Nicolle Flint (Boothby, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. How does a competitive tax system help promote the investment needed to build on record jobs growth and lift wages for hardworking Australians? What risks are associated with alternative approaches?

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Boothby for her question. She's pleased to be part of a government that in the last 12 months has delivered 420,000 job in the Australian economy, more than 1,100 jobs a day, a record in jobs growth. She's part of a government that over the last 2½ years has seen the unemployment rate fall, business confidence lift by 10 per cent, consumer confidence lift by 10 per cent, and investment in the non-mining sector rise by 12.4 per cent in the last 12 months. This economic plan is working. It is an economic plan that must stay the course to ensure Australians enjoy higher living standards, better wages and more secure jobs into the future.

There are risks to this plan, and all those risks sit on the other side of the chamber. One of the many policies the Labor Party have been touting is their policy for higher taxes. I said in answer to a previous question that, under Labor, Australians will pay more. They will particularly pay more in higher taxes. Those taxes, to refresh everyone's memory, include a higher tax on housing. If you're one of the 32,000 nurses who own an investment property in this country, you're going to pay higher taxes. If you're out there, you've worked hard and you have been able to earn more in your life, you're one of those who are going to have to pay higher income taxes under the opposition, some $24 billion worth in higher taxes on earnings. If you're running a family business, like the member for Reid is well acquainted with, there will be $22 billion in higher taxes on you from the Leader of the Opposition. There will be higher taxes on small and medium sized businesses, but not just there; over all businesses, there will be $60 billion in higher taxes for you under Labor. You are going to pay higher taxes on your savings for superannuation, another $25 billion, as we have been discussing, and an extra $60 billion—just shy of that, at $59 billion—on retirees who will have their tax refunds swiped, stolen, taken away by the Leader of the Opposition. Now, this is the difference between the Labor Party and the Liberal and National parties. We understand, when you go out, and you go to work and you earn money, it's your money. Those opposite think they own it all when they're in government. They think a tax cut is the same as a welfare payment, and that is an indictment on every single one of them. They do not respect the earnings of Australians. They see that the earnings of Australians are all there to put in their pockets.

They boast about a war chest for the election, a war chest that will be paid for by the savings and earnings of Australians and Australian business, because they are reaching deep. The leash is off this Leader of the Opposition, and he won't tax until he— (Time expired)

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister: How is it fair that the Prime Minister is hitting seven million working Australians with a tax increase while he's giving a $65 billion handout to big business, including a $9½ billion handout to the big banks?

Mr Pyne interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the House will cease interjecting. The Prime Minister has the call.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for his question. He gives me the opportunity to continue with my consideration of the 2010 Labor budget, because this was such an enthusiastic endorsement of a relatively small cut to company tax. It was only one per cent. They actually booked a $600 million reform dividend in additional revenue as a result of it. They said here, in their budget papers, 'The government's tax plan will promote growth across the entire economy. Independent modelling of the plan indicates it will deliver a reform dividend of 0.7 per cent increase in GDP in the long run which, over time, can be expected to flow through into taxation revenue,' which is why they booked the dividend. 'The reduction in the company tax rate is expected to increase—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On direct relevance. My question was about the 2017 government budget increasing taxes on seven million Australians.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. His question was about tax rises, company tax cuts, and the Prime Minister is talking about company tax in a policy area. The Prime Minister has the call.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'll go on. It said, in the 2010 paper, 'The reduction in the company tax rate is expected to increase GDP by 0.4 per cent in the long run.' So that was just a one per cent cut in company tax. That's what Labor said. That's the advice they got from Treasury. They put it in the budget papers. It wasn't a political speech. It was right there, in the papers, signed by the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance, at the time. And the logic remains precisely the same. The reason we have cut company tax, up to $50 million turnover businesses and we're seeking to cut it for all businesses, is precisely the same logic that Labor advanced in 2010: it increases investment, increases productivity, increases wages and, of course, has a result in increasing government revenues. And you can see how much Labor thought it would do then.

In terms of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the very simple fact is that Labor was dripping with compassion talking about the NDIS, claiming it is a great Labor enterprise and a great Labor achievement—but did not fund it. They did not fund it. You can have all of the compassion under the sun, but you cannot look into the eyes of a mother with a disabled child and say, 'I want to look after you,' and then not provide the funds to do so. So that's what we're doing with the Medicare levy, and Labor should stop their hypocrisy, stop all their bogus compassion, and get behind it and make sure that we pay for that great national enterprise of the NDIS.