't believe in lower taxes; they believe in different taxes. They believe in taxing different people in a different way. They believe in a tax cut for high-income earners. I concede that point. I give them that. They do believe that somebody earning more than $180,000 a year needs a tax cut. That's what they delivered. They were happy to take the deficit levy off people who earn more than $180,000 a year, despite the fact that we are still in deficit. The situation is worse than when the deficit levy was put on and was projected to be, yet they've gotten rid of the one measure in the 2014 budget that actually impacted on high-income earners. They still believe in everything else. They still believe in everything that impacts on low-income earners and pensioners. They have gotten rid of the one measure that applied to people who earn over $180,000.

Of course, they got their $65 billion a year corporate tax cut, which they believe will trickle down. They say: 'Don't worry about penalty rates. Don't worry about the fact that average weekly earnings are going backwards. Don't worry about the fact that energy costs and health costs are going up. Don't worry about the fact that private health insurance premiums are increasing. Don't worry about the cost of living, because we have a plan.' The Prime Minister says: 'It's going to trickle down to you eventually, one day. In 20 years time you'll get some of that benefit from the corporate tax cut.'

The Australian people are awake to that. They know that there's a better idea. Maybe a better idea is not to cut penalty rates. Maybe a better idea is not to increase the tax on people who earn between $21,000 a year and $87,000 a year. These are people doing it tough. Maybe that's a better plan. Maybe a better plan is to actually deal with the private health insurance premium increases in a sensible way, like the Labor Party has suggested. Maybe a better plan, instead of talking about tax cuts, instead of trotting out the rhetoric at every opportunity and instead of treating the Australian people with such contempt and with such disdain, is to actually not increase their tax in the first place.

The Prime Minister would have more credibility when he talks about a personal income tax cut if he wasn't increasing personal income tax, because that is exactly what his policy is. He would pass it tomorrow if he could. He would pass it through the Senate tomorrow if he could. It's stuck in the Senate. Do you know why? Because this side of the House will not let him do it. This side of the House will stand up for those Australians earning between $21,000 and $87,000 a year and will block that tax rise with the support of other senators. There is one thing standing between the Prime Minister and a tax rise on those Australians who earn $21,000 a year and that is us. That's the only thing stopping the government doing it. You don't need to take my word for it. It is government policy. It's there in the budget. It's all laid out. They believe in increasing personal income tax. So every time they talk about a personal tax cut, they are being fundamentally dishonest. They are treating the Australian people with contempt.

We welcome this debate. We'll debate tax anywhere the Treasurer likes. We'll debate tax anywhere the Prime Minister likes. We'll debate it in this chamber; we'll debate it in the other chamber; we'll debate it at the National Press Club; we'll debate it in town halls in regional Australia, because we have better plans. We actually understand the cost-of-living pressures on ordinary Australians. We don't say, 'Don't worry; it'll trickle down to you some day.' We don't say, 'Look after the top end of town, and the rest will be okay.' We say that those Australians who are working hard on weekends in cafes and in hospitals deserve not to have their wages cut, and they don't deserve a tax rise—both of those things that this Prime Minister wants to give them. The minister at the table is responsible for penalty rates. He should say to his electorate why he supports people in his electorate—and every other Australian who does so as well—being paid less when they work on the weekend, and why he is supporting increasing their tax at the same time. (Time expired)

See this speech in context