Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'm happy to get a copy of the amendment from the member for Hume. I'm painting a contrast with what it looked like for the 12 months leading into this. I know it's painful for those on the other side to hear, because they do not want to be reminded of this painful history. They do not want to be reminded of this journey, because not only was there the failed referendum and the release of the detainees; there was the $275 electricity commitment, which was offered on more than 200 occasions, to help struggling families.

We hear nothing but irony from those on the other side about cost-of-living pressures. None of the policies that they've had in the 12 months leading up to this point have done anything to reduce cost-of-living pressures; in fact, I think at last count there had been 13 rate rises from the RBA. We've had higher inflation and a housing crisis. But all this was cast in an environment, before the election, in which Labor said, 'You'll be better off under Labor.' I'm yet to have people walk into my office and say: 'Honourable Scotty Buchholz, you've got it wrong. We are actually much better off under a Labor government.' In fact, one of the things that those on the other side have managed to do, with acute success, is increase the size of the Public Service by 10 per cent.

The polls were tanking, and Christmas couldn't come quickly enough for Labor. Now we get to the point of the changes that happened over the Christmas break. We were told on 13 occasions by the Prime Minister that no changes—not one—were going to be made to the stage 3 tax cuts. They weren't considering it. It wasn't part of the plan. But because last year finished on such a low—and the data is there, with the polls, to suggest where things were going—Labor, to their credit, regrouped very swiftly and effectively. They made the changes to the stage 3 tax cuts, which should now be referred to as 'stage 2.2', and said: 'What we need to do is get back to Canberra a couple of weeks before everyone else and give the illusion that we have spoken through this process and are going to deliver everyone greater tax cuts. But we have one small hurdle to overcome. We've got a situation where the Prime Minister came out and said, "My word is my bond, and we will not be moving on any changes."' History will reward those comments as it has other comments.

One of the problems in making these changes to the stage 3 tax cuts is that the tax cuts were already legislated. Stage 1 were delivered, stage 2 were delivered and stage 3 were in place. Predominantly, they were just getting rid of one of the tax brackets—I think it was 39c in the dollar—to address bracket creep for those Australians who were aspirational. As a consequence of this change—or backflip or broken promise—the Australian Labor Party have taken the Australian public for mugs. The Australian public are not stupid, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Australian public will not forget this broken promise. When it comes to the cost-of-living narrative, which is front and centre, if they were really serious about addressing cost-of-living pressures here, why are the Australian Labor Party leaving it 16 weeks to bring it into effect? It could be brought in right now. So don't mix the narratives up.

Before we came back from Christmas, they had the meeting with the statisticians and those from the Labor think tank and said: 'Right, we've got to do something a little bit different. I'll tell you what we'll do. I rang someone from the department back on 11 December and asked them to start rejigging the stage 3 tax cuts, so we've actually already got a plan. We just need you to rubber-stamp it for the two weeks when we bring everyone back.' The great thing about this lady who has done all of the work out of the department is she has also written other about negative gearing, about death tax—that might be called something different—and about franking credits. So when you get an iron-clad guarantee that nothing is going to change under Labor, from this point on, it will be very difficult to take them at face value.

But no doubt the Australian public will get a sugar hit from the immediate effects of this because that's what was intended to do, and we welcome that. But when you start dabbling with the Robin Hood tax—a tax that takes money from someone and gives to the others—there are two groups of people in that scenario: there are those who receive the money, who will be happy, and those who it has been taken from, or those whose benefit has been shrunk, who will not be as happy. You just have to wait until tax time to work out on which ledger, in which pile, you will be.

Let me remind the House what happens to prime ministers when you attack the aspirant and take money from the aspirant. In this place, we make rules; we legislate. One of those is the tobacco tax. We increase taxes as a vehicle to change your behaviour. We increase taxes on cigarettes to stop you from smoking. There are health benefits that go with not smoking. So when you remove the words 'tobacco tax' and you insert a tax that disincentivises people to go and be successful, when it disincentivises people to be aspirant, when it disincentivises those people to go and earn and be on the top tax bracket, it is suggesting that they don't encourage people in Australia to be successful and that's a shame.

I can tell you what happens to prime ministers who break promises. I have been fortunate enough to be here for 14 years and I remember what happened in the parliament to Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who was a good prime minister, before an election. She made the fatal mistake before the election of saying, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' Then, with the rigours of this place and a deal that was done with the crossbenches, under her leadership, a carbon tax was introduced. Track where the polling went for Prime Minister Gillard afterwards, when the pressures of leadership came from the other side. When you tie that scenario with 'my word is my bond', all I can suggest to the Australian public is watch this space when it comes to a revolving door of leadership in this place. 'My word is my bond' will be a slow burn for the Australian people.

As I have outlined, the Australia public will feel the sugar hit but it will come and go, and it will go because the sugar hit they get from the tax will be offset by the extra tax tariffs every time they fill their car. If you duck down to the pub with a few of your mates to catch up with a beer, you will pay for it through a glass of beer. Just those two alone offset the benefit of this tax that is coming in. Evidence of that is that this brings forward a $28.2 billion saving as opposed to the stage 3.

We will be supporting this tax because we understand the cost-of-living pressures on the Australian public at the moment. We are disappointed that it's taken so long to bring it in. We would love to have seen it introduced earlier. But at the end of the day, for those other taxes that Labor have said that they won't introduce into this place, I will just remind Australians how many promises we have seen those from the other side consistently broken. On 200 different occasions Labor said you were was supposed to get a $275 electricity boost—didn't happen. The list goes on and on and on and on—'my word is my bond'.

See this speech in context