Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) | Hansard source

The coalition—indeed! Thank you, Member for Moreton. The biggest frauds opposite are actually the National Party MPs who represent some of the poorest, most disadvantaged electorates in the country. Their voters—their electors—will overwhelmingly be better off under Labor's tax plan than the one they've been advocating. But there is no magic bullet to the cost-of-living pressures people across the country are under. Labor's tax cuts come alongside our cost-of-living relief—cheaper child care, cheaper medicines, energy price relief, the biggest increase to rent assistance in decades, more Medicare bulk-billing, expansion of paid parental leave and a boost in income support payments for the most vulnerable in the community. The tax cuts complement those measures by allowing people to keep more of what they earn.

Cost of living is about money in, money out. Unlike those opposite, the government has an explicit agenda to get wages moving. We've finally had some good data on that. Wages are growing at their fastest rate for 15 years. We've had two consecutive quarters of real wage growth. Of course, the decade of decay and dysfunction and division of those opposite—the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison horror show—saw real wages in this country go backwards. And they can't blame COVID. Real wages were going backwards even before COVID on their watch. It was part of their deliberate design feature of economic management, as Mathias Cormann, the former finance minister, admitted in a rare moment of honesty on a television interview, where he said, 'Well, of course, low wages are part of our deliberate design feature of what we try and do.'

We have the opposite philosophy. The Labor Party wants to see people earn more and keep more of what they earn, and that's what these tax cuts are about. Importantly, though, they're not inflationary. Without a doubt, inflation is the central economic challenge the country has faced last year and this year. Inflation—when prices rise faster than wages—hurts low- and middle-income earners the most. Anyone with a sense of economic history who is old enough to remember what has happened to other countries around the world, who is old enough to remember the crises in decades past, knows that tackling inflation and getting inflation under control has to be the central focus of any government. If it isn't then we see more interest rate rises. The government has to carefully design tax cuts, carefully design cost-of living-relief, so as not to make the problem worse.

But the right thing to do when your country faces economic circumstances is to change your economic policy settings and that is what we on this side are doing with these redesigned tax cuts. The right thing to do is not to sit around and wring your hands and say, 'People are doing it really tough. That's bad, isn't it? I wonder what will happen?' or 'I don't know; we will give ourselves a $9,000 tax cut—which is what the Liberals' wanted; that was their proposal—while everyone else gets nothing.' That is not on. These tax cuts are good for workers, they are good for families and they are good for the economy.

But it is important to reflect. We have put our case. Overwhelmingly, the feedback from my community and across the country is Australians support Labor's tax cuts. Why all the screeching and shouting from those opposite over the last few weeks? It has been truly bizarre. It has revealed what a confused rabble they really are, if you didn't see it on television over the last couple of weeks on Nemesis. It is absolutely clear from everything they have said that the Liberal and National parties want to vote against tax cuts for low- and middle-income earners.

I will read the quotes. The shadow Treasurer said: 'Of course, we are going to try and stop it. A move away from the stage 3 tax cuts will not be something we can support.' Their Churchillian deputy leader said: 'When this legislation hits the parliament, we will fight it. We will fight it all the way. I am digging in along with my colleagues and our leader, Peter Dutton, to fight this really hard. We will fight this legislation through both the House of Representatives and the Senate. We're not prepared to give up on this.' Well, that lasted a day. Her position was her commitment to rolling back tax cuts. That was absolutely her position. The opposition finally had a policy. It was to raise taxes on 84 per cent of Australians. That was their brilliant genius policy they were going to take to the next election. That lasted a couple of days. Senator Canavan said, 'I don't support the government's change and broken promises on tax.' Then their leader, Mr Dutton, intervened to try and referee the family fight. He said they wouldn't oppose Labor's tax cuts.

It is clear as mud because over last week the shadow Treasurer was interviewed by Natalie Barr. She asked him, 'Do you want more support for the lower end?' The shadow Treasurer said 'No'. David Speers asked him, 'You promised to keep these stage 3 tax cuts, of course, and now you are supporting their changes?' The shadow Treasurer said, 'No, we're not.'

The opposition's position is incoherent, inconsistent and a shambles. This debate has revealed them as frauds. They love to say, 'Tax cuts are in our DNA.' It is part of their brand schtick and propaganda. The only problem with that is these inconvenient things called facts and economic data. The two highest-taxing governments, certainly while I have been alive—50 years—in decades have been: No. 1, John Howard and, No. 2, the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments as a percentage of tax to GDP ratio. That is the accepted measure. On any measure, when you look at it, Labor is a lower taxing party of government, and these tax cuts under Labor are fairer and better for the economy. The last time the top tax threshold was actually raised was under prime ministers Rudd and Gillard.

The first instinct of those opposite is always to oppose tax cuts and cost-of-living relief for low- and middle-income earners whilst trying to give themselves a $9,000 tax cut. It is the fundamental core point of the Liberal Party, isn't it, when you go right back through Australian political history, to protect people who have the most in society, whether that is wealth or income. If anyone is confused by this, watch what they shriek the loudest on. They shriek the loudest when you try and look after low- and middle-income earners and they shriek the loudest when you change laws to try and give workers a better deal; that's what really triggers them.

Another reason why they should support Labor's tax cuts is because they will overwhelmingly benefit women. This is a really important point. Labor's tax cuts will put more money back in the pockets of Australian women. In particular, they're good for the economy because, as the Treasury analysis shows, in cutting the 19 per cent tax rate to 16 per cent they provide a greater incentive for people, particularly part-time workers, who are overwhelmingly women, to pick up an extra few hours or an extra shift. The estimate is that there will be hundreds of thousands more hours worked in the economy because of the tax cuts. They're good for the economy, good for labour force participation, allowing people to keep more of what they earn.

Under Labor's plan, women taxpayers will, on average, receive a tax cut of $1,649 from 1 July. For 90 per cent of Australian women, that's bigger than under the Morrison government's plan. Childcare workers, disability carers and aged-care workers are some of those most likely to benefit, with more than 95 per cent of those taxpayers to receive a bigger tax cut than under the Liberals' plan. The government has done the gender analysis. As I said, it's overwhelmingly women who are in part-time and lower paid professions. A childcare worker in Dandenong, a receptionist in Noble Park North, registered nurses in Doveton, an office clerk in Eumemmerring, an office manager living in Narre Warren, a primary school teacher from Narre Warren North, an aged and disability carer from Berwick, an accounting clerk from Endeavour Hills, a nurse or personal care worker living in Hallam, a check-out operator living in Dandenong North, a general administrator living in Lysterfield South—all of these workers, overwhelmingly women, will be better off under Labor's plan. It's better for the economy and the labour market than the Liberals' plan.

My best advice to those opposite—free advice, take it or leave it, and as I say this I reflect that there are no women on the other side of the chamber; we have at the table the Minister for Early Childhood Education and Minister for Youth, the member for Cowan—is to stop the equivocating and back Labor's tax cuts. They're good for the economy, good for every taxpayer and especially good for women. This is so important, because we know those opposite have a problem with women. Their Senate leader—not some baked, has-been leftover but the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, one of their big four—went on the television this week and said, 'Looking back, I can see that the absence of women, other than Julie Bishop, in the cabinet at the time, and the commentary around that, was a symptom of problems that were to come to dog us more fundamentally in an electoral sense in years to come, and to this very day.' 'In an electoral sense'—it's actually always about the politics, not about diversity in decision-making or having all views represented at the cabinet table.

Senator Reynolds, who's still there, though she's announced she'll be retiring at the next election—to spend more time with family or spend more time with the lawyers, who knows?—said:

I think it said to all of us that women weren't really valued enough to be selected into the ministry, and in particular into cabinet.

It certainly didn't send the right message.

But perhaps the most astounding thing was that Australia's former top public servant, Martin Parkinson AC, who was the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—

See this speech in context