Rick Wilson (O'Connor, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Trade) | Hansard source

I thank the member for Makin, who raised a couple of points that I'll touch on at the start. Firstly, he mentioned the low- and middle-income tax offset, which, yes, was a temporary measure that was brought in by the previous coalition government during times of extreme uncertainty and financial stress for many people in the middle of the COVID pandemic. It did have a sunset clause, but it is up to governments to look at the situation and review whether such sunset clauses are appropriate. Last year, when inflation was running rampant and cost of living was really starting to bite households across the country, all we heard the government talk about was the Voice. We didn't hear them mention the low- and middle-income tax offset once. It would have been a very simple thing for the Treasurer, in his budget, to have a look at the situation and the cost-of-living squeeze that Australian families were under and to extend the low- and middle-income tax offset for an undefined period until we came out at the other side of this current financial crisis. Thank you, Member for Makin, for raising the low- and middle-income tax offset. I don't think it's been aired and ventilated enough during this debate.

I stand today to support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024. It's in my DNA that lower taxes are better for everybody in this nation, whether they be low-income earners or high-income earners. The more money can be left in the pay packets of Australian workers, the better, and I will support that every time.

I would prefer it if the bill had been named the 'stage 3 cost-of-living tax cuts', because that would have reminded people that it was preceded by stage 1 and stage 2, which were part of the overall package. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I recall from the debate back when the initial package was passed that someone on $60,000 a year received, over both stages, around $2,000 additional in their pay packet, reducing their tax burden from around $10,000 to $8,000. On top of that, as I've previously mentioned, they also received the low- and middle-income tax offset during that period of great uncertainty and difficulty during the COVID pandemic. That puts a bit of perspective on this particular debate, where we've come from and where we are today.

We can't discuss this issue and talk about this legislation without looking at the issue of trust. There are 1.3 million Australians who will be worse off after this legislation passes. They had legislated tax cuts they had been looking at for the last five years. They have been thinking: 'Okay, if I go that extra five, 10 yards on buying the house, I will be receiving a significant tax cut on 1 July 2024, so I will factor that into my household budget. I'll factor putting the kid into an independent school. I want to give them the best opportunity.' They did that on the basis that on 1 July 2024 they would receive a tax cut, and that was reassured I think over 100 times by the Prime Minister—that that tax cut would take place. He looked down the barrel of a camera on many occasions and assured those 1.2 million Australians.

Those on the other side don't have a lot of time for people who are earning high-level incomes over $135,000, but the fact is they voted for that legislation five years ago, and those people who were banking on that extra income had every right to believe the Prime Minister. They had every right to think that on 1 July 2024 they would be receiving extra money in their pay packets. Budgets were done around that, plans were made, and today we are debating taking those tax cuts away from them, tax cuts that have been enshrined in legislation for five years now. That is the most egregious broken promise that I have seen in my 10 years in this place.

The Australian people generally cut politicians a bit of slack. They understand that sometimes situations change. But when they have been reassured over 100 times, as recently as the middle of January, that these tax cuts wouldn't be tampered with then the Australian people, not just the 1.3 million people who won't be receiving those tax cuts, generally will take a fairly dim view of that. They will look at the motivation for it. It is all about cost of living now. We are hearing Labor members stand up in question time and in 90-second statements, and it is all about cost of living. Last year it was all about the Voice; we barely heard the phrase 'cost of living' in this place.

The cynics out there, and there are probably a few cynics in here, might think, 'We've got a by-election coming up in Dunkley and perhaps the polling isn't looking all that good.' Perhaps the message was coming through that cost of living was really starting to bite in electorates like Dunkley. So all of a sudden we have a complete backflip on a promise, on a piece of legislation that has been enshrined for the last five years, a few weeks out from a by-election. There are a lot of people out there who are thinking the motivation for this is not quite as altruistic as it might have been made out to be in this place over the last few days. It might be something a little more base—that is, to try to get over the line in Dunkley and save Prime Minister's job.

We have heard a lot about the cost of living and how it is impacting on families and I see that across my electorate. There is no question about that. These tax cuts for the lower and middle-income people will be greatly appreciated. I have no problem with that—good on them—and I'm glad that we can support this legislation. But I also feel that those 1.3 million Australians who had every right to bank on those tax cuts coming through on 1 July have been betrayed. The coalition, while we are supporting these tax cuts, will be taking a tax package to the next election which will deliver lower, simpler and fairer taxes. That is something that the coalition has been committed to since day one of my election.

We need to fight bracket creep. Once again, my friend the member for Makin mentioned bracket creep as if it's something that's a bit too hard: 'It's been part of the landscape for a long time, so let's keep it separate from this particular debate.' But the whole point of the tax package that was voted for by the coalition and the Labor Party—stages 1, 2 and 3—was to deliver tax cuts but also to address bracket creep. Of course, by taking away those stage 3 tax cuts we're back to the old situation when somebody progresses up through the ranks, gets a promotion, works a bit harder, gets a new job that pays a bit better—and for people in my electorate of O'Connor, the mining industry is a great opportunity for people to get into those higher-paying jobs—and hits $135,000 a year. I know people in here say they're filthy-rich people who don't deserve a break, but there are a lot of people in my electorate on that sort of money who are hardworking miners, truck drivers and farmers—people who work really hard and do earn a good quid, and good on 'em; they deserve to keep every cent. They deserve, as they move up through the ranks and earn more money, which everybody aspires to, to keep the bulk of that money, rather than have it taken back through bracket creep.

So 1.8 million taxpayers will be worse off. I have to correct the record; I was using the number 1.3 million. Not only will those 1.8 million be worse off but over the next 10 years there are going to be around 4½ million who will be worse off as this insidious bracket creep takes effect. We've seen the effect of bracket creep on the current government's budget. They talk very proudly of the surplus they've recorded, and I for one think that's a very worthy goal, reducing the budget surplus. But personal income tax receipts have risen by 27 per cent in the past 18 months. That's because there are more people in work than perhaps there historically have been, although they inherited record-low unemployment. But it's also because bracket creep is sneaking up and taking an extra bite of people's pay packet. It's as simple as that. It's a huge amount of money that has come out of the pay packets of Australian people. It's a massive amount of money and it needs to be addressed, and that's what the stage 3 tax cuts are all about.

To go back to the Prime Minister's integrity and whether he can be believed going forward, this is not the first promise he's broken. He made a promise on 93 occasions before the election that there'd be a $275 reduction in energy bills. People are not seeing that. People are questioning whether that was a promise that was given in good faith. He said there'd be an increase in real wages. There hasn't been an increase in real wages. And of course he promised he wouldn't touch the stage 3 tax cuts and, as we've seen, that's another broken promise. But now anybody who's got a negatively geared property or aspires to own a negatively geared property is under the gun. And when the Prime Minister denies that they're going after those people who've got a negatively geared property, who can put any store in his word whatsoever?

I say to those opposite—particularly the Greens, who aren't here—who think that negatively geared rental properties are the plaything of the rich and famous, that rich people don't worry about buying rental properties and having to deal with tenants and so on. For the wage earner, the nurse or the policeman, it's their one opportunity to actually get a bit of wealth over and above their family home, which they are probably paying off a mortgage for, and their super. It's their one chance to make a bit of wealth and set themselves up for retirement. They are the people who invest in rental properties. They're not high-wage earners. They're just people who want to have a go, get ahead, set themselves up for a comfortable retirement and maybe leave something to their kids one day or be able to help their kids out. They are the people who invest in rental properties.

Finally, being a proud Western Australian, I can only reiterate and express my concern about the future of the GST deal. We know that, over here on the east coast, we've got every premier and every economist calling for the end of the GST deal, which the previous finance minister Mattias Corman and treasurer Scott Morrison put in place to rectify—

See this speech in context