Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party, Minister for Revenue and Financial Services) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Boothby for her question. She backs hardworking, aspirational Australians and she does that because she supports a tax system that will see them rewarded for their hard work and effort and will see them able to keep even more of their hard-earned income. Under our government's tax plan, 94 per cent of those people who are out there earning money will pay no more than 32½c in the dollar when our plan is fully implemented.

I have noticed that there are those opposite who love to talk a lot about equity. I know it's not convenient for those opposite, but under the government's plan those who are in the top tax bracket will pay a higher share of taxes than they do now. Yet, when Labor thinks about equity and when they think about retirees, what do they do? They decide instead to implement a mega retiree tax, and it is aimed at precisely those people who can least afford it.

Under their cash grab—and let me just give an example—Joan, a self-funded retiree who earns a very modest $20,000 a year, including $9,800 in cash dividends and $4,200 worth of franking credits from her shares, will see, under their mega retiree tax, every single one of her credits ripped off her. It is courtesy of you-know-who—the Leader of the Opposition. Let's contrast that with William. William is a very high income earner; perhaps he's a union boss. He earns around $250,000 a year. He has exactly the same dividends from holding exactly the same set of shares in the exact same company as Joan does. He gets the exact same franking credits. But is William going to be able to keep those franking credits? Of course he is. He's able to utilise that. This mega retiree tax is not aimed at the top end of town. He does not lose a single thing; whereas Joan loses every single cent.

Mr Keogh interjecting—

See this speech in context