Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Citizenship, Customs and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I want to contrast the government's budget with the opposition's chaos and cuts. This is a responsible budget. It's focused on relief now, resilience for the country in the face of global shocks and reform to set us up for success in the future, particularly for the next generation. It's a tough environment globally and for many in Australia. The conflict in the Middle East is weighing heavily on our economy and compounding the cost-of-living pressures experienced by too many Australians. The budget is about delivering more cost-of-living help and building a more productive economy, a better tax system and a fairer housing market with a stronger and more sustainable budget.

I'll just summarise some of the ways the budget is helping with the cost of living. First is tax cuts. There are now five different ways that the Labor government is cutting income taxes. That contrasts with the Liberals, who took tax rises to the last election. Then they made the shadow treasurer, the bloke who was the genius mastermind of that little escapade, their leader. This budget sees rolling out legislated tax cuts for every Australian taxpayer this year and next year, delivering new and permanent income tax cuts for every Australian worker with the $250 working Australians tax offset, along with the $1,000 instant tax deduction for workers and small businesses.

The working Australian tax offset is really important to understand. Yes, I get it. It's only 250 bucks now, but what it does is set up an architecture in the tax system for the first time to be able to target tax cuts now and in the future to those who go to work for a living—a tax cut directed specifically at workers. It is part of the big overarching theme of more fairly balancing the taxation in this country between income earnt from work, from labour, and income earnt, quite legitimately, from other sources—investments and capital gains and so on.

We're increasing the Medicare low income thresholds, reforming the tax system to support 75,000 more homeowners into the housing market and investing an extra $2 billion for that enabling infrastructure to support up to 65,000 more homes to be built. Fundamentally, the housing crisis is a supply problem that's built up over generations. Australia has not been building enough houses. This takes the Homes for Australia plan to over $47 billion invested, as well as securing social housing for more than 4,000 eligible young people at risk of homelessness, with $59 million more for the states and territories. We're halving the fuel excise, reducing the heavy vehicle road user charge to zero for three months and doubling penalties for breaches of major consumer laws.

In health, we're making health care more accessible and affordable. A big one for our area—my and other electorates in south-east Melbourne—is making Medicare urgent care clinics a permanent part of Australia's health system and Medicare system. The clinics in Narre Warren and Dandenong will now be permanent, making medicines cheaper and making major investments in public hospitals. At the same time that we're making these critical investments in supporting people now, setting the country up with fuel security plans and made-in-Australia plans for resilience in the face of global shocks and helping the next generation get into the housing market—75,000 more Australians will be able to buy their own home with these changes—we're building a stronger budget with lower deficits and less debt to help take pressure off inflation and interest rates, therefore, and build our fiscal buffers during global uncertainty.

Strong fiscal discipline is even more important at a time of heightened global uncertainty, and that's exactly what this budget delivers. They don't like to hear it on the other side, but responsible economic and fiscal management has been a defining feature of this government in every budget. The truth is, from when the government was elected four years ago, debt is in a better place. It's lower, deficits are lower and the debt-to-GDP ratio is lower. The fact is—and you can see it in the budget papers in black and white—the budget is in far, far better shape than the mess that the Liberals left behind. Decisions in this budget mean that we are saving more than we're spending compared to the mid-year update just six months ago. The budget bottom line is $45 billion better off over the forwards compared to the mid-year update six months ago. This is more than a quarter of a trillion dollars better than what the coalition left behind.

I'd contrast that with the opposition leader's budget reply speech. It should have been delivered by Sussan Ley. They knifed her. She didn't even get a chance to deliver a budget reply speech. Instead, what we got was this weird, angry magic-pudding grab bag of uncosted thought bubbles and massive cuts outlined but with no costings and no detail. This, of course, was the genius mob, the Liberals, who took tax rises to the last election. In its own way it was as dystopian as Peter Dutton's last effort, but for a different reason. It wasn't designed to scare people before an election, which was his tactic. It was a blind-panic response and a flawed effort to out-Pauline Pauline. It was a giant dog whistle to One Nation.

On migration, it's a fact that the government inherited in 2022 a set of policies on migration that saw migration rise soon after that election to unsustainable highs. Some of that was because the borders reopened post COVID and people came in. Some of it was because we had the lowest average unemployment for 50 years and fewer people left because the labour market was so strong. But some of it was because of rorts in the migration system, and we've made tough decisions to tighten its integrity. Because of the government's work, net overseas migration has fallen by more than 45 per cent since the peak that we inherited soon after the election, and it will fall further.

But there was this giant dog whistle. I want to talk about this because it affects people in your electorate, Deputy Speaker Fernando, and in mine and right across the country. It was their plan to cut benefits from permanent residents of Australia. I'll quote the opposition leader:

Tonight, I announce that a coalition government will reserve the NDIS and 17 different welfare programs, including JobSeeker, Youth Allowance and the family tax benefit, for Australian citizens only, and save taxpayers billions.

There's no doubt that, instinctively, that is popular. The picture they're painting is of all these nasty migrants coming into the country to get benefits. Temporary residents of Australia do not get benefits, to be very clear. Let's understand the proposal of the Liberals to cut 17 payments from permanent residents of the country. That includes family payments, the age pension, youth allowance, parent payments and carers' payments. I quote the opposition leader:

… if you don't want to become a citizen, there's a price you pay for that.

Let's understand this. Who are the permanent residents of our country? Who are these noncitizens the Liberals want to go after? They're doctors, builders, nurses, teachers, aged-care workers, volunteers down at the footy club, your co-workers and valued community members. Overwhelmingly, these permanent residents of Australia have lived here for years or, in some cases, decades or just about their entire lives. They pay taxes—billions of dollars in taxes. They contribute to the country. There are over 150,000 of them. They're parents, partners and children of Australians. There are over 600,000 Kiwis who've been living in this country for years or decades, working and paying taxes. For all intents and purposes, they consider themselves Australian. As I said, many of these permanent residents are married to Australians. They're the children of Australians. They're the parents of Australian citizens. They live in the same households.

There are lots of reasons that people who are permanent residents have not become Australian citizens. They might be waiting for one more year till they're eligible. They might not have got around to it. Yes, there's a cohort there. There are also those who have the very difficult choice that, when they become a citizen, they'll lose their ancestral country citizenship. For most people in the modern world, they can become an Australian citizen and remain a citizen of another country, just like Australians can when they go to other countries and marry and fall in love. But there are many who can't. They have to make a choice. That choice means that they can no longer own their ancestral property. For example, in your home country of Sri Lanka, you have Singaporean-Chinese heritage, many family members consciously make a choice for decades that one half of the couple, the husband or the wife, will be an Australian citizen with the kids and the other will maintain an ancestral home country citizen, because that's how they can own their mum's property they might have owned for generations. That's so they can come and go efficiently to care for their ageing parents. That's so they can operate businesses that create jobs and national wealth in Australia. These are deliberate choices. But since this budget reply, the news has spread that the Liberals will take family payments and pensions away from permanent residents of Australia.

My office has had numerous inquiries in the last two weeks from people worried about their family situation. They've been asking about applying for Australian citizenship. I'm a minister in the Home Affairs department. We are prepared for a surge in citizenship applications now. If that's what people want to do, we'll meet that. I welcome permanent residents of the country applying for citizenship. Applying for citizenship is a welcome act of patriotism to me. It's not something to be made ever more difficult and demonised, as those opposite or many on their extreme fringe do. I want people to confirm their commitment to their country, the place that is already their home, and in often cases for decades. Deputy Speaker Fernando, you do citizenship ceremonies with me. One of the questions I often ask when we do a bit of a hands-up is: how long have you lived here? I find people who've lived here for 60, 65, 70 years—one bloke, after 72 years, finally got around to it. There was no reason. It took him a while to do the paperwork. There you go. They've paid taxes. They've worked here. They're good Australians in every other respect.

As Home Affairs is prepared for a surge in citizenship applications, I've heard from New Zealanders, from Kiwis, and, frankly, I can't tell them not to apply for citizenship. I'd encourage them to apply for citizenship. And, frankly, in many respects, they'd be mad not to. If the Liberal Party wants to come after their family payments and their pensions, then, yes, it's a very rational thing to get on the website and apply for citizenship. If Australians of Indian heritage want to apply for citizenship because they're eligible, they're paying tax, they're contributing and their kids are Australian citizens, then that's a difficult choice because it means they can no longer travel to and from their home country, their ancestral country, as easily to see parents and family. But that's a choice I think tens of thousands of people will make in the coming months to make sure they're safe.

I read the words that the Liberal opposition leader said in his budget reply speech—not the spin and the clean-up they're trying to put out there. I'd also observe that there are no costings to this policy. There's no detail. It's a dog whistle to One Nation and a thought bubble. To be very clear, there are already 10-year waiting periods for a non-citizen or a citizen to collect an Australian pension when you move here. There are already waiting periods of many, many years before you're eligible for any of these things. Overwhelmingly, permanent residents aren't even eligible for the first few years, and they can become citizens. There are not billions of dollars of savings in this. That's why they won't put out a costed policy. This is a giant dog whistle.

But if Australians of Chinese heritage are worried about losing their family payments and their pensions, then, yes, apply for citizenship. Frankly, that's what we're expecting to happen. The first Sri Lankan born member of the Australian parliament grew up in my electorate. Deputy Speaker Fernando, you taught yourself English. I know your story. If your community and your aunties and uncles are worried about losing their benefits when they've paid taxes in Australia for decades, then, yes, they'd be mad not to apply for citizenship. And, frankly, I think that's what's going to happen in the coming weeks and months. Any permanent resident of Australia eligible to apply for citizenship would be mad not to consider applying now to protect themselves and their family.

I'll finish on this point. Permanent residents have often spent decades in Australia paying taxes and making contributions. They're part of every facet of Australian life. Many of them are just our future citizens. The idea that you take family payments away from a family when the kids are Australian citizens is just ridiculous. It pushes children into poverty.

See this speech in context