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

My question is to the Prime Minister. Last night every member of his government voted against Labor's personal income tax plan that will give more than 10 million Australians almost double the tax cut they will get from the government next year. Why did the Prime Minister vote against lower taxes for 10 million Australians, or a tax cut of up to $928 a year? Why didn't this Prime Minister vote for lower taxes for 10 million Australian workers, instead of giving an $80 billion big business tax giveaway?

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

The Leader of the Opposition has really lost the plot! Last night the House debated and voted on the government's personal income tax legislation. That's what was voted on. That's what's heading up to the Senate now. And do you know what, Mr Speaker? The Labor Party voted with us as well, and we want to thank them for that support. They had the opportunity to vote against it but they choose not to. They voted with it. So what are we to believe? They're decrying the government's personal income tax reform now, which is going to encourage investment, aspiration, work and enterprise. It's going to achieve an enormous reform to our personal income tax system. It's going to make it fairer, simpler, and it's going to be as progressive as it is today in terms of those on the highest incomes paying the highest share. So it's a very good reform, and we were pleased to see that the Treasurer and my colleagues were able to persuade the Labor Party to vote with us. But it seems that their enthusiasm was short-lived. They went home and went to bed, and they've turned up here today and now they've got regrets. 'Well, it's too late,' I say to the Leader of the Opposition, 'it's been passed through the House.'

The reality is you cannot rewrite the history of last night's debate. It's not like a transcript from the member for Barton. They can't get in and edit the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives, unlike the way the Leader of the Opposition's office edited—and when I say 'edited', it was doctored, falsified—the transcript of the member for Barton's interview. Eighteen hundred words it was. 'Apparently,' she said, 'an unintentional error resulted in 800 words vanishing.' That really is quite a slip. It's no mistake; the falsification of that transcript was designed to do one thing and one thing only: cover up the fact that inside the Labor Party there is the deepest opposition to the government's border protection policies. It was designed to obscure the fact that the honourable member and so many of her colleagues want to roll out the welcome mat to the people smugglers and make all of those mistakes that Kevin Rudd made years ago. They would make them all again so there'll be more drownings at sea, more unauthorised arrivals and more children in detention. That is what Labor would be seeking to do if they were ever to occupy the benches on this side. (Time expired)