Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) | Hansard source

Well, certainly a misrepresentation.

I took some time to look at alternative ways we could describe the changed position of the government on these tax policies. I'll run through them. You could be excused for using words like 'falsehood'. They were untruths. They were—I think this is generous—inaccuracies. It was a misrepresentation, a fabrication, a distortion, misinformation, an incorrect statement, a misstatement, deception, a misleading statement, a departure from the truth, not accurate, not correct, at odds with the facts, inconsistent with the truth, lacking accuracy, a contestable claim, a questionable assertion, a dishonest claim, a false assertion, a plainly untrue statement, a patent falsehood, a gross mischaracterisation, intentional distortion, reckless disregard for the truth, egregious inaccuracy and an extraordinary misstatement. It just doesn't stack up. It doesn't hold water. It's not supported by the facts. It's simply not true, demonstrably false, clearly inaccurate, factually wrong, widely contradicted, easily disproven, an unsustainable claim, a broken promise, a reversal of position, a contradiction of previous statements, a backflip, a complete departure from earlier commitments, a rewriting of history, a convenient reinterpretation and a failure to be upfront. Most importantly, it's a breach of trust.

Australians have a right to believe it when their Prime Minister stands up and says, 'I am not going to do X, Y and Z; I am not going to change the laws in relation to capital gains tax, negative gearing, the taxation of trusts or superannuation.' Australians have a reasonable expectation that those promises will be kept, and they were not. The Australians I spoke to at the Maleny Show are not just disappointed in this government; they are palpably ropeable. No-one voted for these toxic taxes. Bill Shorten at least had the courage to take these policies to a general election. This government, despite having made those representations that it would not make these changes, has done exactly that. I think Australians have every right to feel deceived.

The bill itself in schedule 1 introduces changes to the capital gains tax regime. Schedule 2 introduces changes to the negative gearing regime. Schedule 3 introduces the working Australians tax offset. Schedule 4 introduces the $1,000 standard deduction for work related expenses. The coalition opposes schedules 1 and 2, and we will fight these steps every single step of the way. If this government had any sincerity, ethics or moral clarity whatsoever, it would split schedules 1 and 2 from schedules 3 and 4.

We would like to support schedules 3 and 4. We in the coalition believe in lower taxes. We don't believe in the government's $77 billion worth of additional taxes. The government and the Prime Minister crow about this working Australian tax offset that will provide $250 a year. But, in the same breath, they are taxing Australians $77 billion, and they're doing it under the guise, as I said, of so-called intergenerational fairness. But the Treasury's own documents reveal that these policies, if they become law, will result in 35,000 fewer homes over the next 10 years.

There's not one sector of the general community that benefits out of this budget. The older members of my community are up in arms because hidden in the bowels of the budget documents is this egregious provision which will rip away the concession for private health insurance holders once they turn 65. Now, Deputy Speaker Freelander, I'm not going to suggest that you're anywhere near that age group—

See this speech in context