Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) | Hansard source

In my time in this place, I do not recall a piece of legislation coming before us that has caused so much indecision and vacillation amongst coalition members. In fact, listening to the speeches—and I've listened to quite a few of them—it's clear that they are all over the place with their response to this legislation. The fact is that this is good legislation. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024 has the support of the majority of Australians. It is good legislation because it is the right thing to do, and members opposite know that. That is why they are in such confusion.

The reality is that coalition members don't really want to support this legislation, but they know they have to because the Australian people would not forgive them if they didn't. They come into the chamber, trying to justify their support on one hand, while on the other hand looking at how they can criticise it. The reality is that this legislation has the support of the Australian people because 84 per cent of Australian taxpayers will be better off under Labor's stage 3 tax cuts. Nearly seven in eight taxpayers will be better off under this legislation. Nine out of 10 women taxpayers will be better off under this legislation. Every taxpayer gets a tax break. That includes those earning less than $45,000, who are probably in the greatest need bracket out there and who would have got nothing under the coalition government's stage 3 tax cuts.

Most importantly, this legislation addresses one of the key features that is debated and discussed in this parliament each and every day, and that is the cost of living, because this legislation provides cost-of-living relief to more families struggling and unable to make ends meet. It goes directly towards addressing one of the issues that we have debated in this place over recent months more than any other. I hear members opposite who come into the chamber and, quite rightly, point out that the cost of living is affecting people in their community. They talk about the hardship that those people are experiencing. But what I don't hear are the solutions for how to deal with those cost-of-living hardships. I simply hear criticism of the government but no meaningful solutions being put on the table.

If they genuinely cared about those people who are doing it tough, perhaps they would come in and propose some solutions and urge the government to take them up or embrace them so that we could, in fact, provide the help that they believe the people out there in the community actually need. It begs the question: if they really don't want to support this legislation—I listened to the last speaker say that there are so many faults with it, that in years to come people will actually be worse off and so on—why are they actually supporting it? Why are they coming into this place and saying, 'We'll support it, but it's terrible legislation'? Really, it's either one or the other. You can't have it both ways.

The reality is that deep down they know that the Albanese government has responded to the needs of the community and is doing the right thing by modifying the stage 3 tax cuts in the way that it has. What it will mean is that it's not only good for individuals but good for the economy more broadly, and that ultimately flows back to more certainty and security for people throughout Australia. If people are going to get a bigger tax break, they will keep more of the money they earn. If people keep more of the money they earn, it is more likely that they will take on more work and do more hours. It is more likely that they will get involved in employment to a much higher level than they otherwise would because they know that they will keep more of what they earn.

I heard the last speaker talk about small business. Can I say I totally accept that small business throughout Australia is so important. It is important to the individual business owners who, in many cases, have invested their life savings. The services they provide are critical to local communities, and throughout the country small business is probably the single biggest employer if viewed as an industry sector. This will be good for small business, because most of the money that is going back in the form of tax breaks will go to people that are in the greatest need—people who will spend that money on goods and services in their local community. That means that it is money that will go directly into the small businesses in and around the communities where these people live. So this legislation is not only good for individuals but also good for small business and the economic results. Once those small businesses do better, they can remain viable too. They will employ more people. As we all know, small businesses are also the greatest supporters of the local community facilities and sports facilities in and around them, so the whole community benefits because of it.

Under the stage 3 tax cuts that were proposed by the previous government, most of the money would have gone to the top end of earners. That means that that money would very likely have been spent in larger amounts on, perhaps, overseas holidays or luxury goods, which don't give that same level of support to the small businesses that those opposite claim they are so concerned about.

We often talk about the cost of living being blamed on or attributed to the inflationary pressures on providers of goods and services—that is, inflation drives up the cost of living. But that is not always the case. From my observations, some providers of goods and services are simply exploiting the cost-of-living narrative and using it as an excuse to jack up their prices. That also applies to local, state and federal governments, who are also increasing their fees and charges. In some places and at some times, they are doing so to an unreasonable level, because they know they can. They don't operate in a competitive environment, and they simply do so because they're able to.

Of course, there are also businesses that engage in price-gouging. Again, we've heard plenty of comment about that. Can I say it is not just the two major supermarket chains that are doing that; it is happening across the board in so many different areas. I refer to airlines—I'm sure every member in this place will be able to understand where I'm going with this—where airline prices, at times, have been absolutely exorbitant and unnecessarily so. We're seeing it in the banks. I saw today that one of the largest major banks, the CBA, has suggested that its profits will only be some $5 billion. All of the four major banks made record profits last year, yet their fees and charges don't ever seem to come down, nor do their interest charges when the Reserve Bank cash rate moves. They are very quick to put it up but not so quick to bring it back down. They're still making huge profits whilst they cut their services and increase their charges.

Energy retailers are doing exactly the same. We also see it with medical professionals, and consultants and professionals in other areas. They know that people are perhaps in a corner, with no option but to use their service, and they just charge whatever they like. Unfortunately, whether it's someone who's trapped because they have a medical problem and have to see a specialist of some sort or whether it's someone caught up in a bank loan, sometimes people have nowhere else to go and have to wear the unnecessarily high charges that are imposed on them.

We also know that inequality in this country is increasing and has been over the last decade or so. I want to quote from a media release about an Oxfam report from January 2023. I know it is one year old, but the trend in the statistics pretty much explains what is happening right now. The report highlights how the superrich are getting richer at the expense of the world's poor. I'll quote from the release, because there are two or three sentences in it that I think sum up how the world is travelling and show how here in Australia we are falling back even further than other countries with respect to inequality. It says:

The richest 1 percent grabbed nearly two-thirds of all new wealth—

that is, $42 trillion—

created since 2020—

only a two-year period—

almost twice as much money as the bottom 99 percent of the world's population

That's one of Oxfam's statements. They also say:

During the past decade, the richest 1 percent had captured around half of all new wealth.

The third quote is:

The report shows that 95 food and energy corporations have more than doubled their profits in 2022.

The last quote, which I believe is the critical one relating to this legislation and inflation more broadly, is:

Excess corporate profits have driven at least half of inflation in Australia, the US and the UK.

I'll repeat that: excess corporate profits have driven at least half of inflation in Australia, the US and the UK. The point being made by that quote and by the report is that the inflationary pressures are coming from those people who are price gouging in what they are charging. They are making superprofits whilst people struggle, and governments have to fill the gap by providing different kinds of services in order to help the public they represent.

Another quote from the same release is:

The World Bank says we are likely seeing the biggest increase in global inequality and poverty since WW2.

That trend is equally evident in Australia today. When so much wealth in this country is being pocketed by the top 10 per cent of income earners, whilst less than seven per cent of real per adult economic growth goes to the rest of the people, that is absolutely something to worry about. With respect to what has happened over the last decade, it was members opposite who were in government. It wasn't this side of the House who were in office; it was a coalition government that allowed inequality to grow as it has.

The issue of price gouging is obviously of concern, and there are inquiries taking place right now with respect to groceries and the like. Back in 1973, the Whitlam government brought in the Prices Justification Tribunal. That tribunal was subsequently done away with, but it seems to me that there is a good case for something similar being reinstated in this country. All too often I hear concerns from people across my electorate—and I'm sure other members hear the same—about the price gouging going on across a whole range of areas. There is only one way to fix it, and that is to have a proper commission or tribunal in place with the authority to act when price gouging occurs.

In the time I have left I want to respond briefly to some of points made by opposition speakers with respect to this legislation. One of them is bracket creep. I say to members opposite: bracket creep has always been a part of and a problem with the Australian taxation system, and it is a matter that can and should be addressed separately from this legislation. It has nothing to do with the legislation before us in a direct sense. It is something that certainly is worthy of being discussed, but it can be addressed separately. Members talk about bracket creep and the difference it will make in 10 years time, but there's a lot of water to go under the bridge in the next 10 years. I don't have a crystal ball—and neither does anyone else here—as to what might be the case with respect to the tax that's being paid then.

The other issue is that real wages have fallen, and I've heard members talk about that. Again, what did members opposite do when they were in government to support wage growth in this country? Absolutely nothing. Wages stagnated under their watch. In fact, I have never heard any member opposite come in and talk about increasing and improving wages for workers throughout this country. I've heard them talking about the low-income tax offset that was brought in by their government and how we could have continued it. It was never intended to continue past 2022. Their government brought it in as a short-term measure, and we simply applied that policy when Labor came to office. The last thing I will talk about is aspiration. How insulting is it to suggest that people on low incomes do not have aspiration and that it's only people on high incomes who do?

This is good legislation. It complements other measures that this government has brought in to try and help with cost of living, such as cheaper child care, tripling the GP bulk-billing incentive, cheaper medicines, energy bill relief, rent assistance and so on. It's good legislation. That's why members opposite are supporting it, and that's why the Australian public are supporting it even more strongly.

See this speech in context