Carina Garland (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These changes are all about supporting aspiration in our communities and making sure that working people across communities in Australia, such as in my community in Chisholm, keep more of what they work so hard to earn. There are 81,000 taxpayers in my electorate of Chisholm that will receive a tax cut under this government's tax plan. There are 66,000 taxpayers in my electorate who will receive a bigger tax cut than under the previous plan. I know from community feedback how much this is going to make a significant and meaningful difference to the people in my community. We introduced our legislation to ensure that every Australian taxpayer will benefit from a tax cut—all 13.6 million taxpayers, not just some. The average amount of savings per year that each taxpayer in my electorate will save under our Labor government's tax plan is $1,640. More than four in five or 82 per cent of people in my electorate of Chisholm will receive a larger tax cut under our government's tax plan compared to the previous plan. This reform builds on our targeted cost-of-living relief while not adding to inflation. This is just one of many measures our government is taking to ensure that we support people in our communities to get ahead and to be able to pursue opportunities and ambitions.

Our plan delivers a tax cut for every taxpayer, and every member in this place should vote for it. Average-income earners will now be getting a tax cut of $29 a week, which is more than double what they were offered under those opposite. Our tax cuts will deliver a bigger tax cut for middle Australia to help with the cost of living. The reason we're doing this is that our government is taking responsibility for governing. We are responding to the pressure Australians are under here and now and responding to the economic circumstances that we are in. Under our plan, more Australians will get a tax cut and more Australians will get a bigger tax cut. That means nurses, teachers and truck drivers will stand to benefit, and those professions are among those that will benefit the most, with more than 95 per cent of taxpayers in those professions getting a bigger tax cut. This is a fair and reasonable change, and it's one on which I have received a lot of positive feedback in my community.

Every taxpayer needs and deserves a meaningful tax cut. Unfortunately, those opposite lacked the vision, the ambition and the aspiration for our communities with their previous plan. Our side has listened to the communities that we serve and have the privilege to represent. It's increasingly clear that people expect governments to respond to the situations they find themselves in, and they also expect governments to take action when people are struggling. We know people are under pressure, and that's why we're making this change.

Let's think about what's changed since these tax cuts were first legislated. Indeed, they were first legislated before I was even in parliament. A lot of things have happened. There's been a once-in-100 year pandemic. There have been global conflicts, a global inflation spike and higher interest rates. We know that these events together have put people under greater cost-of-living pressure. Good governments do what they need to do in the best interests of the nation. It's not just about doing what's easy, what is most politically convenient or what makes the best headlines or creates the most distractions; it's about doing things for the right reasons. Sometimes the right thing can be hard, but it's always, surely, about putting people ahead of politics. That's what people expect from governments.

We've acknowledged that this position is an improvement on what was previously offered, and we think that good governments should respond to the situations they find themselves in. We govern for the times we're in. The Prime Minister has stated that it is not the job of a leader to sit back and wring their hands when confronted with new challenges, nor should members or governments in this place be frozen in time. I certainly didn't stand to become a member of parliament just so I could sit here and do nothing. I became a member of parliament because I want to be part of a government that supports ambition and aspiration in our communities and that seeks to govern responsibly and fairly and make this country a better place for everyone in our communities. It's our job to act, to take responsibility, to do the right thing and to respond to the times we find ourselves in, and that's exactly what our government has done.

The Labor Party and the Labor government have always supported aspiration. We want people to get ahead. We want people to keep more of what they earn. People in our communities work really hard to earn their wages, and we want to make sure that they get to keep more of them so that they can pursue opportunities and be able to build the life for themselves and their families that they seek to. Reforms like this enable aspiration. I've said many times in this place and elsewhere that I'm ambitious for my community and I want people to be treated fairly and to be supported to pursue opportunities and get ahead. These changes here do precisely that.

In my home state of Victoria, an extra three million people will receive a bigger tax cut under our plan compared to the previous plan. When it comes to women, I'm also proud that under our plan an extra 1.5 million women taxpayers will receive a bigger tax cut. That means that 90 per cent of women in Victoria are getting a bigger tax cut under our plan compared to the previous plan. So these changes are better for women. They are a bigger cut for women, and it's fairer for women too. We know that there have been many barriers in place for women to get ahead when it comes to their wages and keeping their wages. I'm proud that our government is standing up for Australians; and I'm proud that we recognise the need to respond to the times that we find ourselves in.

We know that there are many workers who work incredibly hard to earn what they do. Around 8,000 workers in my electorate undertake working hours that exceed 50 hours a week. They are working very hard to put food on their table, and I think it's a really positive step that we're doing what we can to make sure that all workers keep more of what they earn. There are lots of different professions in my electorate which will benefit particularly from these changes, such as the almost 12,000 workers who are employed within the healthcare and social assistance sector in my electorate and the almost 6,000 labourers who work on our roads or on construction sites. I'm thinking as well of the benefits that will be realised by more than 8½ thousand workers in the retail industry who work all across my electorate, whether it's in fabulous Hamilton Place in Mount Waverley or in Blackburn Village or in larger retail precincts such as The Glen. There are many educators in my electorate too who will benefit from these changes. I've got many childcare workers and early childhood educators, many primary and secondary school teachers and many academics as well working at both Deakin and Monash universities in my electorate.

All of these workers and more in my electorate deserve a tax cut, and I'm proud that as I meet people around the electorate they can see that our government is listening to their needs and is taking action to make sure that they and their families can get ahead. I've been really encouraged by the support received in my community about our package. Maryanne from Mount Waverley contacted me to say that the government must prioritise cost-of living relief to support those hardest hit, and she commended our government for the actions that we are taking. Perran in my electorate stood to benefit the most under the stage 3 tax cut arrangements previously in place, but they contacted my office and stated very emphatically that they supported Labor's revised plan because it was fairer. I also received an email from Jessica in Burwood in my electorate who said that he proposed amendments 'are undeniably a fairer way to proceed for the majority of Australians'.

When I've been out and about, I've spoken to many in my community about the need for these changes. I know that many people have been doing it tough. That's why we've been taking the measures such as we have, whether it's for cheaper medicines, for cheaper child care, or, indeed, for this tax package, to make sure that it is easier for people to meet the costs that they need to. Our No. 1 priority as a government remains addressing the cost-of-living challenge. This package is of course in addition to the many other cost-of-living relief measures that we're delivering, and I've mentioned some of those. One that's particularly significant in my electorate has been the implementation of 60-day prescriptions in Australia. My electorate has benefited the most out of any electorate in the country with over 24,339 60-day scripts dispensed. That's more money in the pockets of patients. It's fewer people in the queue at the local GP, which makes it easier for everyone to see a doctor.

We've been doing a lot to get wages moving, and this package means that not only are people's wages increasing but they are going to be able to keep more of it. Unfortunately, those opposite have come up with no meaningful plan at all to ease the cost-of-living burden on Australian families. It is disappointing that they have failed to be constructive when it has come to a contest of ideas and wanting to solve some of the challenges of our time. I wish those opposite had more to offer our country than negativity and division. But our government is getting on with the job of thinking about ways we can improve things for families and communities right across our country. We will always have the best interests of Australians at the front of and foremost in our minds. We will always put people ahead of politics.

I'm pleased that, as part of this legislation, we will also increase the Medicare levy low-income thresholds for the coming year, which will benefit more than a million low-income Australians. Medicare is, of course, something that we enjoy only because of Labor governments, and it is something that Labor will always protect. I note that we've recently celebrated 40 years of Medicare, a really significant milestone for a really significant nation-building program.

Ensuring middle Australia can get ahead is central to our economic plan, as are getting wages moving again, bringing inflation under control and driving fairer prices for Australian consumers. I'm really proud to be part of a government that takes its responsibility to its community and to its nation seriously. Our government is ambitious, aspirational and unapologetic when it comes to supporting more Australians to keep more of their hard-earned wages, and I'm really proud to support this bill today.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to stand and speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024. Fundamentally, the reason the Liberal Party will be supporting this bill is that we are the architects of the stage 3 tax cuts. We're the architects, the legislators and the choreographers of stages 1, 2 and 3. We brought these bills about. We brought them into the parliament with the support of the now government, when in opposition.

The previous speaker is just leaving the chamber. When the government say that we have no plan, I'd remind the House and the previous speaker that this is our plan. Stages 1, 2 and 3 are ours. We legislated them. I'll speak further to the stage 3 tax cut changes that have been put forward and I will suggest that we should no longer refer to the stage 3 tax cuts that were legislated in this House as stage 3; we should refer to them as stage 2.2, because they go some way, but not all the way, to what we were trying to achieve.

I can understand why Labor have made the changes that they have and have brought them to the House. The immediate polls are suggesting the Australian public have received them quite well. Everyone loves a sugar hit. Everyone loves an extra couple of bucks in the pocket. But we will always be the party that brings lower taxes to this House. We are the party—

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Hasluck! Member for McEwen!

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the previous speaker was heard in absolute silence, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed, they were, and I'm asking all members to show that courtesy.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not only are we better legislators and better with money; we're actually more respectful, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have great respect for the House, being well aware, of course, of the standing orders in this place.

But I do want to take those in the gallery on a journey of what happened in the lead-up to the 12 months prior to these backflips and broken promises being brought to the House. I will recap how it started. Last year the Australian Labor Party went on a crusade, with a commitment of $450 million being spent on a referendum in Australia that was overwhelmingly rejected by every single state in the country.

You can't rewrite history, those on the other side. It was lost by every single state. That is $450 million that we will never get back.

There were hundreds of detainees let loose by those on the other side, those in the government. In question time today we spoke about how many of them had committed extreme crimes—murderers, paedophiles—that would not be acceptable in any—

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is this relevant to the amendment?

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It actually speaks to the amendment because—

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for McEwen, please. The member for Wright didn't interject previously, and I'm asking—

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm happy to get a copy of the amendment from the member for Hume. I'm painting a contrast with what it looked like for the 12 months leading into this. I know it's painful for those on the other side to hear, because they do not want to be reminded of this painful history. They do not want to be reminded of this journey, because not only was there the failed referendum and the release of the detainees; there was the $275 electricity commitment, which was offered on more than 200 occasions, to help struggling families.

We hear nothing but irony from those on the other side about cost-of-living pressures. None of the policies that they've had in the 12 months leading up to this point have done anything to reduce cost-of-living pressures; in fact, I think at last count there had been 13 rate rises from the RBA. We've had higher inflation and a housing crisis. But all this was cast in an environment, before the election, in which Labor said, 'You'll be better off under Labor.' I'm yet to have people walk into my office and say: 'Honourable Scotty Buchholz, you've got it wrong. We are actually much better off under a Labor government.' In fact, one of the things that those on the other side have managed to do, with acute success, is increase the size of the Public Service by 10 per cent.

The polls were tanking, and Christmas couldn't come quickly enough for Labor. Now we get to the point of the changes that happened over the Christmas break. We were told on 13 occasions by the Prime Minister that no changes—not one—were going to be made to the stage 3 tax cuts. They weren't considering it. It wasn't part of the plan. But because last year finished on such a low—and the data is there, with the polls, to suggest where things were going—Labor, to their credit, regrouped very swiftly and effectively. They made the changes to the stage 3 tax cuts, which should now be referred to as 'stage 2.2', and said: 'What we need to do is get back to Canberra a couple of weeks before everyone else and give the illusion that we have spoken through this process and are going to deliver everyone greater tax cuts. But we have one small hurdle to overcome. We've got a situation where the Prime Minister came out and said, "My word is my bond, and we will not be moving on any changes."' History will reward those comments as it has other comments.

One of the problems in making these changes to the stage 3 tax cuts is that the tax cuts were already legislated. Stage 1 were delivered, stage 2 were delivered and stage 3 were in place. Predominantly, they were just getting rid of one of the tax brackets—I think it was 39c in the dollar—to address bracket creep for those Australians who were aspirational. As a consequence of this change—or backflip or broken promise—the Australian Labor Party have taken the Australian public for mugs. The Australian public are not stupid, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Australian public will not forget this broken promise. When it comes to the cost-of-living narrative, which is front and centre, if they were really serious about addressing cost-of-living pressures here, why are the Australian Labor Party leaving it 16 weeks to bring it into effect? It could be brought in right now. So don't mix the narratives up.

Before we came back from Christmas, they had the meeting with the statisticians and those from the Labor think tank and said: 'Right, we've got to do something a little bit different. I'll tell you what we'll do. I rang someone from the department back on 11 December and asked them to start rejigging the stage 3 tax cuts, so we've actually already got a plan. We just need you to rubber-stamp it for the two weeks when we bring everyone back.' The great thing about this lady who has done all of the work out of the department is she has also written other about negative gearing, about death tax—that might be called something different—and about franking credits. So when you get an iron-clad guarantee that nothing is going to change under Labor, from this point on, it will be very difficult to take them at face value.

But no doubt the Australian public will get a sugar hit from the immediate effects of this because that's what was intended to do, and we welcome that. But when you start dabbling with the Robin Hood tax—a tax that takes money from someone and gives to the others—there are two groups of people in that scenario: there are those who receive the money, who will be happy, and those who it has been taken from, or those whose benefit has been shrunk, who will not be as happy. You just have to wait until tax time to work out on which ledger, in which pile, you will be.

Let me remind the House what happens to prime ministers when you attack the aspirant and take money from the aspirant. In this place, we make rules; we legislate. One of those is the tobacco tax. We increase taxes as a vehicle to change your behaviour. We increase taxes on cigarettes to stop you from smoking. There are health benefits that go with not smoking. So when you remove the words 'tobacco tax' and you insert a tax that disincentivises people to go and be successful, when it disincentivises people to be aspirant, when it disincentivises those people to go and earn and be on the top tax bracket, it is suggesting that they don't encourage people in Australia to be successful and that's a shame.

I can tell you what happens to prime ministers who break promises. I have been fortunate enough to be here for 14 years and I remember what happened in the parliament to Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who was a good prime minister, before an election. She made the fatal mistake before the election of saying, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' Then, with the rigours of this place and a deal that was done with the crossbenches, under her leadership, a carbon tax was introduced. Track where the polling went for Prime Minister Gillard afterwards, when the pressures of leadership came from the other side. When you tie that scenario with 'my word is my bond', all I can suggest to the Australian public is watch this space when it comes to a revolving door of leadership in this place. 'My word is my bond' will be a slow burn for the Australian people.

As I have outlined, the Australia public will feel the sugar hit but it will come and go, and it will go because the sugar hit they get from the tax will be offset by the extra tax tariffs every time they fill their car. If you duck down to the pub with a few of your mates to catch up with a beer, you will pay for it through a glass of beer. Just those two alone offset the benefit of this tax that is coming in. Evidence of that is that this brings forward a $28.2 billion saving as opposed to the stage 3.

We will be supporting this tax because we understand the cost-of-living pressures on the Australian public at the moment. We are disappointed that it's taken so long to bring it in. We would love to have seen it introduced earlier. But at the end of the day, for those other taxes that Labor have said that they won't introduce into this place, I will just remind Australians how many promises we have seen those from the other side consistently broken. On 200 different occasions Labor said you were was supposed to get a $275 electricity boost—didn't happen. The list goes on and on and on and on—'my word is my bond'.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How do you stand there and lie?

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know, Member for McEwen, it must pain you to be reminded of these atrocities. It must pain you when you talk about cost-of-living pressures on that side and I come in and talk about cost-of-living pressures in relation to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024. You cry: 'Boo-hoo! You can't talk about real people. You can't talk about real issues. You shouldn't remind us, Member for Wright, about how well you articulated this during your speech, because we don't want to be reminded of the last 12 months.' Well, guess what: every time you walk in here, I'm going to remind you, and you and the Australian public will be reminded every single day, because you need to be held to account, because what you've done—

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just direct your comments through the chair, please.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand. That's a very salient point, Madam Deputy Speaker. With that, I will conclude my comments and just suggest that, under your stewardship and deputy speakership, you offer some counsel to my good colleagues in this House.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Wright. The question is that the amendment be agreed to, and I hope that you will be heard in silence too. I'm giving the call to the Member for McEwen.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I wish the member for Wright could stay here so we could address the absolute untruths he told. As to the $275—don't run, because I want you to hear this—you come in and say we've broken a promise that's not due till 2025, so somehow we've broken something 12 months ahead of what it's supposed to be. This is an absolute joke.

If you want to talk about those who broke promises and were masterly at breaking promises and being untruthful, you only have to watch Nemesis tonight. It is a great show on the ABC, where we'll see exactly the untruths that were spoken consistently under nine years of mismanagement, rorts, chaos and broken promises: no cuts to SBS, no cuts to health, no cuts to education, $500 back for power and all these things. In fact, it was so bad that one of the prime ministers in that chaotic nine years, Mr Abbott, saw his own chief of staff—now one of those knuckle-dragging Sky After Dark presenters—get up and say that this story about 'no carbon tax under a government I lead' was an absolute lie. Even today, Mr Buchholz, the member for Wright—who is not a bad person but has the memory of a goldfish—can't remember the second sentence that was said, which was about a market based mechanism, which is exactly was done. What you can be assured of with the leftovers of the Morrison-Turnbull-Abbott mess is that truth is not—

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just a moment. I am taking a point of order.

Cameron Caldwell (Fadden, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Relevance, Deputy Speaker: this has got absolutely nothing to do with what the member should be addressing—

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, he is actually—

Cameron Caldwell (Fadden, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and I would ask that he be brought back to the point.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, your point is not taken.

Please, Member for McEwen. I am being asked a question about the point of order, so excuse me. You've raised a point of order. The member is being directly relevant to the previous speaker's speech, I'm listening to him very carefully about this, and he is responding to issues that were raised in that previous speech as well as to the bill before the House.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. The point I'm raising is that you cannot trust anything that comes out of the opposition's mouth. In fact, on this particular bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024, they said no to it before they knew what the legislation was. You heard the member for Wright talk about this Robin Hood tax where you look after some but not others. The only people who are being impacted by this in a negative way are the high-income earners. So, if you listen to that lot over there, they are quite happy for most taxpayers not to get a tax cut as long as they get theirs. They want their $9,000 tax cut, but they don't care about people on low and middle incomes. They don't care about tradies, nurses or shop assistants, people who are working every single day and struggling with the cost of living. It doesn't matter if you're on two hundred and something thousand dollars over there or you're out working in a shop earning $40,000 a year; you still pay the same for petrol, milk and bread. But it's a bigger impact on people on low incomes than it is for that lot over there.

But, of course, they don't want to talk about that. They just sit there and say: 'No, we're opposing this. We're not going to stand up for it.' The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said straight out: 'No, we are going to reverse this or cut it back. We want stage 3 back.' Well, we're proud that we don't want stage 3 back. We're proud to say that we're standing up for Australian workers. Low- and middle-income earners who are doing it tough need help, and now they're got a government that's on their side, a government that's actually working to fix the mess left to us.

We hear about the increases in mortgage repayments. That started under those opposite. The things they left in place created that mess, and we have tried to turn it around. They talk about stage 2 tax cuts as if that was the greatest thing since sliced bread. But what they neglect to say is that when they were in government they set up that that tax expired—a $1,500 hit to workers that they sit there and try to run through for an election, and then it expired after the election. It was their hand grenade that they left that put extra pressure on people. But they don't mention that, because there's never been a worker they have stood up for. They voted against our putting measures in place to lower electricity prices. They said no. They voted against Medicare. They voted against cheaper medicines. They voted against making sure we have minimum standards for workers. Every single time there is something to help Australian taxpayers, the leftover rump of the conservative party are there to say no. But by gee, get in front of their tax cut and they're quick to really arc up. It is absolutely wrong. It is absolutely appalling that they do that.

Right across our communities in McEwen we've been doing it hard. Prices are going up, things are costing more and bills are getting higher—because of decisions the coalition made in government. We can't get to see doctors. But it's our government that addressed it. You can shake your head—and we get that little rattling sound—all you want. But the fact of the matter is this. The former government took away the District of Workforce Shortage, which has meant we can't get doctors in our communities. Why would you do that to a rural or regional area? That would be the question to ask, but you never get an answer.

But, thankfully, a government came in that stands up for people and looks after communities and changed that—and changed that very quickly—to help address that shortage, a shortage those opposite didn't care about. As long as their seats were comfortable they didn't care. They do not show any interest in supporting the 13.5 million Australian workers who are going to get a tax cut at a time of an economic crisis. This is why we have done things such as increasing the Medicare threshold. We've done that so that people on low incomes won't be paying that, but they'll still get that great Medicare that Labor stands up and believes in, the Medicare that we have fought for for 40 years, to make sure it's there and to make sure people can get health care where they need it and when they need it.

Think about the average person in the community who's on a $73,000 wage. They're going to be nearly $1,000 better off than they would have been under the previous government. People who are on $50,000 are going to be a lot better off, because that side had said no to them. Those opposite had said that they shouldn't get a tax-cut, that if you're on a low to middle income you don't deserve a tax cut, according to the opposition, the rump of the Morrison-Turnbull-Abbott mess that we had during those nine years. They sit there and say we must have high-income tax cuts, that people need them. They forget that 90 per cent of women taxpayers, nearly six million, are going to be better off than they would have been if a conservative government was in power now.

We on this side of the House know that 90 per cent of women are better off under the Albanese Labor government, because we have a strong government that actually thinks about people in all the different sectors. Those opposite might call it a Robin Hood tax. We call it a fairer distribution. If you're on $200,000 or $300,000, I'd question whether you're in trouble and needing a taxation cut of $10,000. But I know that when you're on $50,000 and you're doing it hard you need as much help as you can get. It's got to be done in a fair and reasonable way that does not put pressure on inflation, and that's what we've done, right across the things we've been doing, through Medicare, through child care, through cheaper prescriptions—all these things that government can work on without putting on inflationary pressure.

Remember how the former government came in here with all that bravado and gusto and called workers 'leaners'—we had this 'lifters and leaners' type of thing. The first promise they made that they broke was that they would deliver a budget surplus in their first year in government and each and every year after that. How many did they deliver? Zero. In fact, when they left office we had the highest debt and deficit in this nation's history. The two highest taxing Australian governments in history were Howard's and Morrison's. Yet they sit there and they feign this, 'We are the party of lower taxes'—lower taxes for the high end, but expecting the bottom end to pick that up and carry it.

The real lifters are the people who get out there and work every day and work very hard. A lot of people don't get paid a lot of money for good work. The real leaners are sitting over there. They're the ones that sit there and do nothing and expect everyone else to carry the can for them. Why did they oppose these tax cuts? Why did they say that these tax cuts were wrong before they'd even seen them?

They put stage 3 in six years ago. As an education for those that weren't here at that time, we fought against stage 3. But because of the pig-headedness and arrogance of former prime minister Morrison, they refused to split the bill. We supported stages 1 and 2. We wanted people on low and middle income—

An opposition member interjecting—

You can laugh. You might think it's funny that we stood up for low- and middle-income earners. But you, being the opposition, wouldn't allow that to happen. You were holding low- and middle-income earners' tax cuts as a weapon if we didn't give high-income earners tax cuts. That's just the model of thinking you get in today's Liberal Party. I'm not a big fan of Robert Gordon Menzies, but he would turn in his grave if he saw the way the Liberal Party has become nothing but a cheaper version of One Nation. That's what we've seen. The days of true Liberals have gone. We see that sitting here in the chamber. Every moderate-seat member is gone and replaced by someone who actually does care about things that matter. It's like the anti-corruption commission they promised. I'm looking forward to the members opposite getting up and saying, 'Well, we didn't deliver it.' Why? Some people think probably because there'd be a big queue of them going in front of it. But they never delivered that. Why? Another broken promise.

What you will always get with this Labor Party, this government and this Prime Minister is people that are out there trying to help workers and families. We want to do this because we know people are doing it hard and because it's ingrained in us to stand and say, 'We've got to help people who need the help when they need it.' It means that we don't get as big a tax cut as we might have got. So what? I am much happier to know that money that is coming out of government receipts is going into helping people who need the help the most. It's not just the fair thing to do; it's the right thing to do. In fact, you'd sit there and you'd say, 'It's the moral thing to do to make sure we help people when they need it and where they need it.'

We've had the contradiction of those opposite saying: 'Fifteen dollars a week is not enough. It's rubbish.' But then they don't want to give any money at all. So $15 is not enough, but under their plan it would be nothing. I tell you what: there are many people out there for whom $15 a week makes a huge difference. The member opposite is laughing. That's just what we get with this conservative opposition. They think it's funny. I can tell you that all of our organisations out their helping people with food banks and support are getting more and more people. In fact, some groups are actually getting people who used to help them but who are now coming in to get support because they need it.

Imagine if we still had a conservative government. This would be a lot worse and a lot harder. It's time those opposite started, just for once, to stand up for low- and middle-income earners instead of standing on them and using them to prop things up. Actually go and help them. Nothing those opposite did in their nine years of power did anything to help this nation set things up for now or for the future. Everything that was done under that government was wrong. They focused purely on themselves and re-election.

We changed our mind. We had to, because economic circumstances have changed. We don't shy away from that. We know because we go out and listen. That's what we do. I challenge those opposite to go out and listen to communities. Go out and talk to people who are earning low and middle incomes. Go out and talk to them about what life is like and what's really happening. I do every day, and it's so important that people on low incomes have people in this place to stand up for them.

That's why we did the closing loopholes legislation. Again, it's about protecting workers and making sure that people aren't being exploited, because that's one of the great problems we have in this country. A handful of bad employers will exploit workers, and it needs to stop. We also need to make sure that this place and the other place work together to make sure that we get the best value and the best outcome for taxpayer dollars and focus on people who need it the most. We have to stop what we had for nine years, with those opposite being focused on themselves. We need to get out and actually focus on people who need the help and support. That was a government, under those across there, that voted against increasing pensions and voted against increasing wages for aged-care workers. Enough is enough. It takes an Albanese Labor government to— (Time expired)

Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As soon as it became clear that the government was going to change its mind on the stage 3 tax cuts, I commissioned a survey of the Goldstein community. In a little over 48 hours, the survey attracted close to 2½ thousand responses. We used paid advertising to reach a broad cross-section of the community, and we asked respondents to nominate their marginal tax rate to see whether attitudes to the changes varied depending on their tax liability. I acknowledge that surveys of this kind are not perfect, but they do provide some evidence of what the community is thinking. Fully 77 per cent of respondents agreed that the tax cuts should be adjusted to provide greater benefit to people at the lower end of the income scale, and that's even though more than a quarter of those who responded to the survey—27 per cent, to be precise—reported taxable incomes of $180,000 or above. That is the very cohort who had stood to benefit the most from the coalition's version of stage 3 and now stand to have that benefit reduced.

Here's a small sample of what people had to say in responding to my survey:

"I would be a beneficiary, but don't need it."

"I am concerned about rising costs for others, not myself so much."

"We are seriously concerned with how lower income people are able to cope with rising expenses across the board."

Clearly not everyone in my community will agree, and some, especially those who are on relatively high incomes but also experiencing very high mortgage stress, will be upset, but the survey numbers are a strong indicator of sentiment. They show to me that, in one of the wealthiest communities in the country, attitudes to change can be more nuanced and more sophisticated than the assumption that it's what directly benefits them financially that determines their attitude and, indeed, their vote. I saw at the last election that Goldstein people are good people, many of whom believe in the things that I campaigned on—fairness, equality and prosperity for all—and I'm so very proud to represent that community.

There is no doubt that this version of the tax cuts is fairer than stage 3 mark 1. According to Treasury data, fully 71 per cent of the 77,000 taxpayers in Goldstein will be better off than they would have been had the original version remained in place. These changes mean that the average tax cut in Goldstein will be just over $2,100. And, while the community that I represent is wealthy overall, the electorate includes increasing numbers of lower- and middle- income workers. Many of them are renters rather than mortgage holders. Many of them are women, more than 25,000 of whom work in feminised industries, and almost 9,000 of those are women who work in the care sector. These are among the millions of women I've been talking about repeatedly since I was elected and, indeed, before, at the Jobs and Skills Summit and in conversations with ministers as I've strived to convince them of the need to place a gender lens over all legislation.

Treasury applied the principles of a gender impact statement to these tax changes. It's about time. As I've been saying, all pieces of legislation should have a gender impact statement attached. It's good to see that the government has finally got the message, and let's hope this is not just a one-off. According to Treasury, 5.8 million women, 90 per cent of all female taxpayers, will now get a bigger tax cut, with an average increased benefit of more than $700. Treasury also notes that the changes before us deliver a larger tax cut to taxpayers in what it terms 'in demand occupations', largely dominated by women, including teachers, nurses, aged care and early childhood education staff—as I've said, many of whom live in Goldstein. Treasury modelling also says that the re-engineered tax cuts will increase hours worked and participation by women with lower incomes—that is, those earning between $20,000 and $75,000. Will these tax cuts alone be enough to encourage women to work an extra day or two? We will see. But if Treasury's right, there would be an increase in women's participation of 930,000 hours a week—the equivalent of 25,000 full-time jobs. I do hope it's right, but I have a niggling doubt that's informed by international evidence.

After inflation, productivity is our most significant economic constraint, and has been for years. For too long we've ignored one of the significant steps to its solution—that is, keeping more women in the workforce. Overseas examples are instructive. In Australia and in northern Europe, female workforce participation at the age of 25 is comparable, but at the age of 30, female participation in Australia is 10 per cent lower and remains that way. One of the reasons is that in Scandinavian countries early childhood education and care is largely free. Analysis by the Australia Institute indicates that if we had Scandinavian female participation rates, our economy would be $60 billion, or 3.2 per cent, bigger. Imagine unlocking that. Actually, don't imagine it, just do it! This is one of the pathways to economically empowering half of the population.

I've spent considerable time, as the changes to stage 3 have come forward, talking to the Goldstein community at pop-up offices, at community events and on the street. Some are not impressed by the government saying one thing and doing another. Fair enough. Integrity in political decision-making is critically important. That said, so is being responsive to circumstances. Arguably, the central issue with the change of heart is the lack of foreshadowing and being honest that it may be on the cards rather than the policy change itself.

The world is a vastly different place compared to when the legislation was originally passed. Back then we were blissfully unaware that there was about to be a global pandemic. There was no war in Ukraine nor conflict in the Middle East escalating the price of energy. In turn, no-one was predicting the return of inflation. No-one was predicting a cost-of-living crisis. But that is what we have. And just as those in the corporate world must adjust their plans according to market conditions, so do governments.

Apart from anything else, the debate over stage 3 and Labour's about-face is a reminder of the folly of promising tax cuts fully five years ahead of time. Never should it happen again. Indeed, never need it happen again. Over the years, governments have been happy to reap the consequences of inflation by holding onto the proceeds of bracket creep because it gives them cash to play with. Then, just before an election, we're expected to reward them for handing back some of that bracket creep by announcing a round of tax cuts.

I asked the Parliamentary Budget Office to calculate the impact of introducing tax indexation—that is, adjusting the tax thresholds to account for the impact of inflation to ensure that taxpayers pay no more in real terms year by year. Initial analysis from the PBO, using its SMART online tool, estimates that the immediate introduction of tax indexation would cost the budget $11.3 billion over the forward estimates. That's a significant sum, but it would be even fairer and more equitable than the changes now being proposed in this legislation by the government. It would mean that taxpayers would get the real value of tax cuts year on year, not just in the year of their introduction. It would take the politics out of taxation, and it might even encourage governments to consider real tax reform rather than fiddling at the edges while the tax system becomes less and less fit for purpose.

Just a reminder: it's now a quarter of a century since the last substantial round of tax reform in this country—that is, the introduction of the GST. It's more than a decade since the last comprehensive review of the tax system, chaired by former Treasury secretary Ken Henry, was completed with a range of excellent recommendations and then left to gather dust. As former Public Service Commissioner Andrew Podger notes:

Indexation would … put a stop to much of the politicking about tax, requiring our political leaders to focus on the policy reasons for changes. Indexing the income tax scale might also force current and future Australian Governments to start addressing more fundamental tax reform as the nation needs to … fund increasing public services while still rewarding innovation and effort and productivity.

It's time for that reasoned conversation.

Anika Wells (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The guiding principle of the Albanese government is: no-one held back and no-one left behind; to use the power entrusted to us by our constituents to make a positive difference in their lives; and to make the right decisions, not the easy decisions, to create a better, fairer future. And that is exactly what Labor's tax cuts will deliver. Labor's tax cuts are about making sure you can keep more of what you earn by putting cash back into people's pockets when they need it most.

From 1 July this year, every single Lilley taxpayer will receive Labor's tax cut. That's 82,000 people living on the Northside of Brisbane who will receive an average of an extra $1,634 from 1 July. A retail worker working at Westfield Chermside and earning $75,000 a year will get a tax cut of $1,554; a high school teacher in Banyo earning a base salary of $81,000 a year will get a tax cut of $1,704; an enrolled nurse working at an aged-care home in Brighton and earning $61,000 a year will get a tax cut of $1,204; and a lawyer earning $110,000 at Stafford will get a tax cut of $2,429. Importantly, these tax cuts are responsible and will not add to inflation. That's what addressing the cost-of-living concern looks like. Eighty-five per cent of Lilley taxpayers will be better off than they would have been under Morrison's tax cuts which were legislated five years ago, because it is the right and the responsible thing to do to deliver more relief for more Northside workers without adding to inflation.

Since the Prime Minister's announcement that he was pulling this lever, I've been on the ground listening to my constituents about how they feel about the proposed bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024. Ted came to my mobile office at Stafford City Shopping Centre and told me that Labor's tax cuts were just 'common sense'. Nicholas from Shorncliffe told me that he will be directly impacted by the changes, but he doesn't mind, because it shows that he has a strong government, with strong leadership, who do not mind making the tough decisions. Doug from Wavell Heights said Labor's tax cuts were a rational and pragmatic approach that recognises that, when circumstances and evidence change, decisions may need to change. And Leanne from Chermside West said: 'Times have changed and everyone knows it. The changes you have proposed are more equitable, and the vast majority of Australians will thank you.'

The Albanese government's No. 1 priority remains addressing this inflation and cost-of-living challenge. We know a lot of people are doing it tough. Australians have been living through the economic aftershock of the pandemic, the first recession in three decades and the ongoing, far-reaching consequences of conflict overseas. Unprecedented inflationary pressures across the globe and damaged supply chains have pushed up interest rates at home. Everything we have done as a government has been about managing these compounding pressures and delivering sensible, targeted relief that will not add to inflation: cheaper medicine; making it easier and more affordable to see a GP; cheaper early education; expanding parental leave; building more social and affordable homes; increasing rent assistance; fee-free TAFE; backing a future made in Australia; and supporting stronger wages, because we know that sustainable wage growth is part of the solution to the cost-of-living challenge, not part of the problem. That's what addressing cost-of-living concerns looks like.

The Albanese Labor government have made the biggest-ever investment in Medicare, and Lilley locals are seeing a difference in their health and in their hip pockets. Two months after the bulk-billing incentive was tripled, Lilley locals have accessed almost 3,000 more bulk-billing services, saving household budgets more than $117,000. By the lowering of the patient co-payment for PBS medicines from $42.50 to $30, 143,000 locals have saved more than $1.62 million. That's what addressing cost-of-living concerns looks like. In just three months after changing dispensing rules, more than 12,000 Lilley locals have saved money by accessing 60-day prescriptions. The Northside urgent care clinic is the crown jewel of Lilley now, nestled along Gympie Road between the Royal Brisbane Women's Hospital and the Prince Charles Hospital. Less than 24 hours after our urgent care clinic opened, Kim from Wavell Heights sent me this message:

My daughter needed stitches for a head wound last night and it was going to be an 8 hour wait at the local hospital. My daughter was in and out of the Urgent Care Clinic within an hour of arriving. Such a great initiative, thank you for helping our family.

Kim and her daughter are just two of the hundreds of Lilley locals who have saved time and money by going to our Northside urgent care clinic.

Another cost-of-living pressure leaving holes in the household budgets of Northside families was early education. Over eight years of consecutive coalition governments, early education costs soared by 41 per cent. Many Australians wanted to work more, but it wasn't worth it because their additional pay was being gobbled up by early education fees, and 8,900 families living in my electorate of Lilley have benefited from the Albanese Labor government's cheaper childcare measures. That's what addressing cost of living concerns looks like. The average Australian family has seen a reduction in out-of-pocket expenses by 11 per cent for centre based early education, 8.8 per cent for outside school hours care, 12 per cent for in-home care and 13.8 per cent for family daycare.

These measures are also helping to address the gender pay gap, because this government understands we must ensure more women keep more of their hard-earned money. The Albanese government has applied a clear gender impact lens over our cost-of-living relief. Labor's tax plan will see Australian women taxpayers receive, on average, a tax cut of $1,649 from 1 July. On that date, the Albanese government will deliver a tax cut for all women who pay tax in Australia—a bigger tax cut for 90 per cent of Australian women taxpayers, who will receive an additional $707 on average, compared to the Morrison plan and a boost of 630,000 additional hours per week worked by women. That is what addressing cost-of-living concerns looks like. Our commitment is clear. Last year, the Albanese government also invested $11.3 billion to lift wages for workers in aged care. It's a sector where more than 80 per cent of the staff are women.

Australian taxpayers don't want the coalition's cost-of-living confusion. They want stronger, fairer wages for their hard work. Almost three years ago to the day, I stood in this place on the other side of the chamber, fighting for Lilley workers who were being smashed by nine years of insecure work and low wages. Their aspirations were being smashed by an economy that was built to work against them, not for them. When they reached out for help, they were told, 'It is what it is,' by a coalition government which was phoning it in. I'm here today as a member of the Albanese Labor government, continuing my fight to support the aspirations of Northsiders so that every single Lilley taxpayer can keep more of their hard-earned income, because that's what addressing cost of living concerns looks like.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024. It seems to me that the word 'women' came up in the member for Lilley's speech about 400 times. Are there no men in Australia?

I think the first and most important thing with any race of people is that they simply don't vanish from the gene pool; they simply vanish off the face of the earth. When 20 Australians die, they are replaced by 16 Australians. You don't have to be Albert Einstein to figure out that we are a vanishing race. We are a race of people who are eliminating ourselves from the gene pool. Some anthropologist in a thousand years' time will look back and say, 'Who were those people there who decided they disliked people so much that they eliminated themselves from the gene pool?' It's a pretty sad comment upon a country that it doesn't want to have children—that it doesn't love children. In fact, it's dreadful indictment of a country when they murder about 30,000 before they are born every year and a few of them after they are born, under the same laws. That's particularly true in Queensland. Does anyone care about Australians being a vanishing race? Surely we would love our young people to have the joy of having a family.

I was among the first generation where women were supposed to have careers. Well, they're careering off into nonexistence. A lot of them, very sadly, are old people now. They sit at home. They have no kids to love and no kids to love them, no grandkids to love and no grandkids to love them. It's very sad because society cheated them and lied to them. It told them they had to have a career. I go no further than my own wife. She's been a stay-at-home mum, and her assets are quite substantial. She climbed up on roofs in the middle of summer, painted them and did up houses with a partner of hers—a bloke, I might add, who was illiterate, but boy oh boy he was master of everything.

Let me switch completely. I do not know how families in Australia are living. Careers—what, you're going to be a rich person, are you? You want every woman to be out there having a career and being rich. Well, I'll tell you that a bloody lot of women in this country are not rich; they're extremely poor because they've got kids. If you have kids, I just simply don't know how you can survive economically. Even if you're on $100,000 a year, after tax of $25,000 is taken out and $75,000 is left, you'll need $40,000 for a home. According to a Courier Mail study from 10 years ago, education costs for two kids were $30,000 a year. So, if you've got a take-home pay of $70,000 and spend $40,000 a year on the home and $30,000 on education, how the hell do you stay alive?

Needless to say, most boys in Australia are not living in a home with their natural father. So how successful are we as a race of people? We're a vanishing race. We can have no children. It is financially almost impossible for the average person, and that's assuming he's on $100,000. The average person is not on $100,000. But, assuming he is on $100,000, it's just not possible. I don't know how they are managing. Do we care about them? Does the word 'family' ever come up in this place? Does the phrase 'the future of our nation' ever come up in this place? No.

We go around crying about minority groups. What's that about? Do you really care about my mob—the Murris, as we call ourselves? Do you really care about us? You wouldn't be seen dead with any of us. Do you play on our football teams? No. Do you have any social intercourse with us? No. Do you have anything to do with us at all? No, but you want to cry about us so it makes you look good. You don't care about us; you care about yourself looking good.

If you want to give families a fair go in this country then it's about time the word 'family' started jumping up in this place, because there aren't going to be any of us very shortly. For those of you who are young people in here today, when you get old there's going to be nobody looking after you. It's the Chinese syndrome, as we all know. That population is old and there are no young people to look after them. It's infinitely worse in Australia. Our rate of having children is lower than China's now—not in the past, but now. So if you want to do this and you want to give them a fair go, you can't expect them to pay the same tax as DINKs. They're on $100,000 each. They pay $25,000 in tax each. Their disposable income is $75,000. But for the poor bloke who has a family, who has a bit of love in his soul for young people and a bit of a care for his nation, he—the five of them—has a disposable income of $15,000. So do you want a disposable income of $75,000 or do you want $15,000?

C leo magazine ran a series of excellent articles on why Australian women don't have children. Most of them—the vast bulk of women—intend to have children, but they don't because they're just waiting until they've got enough money together and they've settled down and they've got a stable relationship. I used to think the Christian churches' attitude towards marriage—that you married for life—was a bit primitive, but I'm not thinking that now. I've seen the terrible pain and sorrow. Has anyone ever met a kid where the father has left the family? Has anyone seen the heartbreak that they suffer? No. Does anyone care about them? No. Needless to say, a lot of them rebel, and who could blame them for that.

Let us say that we are going to provide a lot of extra money to people with families. How are we going to do that? For starters, we're the only country on earth that doesn't have a charge on imports. So let's start with a five per cent charge on imports, a primage charge. Billy Wentworth was one of the finest men ever to set foot in this parliament; Billy kept going on about primage. Just a five per cent charge on everything coming into the country would give you $20 billion a year.

Gas—this is the nation's disgrace, and you know what I mean. You people, Labor, have been in government for most of the last 30 years. You people, the coalition, have been in government for most of the last 20 years. So what did you do about gas? You gave it away. You gave our gas away for 6c, and my union—God bless the CFMEU!—are the ones that have brought up that figure. Now we're buying our own gas back for $16. We can't have a fertiliser plant in Australia, because no fertiliser company can afford to pay that amount for gas. The biggest fertiliser company in Australia, and there is only one—there are two, but one is a little fertiliser operation in Western Australia; the big fertiliser operation is in North Queensland—is buying its gas in America for $6. Another outfit is buying it for $4. And they're paying $16 here! It's diammonium phosphate. It's two parts ammonia—from natural gas—to one part phosphate. We've got the phosphate, but to get the ammonia—our own ammonia—we have to pay $16, whereas our competitors are paying $6. How many times can we repeat that?

When Qatar, which produces and exports the same amount of gas as us, gets $29 billion for their gas and we're getting only $600 million for ours, surely there is a case. Let's be conservative: surely, we would should be getting $15 billion. If Qatar is getting $29 billion or $30 billion, we should be getting at least half what Qatar gets. So there's $35 billion that you've got in the till.

Far be it from me to talk about taxing share transactions—the rich people. My two old aunties on separate sides of the families—they're both deceased now—used to go down and have their little games on the pokies. That was their fun and their intellectual challenge for the week. They'd pay about 20 per cent tax. My rich relatives in Sydney play the share market and they pay no tax, and the share market is much more socially damaging, I can assure you, than my old aunties putting five bucks in the pokies once a week and having a bit of fun with their friends.

Now, that's before you touch development. I was in a government and I cannot believe it when I look back on the figures, and I think the history books will say: 'Did this really happen?' Yes, it really did happen. There's a place called the Gold Coast. My family had a house there, right next door to Cavill Avenue. It was a swamp. It was worth nothing. We bought it for nothing. Surfers Paradise was just a big swamp, and a bloke called Les Thiess said, 'I can put canals in, drain the swamp and create a beautiful city here,' which he did. The tallest building in Surfers Paradise for half of my life was a three-storey building, the Broadbeach Hotel. Go down there and have a look at it now. Similarly, who created the tourism industry of Cairns and the Whitsundays in Far North Queensland?

So I watched this incredible government, the Bjelke-Petersen government. We were a coal-importing country when Bjelke-Petersen and that great man Leo Hielscher—who was the chief executive officer, for want of a better term, of the Queensland government—decided that they were going to put out a massive amount of money to build a giant railway line to export coal and then to make giant outlay on a coal export port. I thought they were quite mad. We were a coal-importing country, and they said we could become a coal-exporting country. Well, much of this nation's income for the last 60 years has come from coal, and there are people in this place who want the coal industry abolished. What are you going to do? Bankrupt the country? One-quarter of your nation's entire income comes from coal. What if you want to buy all your motor cars and fuel from overseas? I don't, but the ALP and the LNP do. They've done absolutely nothing about supplying our own fuel; we buy it all from overseas, and we buy all our motor cars from overseas. Whose decision was that? It was Mr Keating's decision on the motor cars, and it was the other mob on the fuel. So you've got a lot to be proud of yourselves about, haven't you? The history books will be terrible to you. Who broke this country? You did.

We can produce our own fuel tomorrow. In Brazil, 49.2 per cent of their fuel is ethanol. We are the best-suited country in the world for ethanol. It comes from grain or sugar cane, in both of which we are big players on the world stage, so we are uniquely programmed for that. Tell me the only country on earth that has no ethanol in the fuel tank. By law in Europe they are at five per cent. China claims it's on five per cent; I don't think it is, but it's going there, anyway. Japan is on five per cent. America is on 15.5 per cent. In the great juggernaut economy of Brazil, which has 200 million people and is going at 100 miles per hour—it produces aeroplanes, computers and every other sophisticated thing you can think of—49.2 per cent of their fuel is ethanol, and they fill up at the bowser for $1.09. Why aren't you doing it? Are you so owned by the oil companies that you can't do one single thing to make us self-sufficient?

As to the morons on my right here, they ask—and I'll name him. Mr Angus Taylor was ordered to have emergency supply, and he put the emergency supply in Texas—not Texas, Queensland, but Texas—

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask the member for Kennedy to withdraw that word that he used.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw unequivocally.

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll move on, but people must be responsible for their actions. Dr Bradfield wasn't exactly an idiot. He built the Sydney Harbour Bridge. He built the water supply system for Sydney, which is still their main water supply today. He built the underground railway system, for which he received the world prize for engineering. He built the University of Queensland. He built the Story Bridge in Queensland. His scheme, by itself, would bring in $35 billion— (Time expired)

Alicia Payne (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's with great pleasure that I rise today to talk about the fact that the Albanese Labor government will be delivering a tax cut to every Australian taxpayer from 1 July this year. This is truly great news for all Australians. The original stage 3 tax cuts under Scott Morrison were legislated five years ago, before Australians experienced a global pandemic, catastrophic bushfires and a global inflation spike with higher interest rates and witnessed wars and global conflicts. The economy is not the same as it was when the stage 3 tax cuts were first legislated. As the great economist John Maynard Keynes said: 'When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?' It is not for governments to not act when circumstances change, and what we have done here is to listen to communities, including mine, who wanted to see a fairer plan for tax relief and tax cuts that will help more taxpayers with the cost of living through a bigger tax cut. That is exactly what we are delivering with this tax plan under the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024.

Taxpayers earning below $146,486 will get a bigger tax cut. Those earning above this level will still receive a tax cut. And we are delivering fair and responsible tax cuts for all 13.6 million taxpayers; 11½ million people will get a bigger tax cut than they would have under Scott Morrison's plan, and that is 84 per cent—

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I ask the member for Canberra to refer to members by their seat.

Alicia Payne (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Apologies—the member for Cook. Taxpayers earning up to almost $150,000 will get a larger tax cut. This means that more people are getting more money in their pocket to help combat the cost-of-living crisis. Our government is committed to helping combat the cost of living for more Australians. Many of my constituents raised their concerns with me about the legislated stage 3 tax cuts introduced by the member for Cook, the former prime minister, and I welcome that engagement with me as their local member on this really important issue. They were concerned about a policy that could have been done much better to benefit more Australians. They were concerned about the benefits going mainly to those on the highest incomes, many of them benefiting from it themselves but writing to me to say they wanted to see a different plan. Under our plan, as I've said, more Australians will get more of a tax cut, and this is great news.

The government is responding to the pressure that Australians are under right here and now. As the Prime Minister has said, it's not the job of the government to sit back and wring their hands when confronted with new challenges. It's our job to act, to take responsibility and to do the right thing, and that's what we've done. Australians are under pressure right now, and it's clear that every taxpayer needs and deserves a meaningful tax cut. Under our government's plan the average Australian wage earner who is on $73,000 per annum will receive a tax cut of just over $1,500, which is $800 extra in their pocket than they would have received under the original plan. In my electorate 78,000 taxpayers will be getting a tax cut, with 60,000 Canberrans receiving a bigger tax cut under our government than they would have under the original stage 3 tax cut plan. That is 77 per cent of Canberran taxpayers receiving a bigger tax cut.

Our plan is also fairer for women. Women will receive tax cuts that are fairer, better and bigger under our plan. All women taxpayers will receive a tax cut and 90 per cent of women taxpayers will be getting a larger tax cut under the Albanese Labor government's plan. That is 100 per cent of working women who pay tax in Australia getting a tax cut, and this is fantastic news. On average, Australian women will get a tax cut of $1,649 each year under Labor's plan. Ninety per cent of Australian working women taxpayers will get a bigger tax cut under Labor's new tax plan compared with the stage 3 tax cuts. And under Labor's plan 97 per cent of childcare workers, disability carers and aged-care workers will be better off. Ninety-six per cent of nurses will be better off and 98 per cent of teachers will be better off compared with the previous government's plan.

Labor's plan will put more money in women's pockets and make it easier for them to pick up extra hours of work if they want to as they will keep more of what they earn, because our government wants to see people earning more and keeping more of what they're earning. With the gender pay gap still at 13 per cent, giving women more money to help them in the short term while we work to close the gender pay gap means that the sting of the increased cost of living will be eased; 5.8 million women, or 90 per cent of women taxpayers, will receive a bigger tax cut, an average increase of $707, and all 6½ million women taxpayers will receive a tax cut of $1,649 on average.

Our plan is also great for young people. I have one of the youngest electorates in the country—in fact, the fourth-youngest electorate in the country. There are over 22,000 people under the age of 30 enrolled in the division of Canberra, and it is young people who are facing the cost-of-living crisis head on. This tax cut will ease some of the pressure on them to ensure that they can prepare for their futures adequately. Under our government, all 1.5 million taxpayers aged 18 to 24 will get an average tax cut of just over $1,000. And all 1.6 million taxpayers aged 25 to 29 will get an average tax cut of $1,573. This is great news for Canberrans, and I'm proud of the action that we're taking to reduce the cost-of-living pressures on everyday Canberrans and everyday Australians. Under Labor's plan, more Australians will get a tax cut, and more Australians will get a bigger tax cut. As I said, around 79 per cent of taxpayers in the ACT will receive a bigger tax cut from 2024-25, and this is great news for our members of the community who are working hard, who talk to me every day about the difficulties that they're facing with the cost of living and who raise concerns with me about the fairness of the stage 3 tax cut plan. This is for everyone who is working hard and deserves a tax cut.

Melissa Price (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024. Before the last election, Labor made several promises to the Australian people. They promised that life would be cheaper under Labor and that Australians will be better off. Instead, Australians are battling the highest inflation in decades and a cost of living crisis. Australians were told that they would enjoy cheaper mortgages. Instead, we've seen 12 interest rate rises since Labor took office. A family with a mortgage of $750,000 now has to fork out over $24,000 extra per year in repayments. This is not sustainable. Australians were told over and over that they would benefit from a $275 reduction in their power bills, but we all know that the opposite has occurred.

Sadly, some Australians are deciding between meals on the table for their families and turning on their heater or, indeed, their air conditioner at the moment. Voters were told there would be no changes to super, yet we know what's coming in the next couple of weeks: Labor's plan to introduce several changes. This will undoubtably capture those self-funded retirees and farmers within my electorate of Durack. And then we get to the stage 3 tax cuts. Labor didn't commit to the legislated cuts at just the 2022 election but also the 2019 election. On over 100 occasions, they promised to deliver the stage 3 cuts. It's worth repeating here what the Prime Minister said about this promise. He said:

People have a right to believe … that when a politician makes a commitment before an election, they keep it …

He proudly declared, 'My word is my bond.' What a joke. Well, I asked the House, 'When you break promise after promise on the cost of living, mortgages, energy, super, tax and trust, what sort of bond is that?' I say it's a very slimy one.

I agree with those opposite that the government has developed a record that it can take to the next election. The problem for those opposite is that this is a comprehensive record of failure and broken promises. It's certainly not a record to be proud of. You have to ask yourself: why would the Australian people have any faith in this government or believe a word that this Prime Minister says? Understandably, they will be wondering what promise this government is going to make next. I would like to speak on behalf of the 1.8 million taxpayers who are worse off because of this latest broken promise. You see, this is effectively a tax increase for those forgotten 1.8 million Australians on what they were otherwise going to receive. We've heard from members across the chamber and from commentators in the media that these Australians don't deserve to receive the legislated stage 3 tax cuts—remember, it is law—and that's because, you see, these people are very rich. That's why they don't deserve it. Why should we allow them to keep more of their own money? The reality is that most of these people are not rich at all. I can tell you that, in my electorate of Durack, there are a lot of people who will be disadvantaged by this broken promise and who will be paying more tax than what was promised. They will pay more tax than what was in the law of this land. For instance, many of those in the Pilbara and the Kimberley who are hardworking people in the mining and resources sector might be earning more than $150,000 a year, but, let me tell you, they are not living a life of luxury. They are not rich people. It is incredibly expensive to live in towns like Broome, Karratha and Port Hedland, and they too are suffering from this current cost-of-living crisis. They too have to deal with higher mortgages, higher rent, higher food prices and higher fuel prices. And, because they're in the north, of course they're also dealing with higher insurance premiums.

Many would have understood that these tax cuts were coming. They would have understood that this was the law of the land, so therefore they could rely upon the fact that they were going to get these tax cuts from 1 July. They would have taken notice of the Prime Minister promising them, on many occasions, that he would not deal with the existing law. They would no doubt have started to take account of the fact that they were going to, after that first pay packet in the next financial year, have more money in their pocket, as we promised them. They were starting to account for the fact that they might be able to perhaps afford a little luxury or even just be satisfied that they could pay the mortgage from now on.

I believe we were right to legislate, together with those sitting opposite, to get rid of that 37 per cent tax bracket, as it meant you weren't punishing people for working that extra shift or for working FIFO, which many people who work in my electorate do—away from their family, making sacrifices to get ahead and help their family to get ahead. For many, they are helping to create the wealth of this nation—helping to pay for the lifestyle of the Australians who live in the city. These are the people that I represent, and they are very angry. Also, it's not just the 1.8 million Australians who will be worse off; due to the inevitable bracket creep, this number will increase to four million Australians by the end of the medium term. This bracket creep will account for a $28 billion tax grab by this big-spending government—more money in their reserves, definitely not more money in the hands of Australians.

But what's really rich is for those opposite to pretend that they're serious about tackling the cost of living. They have been responsible for not addressing the root cause of inflation—namely, their bad policy. Their energy, immigration and big-spending policies have all contributed to higher prices and higher inflation. They've left all the heavy lifting to the RBA, and we know that this has led to more interest rate rises and more pain for hardworking Australian mortgage holders. They have failed, since coming to office, to provide any real support. On their watch, in just 18 months food has risen by nine per cent, housing has gone up by more than 12 per cent—that's if you can get it, by the way—electricity has gone up by more than 23 per cent and gas has gone up by some 29 per cent. On this government's watch, the purchasing power of an Australian earning a salary of $85,000 has fallen by more than $7,600. Every dollar they earn is worth less under the Albanese government.

So I say to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer: don't pretend you can draft a piece of legislation and just slap the words 'cost of living' into the title and proclaim that you are making a real difference to the lives of the Australians that we desperately need to support. Don't pretend that an extra 15 bucks a week is going to make everything okay, because I know it's not going to. You may be able to rest easy at night, but I surely cannot. We all know that these tax changes are just a means to try and shift the focus from their dreadful record.

This government has had the wrong priorities from day one. It has done nothing to address the cost of living and has made Australia weaker. But I think Australians have woken up to the failures of this government. Those opposite understood the direction the polling was heading in, and they've tried to turn this around—just in time for the Dunkley by-election. How convenient, I say! Australians won't forget their failure to address the cost of living and can't be bought off.

I'm proud to say that the Liberal Party has always been the party of lower taxes. We unashamedly believe that Australians should keep more of their hard-earned money, whether they're earning $30,000 or $170,000. We don't just talk about it; we believe it, and we have delivered it time and time again.

In government, we delivered the stage 1 and stage 2 tax cuts, which were targeted towards low- and middle-income owners. We also installed the low- and middle-income tax offset that delivered real relief for Australian families and has been sorely missed under this government. The introduction of the stage 3 tax cuts was to complete the package. We had stage 1, stage 2, stage 3; that was how it was to work.

Now, while I do have issues with this legislation, it does seek to reduce the tax threshold for incomes between $18,200 to $45,000 from 19 cents in the dollar to 16 cents. Because of our commitment to lower, simpler and fairer taxes, we will not oppose this reduction or stand in the way of this bills package. I acknowledge that there will be many in Durack who will benefit from this. However, it is also because of this commitment that we remain determined to deliver a tax package that is in keeping with the original stage 3 tax reforms. The tax package that we take to the next election has to include lower taxes and ensure people keep more of their money, because we are really ambitious for Australian people. We want them to keep more of their money. We will fight bracket creep and enshrine aspiration in the tax system. I think that's what we all want. We want people who are earning $40,000 to aspire to earning $50,000 or $60,000 or $70,000, knowing that they will be able to keep more of that hard-earned money in their pocket.

Our package will be fully costed and will guarantee the essential services that Australians rely on while supporting a strong and growing economy. We will also commit to a plan that reduces the cost of living, which will not only support taxpayers but also benefit pensioners and those below the income tax threshold who don't benefit from this current policy. Let me make this point clear: Australians will be able to trust us to follow through on these commitments. They can trust us because when we promise lower taxes, we mean it.

Fiona Phillips (Gilmore, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm really excited to be here today to support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024 and Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Medicare Levy) Bill 2024. Any change that is going to leave 87 per cent of people in my electorate of Gilmore better off is great news for local people, and I will celebrate that every way I can. This bill will deliver a tax cut to every Australian taxpayer from 1 July this year. That is 64,000 people in my electorate on the New South Wales South Coast. And I can tell you, local people need this extra support. They need a fairer tax system and they need real support to deal with the cost of living right now.

People are struggling with their rent and mortgages. They are struggling with their groceries, their petrol costs and their electricity bills. They need help and they need it now. More than that, they want to see a system that is fair, that puts the needs of those struggling the most first. The changes we are proposing here with this bill deliver that, and local people across the South Coast have been telling me how welcome that is for them. Tony from Malua Bay says, 'This is good policy and quite good politics.' Duncan from Callala Bay says, 'Cutting that tax handout is not a broken promise; it is a promise to review taxation equity policy.' He says, 'It is good economic sense because tax relief for poorer people will return to the daily economy. It will support and create employment rather than further imbalance wealth and power.' He says, 'Thank you for supporting this taxation recalibration.' Your welcome, Duncan. Joan from Kiama called it 'a wise and necessary change that will benefit most workers'. I agree, Joan. Jean from Kings Point said, 'The original policy was designed to give crumbs to low-income families and generous tax cuts to high-income earners who do not need tax cuts. It would increase their earnings and investments and increase the gap between the haves and have-nots.' Well, Jean, that's exactly why we are making these changes, to make the system fairer, to help those who need it and to do so without increasing inflation. I could go on with the wealth of people across my electorate who have contacted me to praise the government's changes to these tax cuts, but I think we get the picture. As Tony from Malua Bay said, it is good policy. It is sensible policy. It is fair policy, good for local people and good for the economy.

Let's take a closer look at exactly what this bill is going to do. Under these changes, taxpayers earning less than $45,000 will now receive a tax cut—one they would not have gotten under the former Liberal government's plan. These are modest income earners, people working part time in my electorate, and we have a lot of them. Those earning average wages, around $73,000, will now get a tax cut of more than $1,500 a year, around $29 a week, and more than double what they would get under the coalition's plan. Nurses, hospitality workers, teachers, aged-care workers, childcare workers and those transitioning into retirement are the people who are better off, and these are the workers keeping our economy on the South Coast going. For a family on an average household income of around $130,000, with one partner earning $80,000 and the other $50,000, their combined tax cut will now be over $2,600. That's about $50 a week extra in the family's budget and $1,600 more than they would have gotten under the old plan of the Liberal Party. That's why we are making these changes. It's to support families, women, those working in the care economy and in tourism, young people and those on award wages. These are the people that are struggling to get by. They are who we are helping.

By focusing on middle Australia and addressing bracket creep for middle Australia, we will improve participation of women with a taxable income between $20,000 and $75,000. We will see more people working more hours, increasing labour supply, Treasury estimates, by around 930,000 hours per week. That's more than double the labour supply impact of the former Liberal government's plan.

I want to dwell on this point for a moment, because on the South Coast supply of labour is a real problem. We've got cafes that can't keep their doors open and farmers who can't harvest their crops because they don't have the workers. The tourism industry in particular is really struggling. Providing more incentive for those sitting on the cusp of the bracket, particularly part-time workers, is completely valuable to these businesses. Providing more incentive for those who are transitioning to retirement, more incentive for women returning to work and more incentive to young people to work while they study will make a huge difference to those businesses that rely on these workers to keep the doors open. It will have a real economic impact on the South Coast, supporting our tourism industry and helping our economic recovery.

I'm a broken record on this, but there is good reason for it. The South Coast is still recovering from the 2019-20 bushfires. We are still feeling those impacts economically, socially and emotionally. We are not recovered. We are not recovered from a pandemic that decimated the industries we rely on—namely tourism, but it impacted everyone. We are not recovered from a dozen disaster declared floods, and that's without even mentioning inflation and the rising cost of living that has made recovery from all those disasters so much more difficult. We have been hit over and over again ever since that terrible summer. We are not back on our feet, and local people need all the support they can get. That's why I'm excited about this plan. That's why I'm excited to see 87 per cent of local people left better off than they would have been if we had stuck to the Liberal Party's plan. It will provide better support for our economy and better encouragement for workforce participation.

Local people demanded that we as the Labor government look at the current economic conditions that we consider our new reality, not the reality of five years ago when the original plan was put into place. What does our economy need for those conditions we are facing right now? What does our economy need to keep inflation down? What do we need to ease cost-of-living pressure? No-one could have predicted these specific conditions five years ago. We hadn't seen the bushfires, the pandemic, crippling inflation and the rising cost of living. So what we did was listen to the community and to the experts. We looked at the economic conditions and we decided on the right thing to do and the responsible thing to do. We showed our integrity, we stood up for what the Labor Party stands for and we put middle Australia first.

While our 10-point economic plan is bringing down inflation—we've seen it start to moderate and that is incredibly welcome news—we are not out of the woods. The plan the Treasurer has carefully calibrated is making a difference, but we are not being complacent because it is so clear there is more that must be done. So from 1 July this year we will reduce the 19 per cent tax rate to 16 per cent, reduce the 32.5 per cent tax rate to 30 per cent, increase the threshold above which the 37 per cent tax rate applies from $120,000 to $135,000, and increase the threshold above which the 45 per cent tax rate applies from $180,000 to $190,000.

Sixty-four thousand people in my electorate of Gilmore will receive a tax cut under this plan, and 87 per cent of them will be better off than under the former Liberal government's plan. That's what we are delivering here today and that's what local people on the South Coast need.

I am proud to be part of the government that is delivering real cost-of-living relief targeted to where it is needed most. I commend the bill to the House.

Dai Le (Fowler, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As we gather today, I reflect on the year that has passed since I first called for a significant redesign of the stage 3 tax cuts. It is with a sense of vindication that I note the government's consideration of this narrative in their proposed legislation. Moreover, it is encouraging to witness the government finally taking the cost-of-living crisis seriously, an issue that hits close to home for many Australians including those within my electorate of Fowler.

The stark reality of the cost-of-living crisis is being felt by working Australians both day and night. They are confronted with rising rents, record petrol prices, soaring food costs and insurance premiums that are nothing short of unbelievable, not to mention the 13 interest rate rises that we've endured.

This level of financial strain and pain is unprecedented in recent memory, underscoring the disappointment in the government's delayed response to amend the stage 3 tax cuts. This was a golden opportunity to extend a helping hand to ordinary Australians, an opportunity that has been evident since the inception of this government 21 months ago. It begs the question: why did it take the government so long to act and why did it fall upon a small backbencher like myself, representing the resilient community of Fowler, to highlight the pressing need for more immediate support for working-class Australians?

The need is palpable in my electorate, where a significant portion of working families fall within the low- to middle-income bracket, making them the most vulnerable to our ongoing cost-of-living crisis. The bill in question aims to reform, relieve, support a broader swathe of Australians, with a commendable 84 per cent of taxpayers poised to receive a more significant tax cut. Specifically, individuals earning under $45,000 are set to benefit from a tax rate reduction from 19 per cent to 16 per cent. At face value, this revision offers some relief to low-income earners, a move that should indeed be welcomed.

However, while the government's revised plans are a step in the right direction, they are not without their flaws. The Grattan Institute has voiced concerns about bracket creep potentially diminishing 'the value of the tax cuts over time', given that Australia's tax scales are 'not indexed' to accommodate 'wage growth or inflation'. This highlights the need for a more comprehensive approach to tax reform—one that lessens the burden on the income tax of working Australians and addresses the inequality of the current system. The devastating impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on jobs, small businesses, housing affordability, food security, household energy and the general wellbeing of Australians is still acutely felt in my community of Fowler and, undoubtably, in other parts of Western Sydney and Australia. My commitment has been unwavering in pushing the government to introduce policies that genuinely alleviate these issues and support our people. Time and time again I've stood up in this chamber to raise the alarm with the government about the cost-of-living crisis, sharing the heartfelt experiences of my constituents, which were often met with insufficient consideration.

Even the new tax cut offers minimal relief to my community in Fowler, which continues to grapple with the spiralling increases in the cost of essentials. We need to implement measures that will make a tangible difference in addressing the cost-of-living crisis now. The amendments to the stage 3 tax cuts are a step in the right direction, but they fall short. The average benefit of $15 a week does not cover the wide array of increases we have endured. Why have insurance premiums risen significantly more than inflation? Why is petrol excise relief not being considered? Who is profiteering, and what is the government doing to address it? Despite a significant drop in wholesale electricity prices, ordinary Australians are yet to see a reduction in their electricity bills. These are all areas where the government could and should take immediate action.

Deputy Speaker, allow me to bring specific examples from my electorate of Fowler, which is among the most disadvantaged and comprises some of the lowest income earners. According to the 2021 census, the median weekly wage of individuals in Fowler is $521 a week, equating to an annual income of $27,092. Under the proposed changes in the bill, this translates to an annual tax cut of merely $267 or a meagre $5 per week for each individual. This amount is insufficient to alleviate the financial pressures faced by my constituents.

Several constituents have shared with me their cost-of-living struggles, which I want to bring to your attention. One constituent with a low-salary entry-level job struggles with the expense of taking public transport to work and job interviews. With many of my constituents having to commute outside the electorate for work by car, the cost of petrol adds up. I've previously called on the government—and again today I asked a question about this—to do more about petrol prices, which are impacting low- to middle-income households' ability to travel for work. I have asked for a fuel excise cut so that hardworking Australians are not being penalised for making a living and providing for their families. The government have demonstrated that they are willing to listen in their adjustment of the stage 3 tax cuts, so why aren't they willing to listen and apply the same approach to fuel excise, when the government is reaping almost $20 billion from it? A fuel excise tax cut right now is really needed to help our community.

Another of my constituents, in Bonnyrigg, attended our office visibly upset, said that she could not afford to pay her electricity bill and asked for anything we could provide. The Australian Energy Regulator highlighted in their latest Wholesale markets quarterly report that average annual wholesale electricity prices in the National Electricity Market have dropped between 44 per cent and 66 per cent. I understand that there are no current plans to cascade the drop to energy retailers immediately, but it's critical to pass on the lower wholesale energy prices fast. I ask the government to consider what measures can be taken so that there is further energy cost relief for Australians.

Amongst those suffering from the cost-of-living crisis are individuals who have pursued tertiary education and cannot keep up with the aftermath of their student debt. Those who have completed tertiary education are locked into their HECS repayments, and these tax cuts offer little benefit for them. According to a Nine news article, a survey conducted by Think Forward with 1,000 millennials and gen Zs on their views of this tax system revealed that 90 per cent were of the view that the government was not doing enough to support them. A constituent from Fairfield East shared that she followed the traditional pathway of studying hard at university and finding a job but struggled to pay off her $60,000 HECS debt due to the 7.1 per cent indexation and a good portion of her salary going to income tax.

These are just some examples of the impact of the cost of living on my constituency. There are over 38,000 students in Fowler, with 20 per cent at university and 21 per cent being hopeful high school students who may eventually attend. They will join the workforce in entry-level roles. How do you expect them to survive? HECS indexation is determined by CPI, and it may increase again to keep up with the cost of living. I call on the government to consider freezing HECS indexation now to allow students and tertiary graduates breathing room. I have said repeatedly that young people are our future and good policy must be formulated to support them. This is not too much to ask from the decision-makers in this room and in this House, many of whom enjoyed free university degrees in their time.

Income tax is a sensitive matter to my constituents, as they are directly affected by the surrounding issues of the cost of living and affordability. I have joined with the member for Wentworth to call on the government to be bold and look at reforming our tax system. Currently, it's ordinary working Australians, the majority of low income and middle income, who seem to be carrying the weight of this country by paying the most taxes through the PAYE system. As Australians, they have a duty to pay tax to continue the running of the economy, but this should not be at the expense of being able to provide for their families or furthering their education. For low-income earners, who often are sole breadwinners of their families, it's harder, as they must ensure they distribute their income towards rent, food and their children. It is a paycheque-to-paycheque exercise.

I ask the government to put two hats on: a short-term one and a long-term one. In the 2021-22 financial year, low to middle income earners—being those earning $48,000 to $90,000—were afforded a $1,500 tax offset. I understand that this was a temporary measure. However, the feedback that I receive from my electorate was that it was very welcome relief during trying times. The extra money back in their pockets allowed them to allocate funds for varying needs of their families. If this is within the boundaries of the government's budget plan, I ask the government to consider a similar tax offset again as a short-term relief. If the former Morrison government was able to provide this short-term relief for low to middle income earners as well as the petrol relief, surely a Labor Albanese government—the party of the 'working people'—can match it or do better?

Tax policy is daunting, but we need to rethink the system. We need a fairer and simpler system. I call on the government to be bold and courageous and tackle this tax system that's overdue for a rethink. There are plenty of tax specialists and economic experts who I have no doubt would be able to provide the government with ideas and policies that could help tackle the pain points in the cost-of-living crisis. This can be a way forward. The time for action is now, and we cannot afford to delay in providing more of the support and relief that working Australians so desperately need. They cannot be left behind and forgotten, because they are the backbone of our country and the economy.

Kate Thwaites (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

From 1 July this year, every Australian taxpayer will get a tax cut. In my electorate of Jagajaga, that's 77,000 people. That's because our government has put together a tax plan that puts more money back into people's pockets, a plan that benefits more Australians than what was offered under the plan put together by the Morrison government, a plan with fairness at its core.

This tax plan is the work of a responsible Labor government. We have listened to Australians, to people in communities like mine, who are feeling intense cost-of-living pressures at the moment. We have listened and we have acted on those concerns. We are building on our government's existing economic plan, together with our work to get wages moving again, to bring inflation under control, to drive fairer prices for Australian consumers and to provide cost-of-living relief, such as energy bill relief, cheaper medicines, higher income support payments and the biggest boost to rent assistance in 30 years.

By dropping two tax rates and lifting two thresholds, we are giving everyone a tax cut, providing $359 billion in help with the cost of living, and returning the most bracket creep where we can do the most good—in middle Australia. As a result, the average taxpayer will pay $21,635 less of income tax over the next decade. That is a sizeable change. I know it will make a great difference to households in Jagajaga and across Australia.

In my community there are workers at cafes, at the local supermarket, in our local shops who do a couple of shifts a day or a week. They earn around $30,000 a year. These workers will get a tax cut of $354 from 1 July and will also receive $172 as a result of our government's indexation of the Medicare levy—more than $500 directly back in their pockets. Real, tangible cost-of-living relief.

In Jagajaga, we have hundreds of nurses working at the Austin Hospital, the ONJ centre, the Warringal hospital and elsewhere. For those nurses earning $75,000 a year, our Labor government will deliver a tax cut of $1,554 from 1 July. If we'd maintain the tax cuts as legislated by the Morrison Liberals these nurses in my community would only be getting a $750 tax cut. Under our fairer tax cuts, these nurses on $75,000 a year in my local community will benefit from a tax cut that is more than double what they would have received under the Liberal's plan.

For the electricians in Jagajaga, and there are 990 of them, earning around $100,000 a year, your tax cut will be $2,179 from 1 July—an extra $779 than those electricians would have otherwise received had the coalition's version of the tax cuts been maintained. For the apprentice electricians in our community, earning around $46,000 a year, their tax cut is $845. That is a huge amount to have back in your pocket as you work towards finishing your apprenticeship.

For someone in my community earning $76,000 a year—one of the 1,577 primary school teachers in Jagajaga or the 584 plumbers or the 980 carpenters—they will get a tax cut of $1,579. A person on $85,000 a year, people like the 1,477 secondary school teachers in Jagajaga, and even the 115 tax agents in Jagajaga, will get a tax cut of $1,817 come 1 July. A receptionist—there are upwards of 1,100 of them in my community—or an aged-care or disability care worker, and there are 1,042 of them in Jagajaga, on $44,000 a year will get a tax cut of $774 from 1 July. And the 521 university lecturers working at places like La Trobe University on a wage of $119,000, they'll get a tax cut of $2,654. As I've said, every single Australian taxpayer will benefit from a tax cut from 1 July. Everyone will get more money back in their pockets.

These fairer tax cuts are the latest part of our government's ongoing response to the cost-of-living pressure at the moment. We have put in place cheaper child care, which has made child care more affordable for 6,600 families in my community. We've tripled the bulk-billing incentive to help make it easier for people to see a GP. And in just two months this has lifted the bulk-billing rate in Jagajaga by 3.1 per cent. Locally, we have the Heidelberg Medicare urgent care clinic, that our government established, seeing patients and providing people with a way to see a GP in an emergency that doesn't have to end up at the Austin Hospital.

We've delivered cheaper medicines. Victorians have saved $52 million on 4.7 million cheaper scripts since the changes our government introduced. And we're rolling out support, taking $250 off power bills for eligible households. And I have received feedback from locals about how helpful this program has been and how they appreciate that the money is coming straight off their bill via the energy provider without them having to do anything about it.

I could go on. Our cost-of-living relief is extensive—building more social and affordable homes, expanding paid parental leave, increasing rent assistance, tens of thousands of free-fee TAFE places, getting wages moving again—because our government gets it. All of us, from the Prime Minister down, hear from Australians that it's not an easy time at the moment, that the pressures are real, that families are making significant decisions about what they can spend money on and where they have to save. That's why we are prioritising all of these measures. That's why we are prioritising these fairer tax cuts: to help take some of the pressure off, to provide for households, to support people to have a better future.

Our fairer tax cuts put money back into the pockets of Australian women. Our government's tax cuts will see Australia women on average receive a tax cut of $1,649 each year. Under our plan, 90 per cent of working women paying tax will get a bigger tax cut than they would have under the Liberals' version of the tax cuts. For women in the care economy—such a big sector for women—97 per cent of childcare workers, disability carers and aged-care workers will be better off under our plan. These tax cuts are going to be better for so many people, including in my community, and that is why our government has introduced these changes.

Of course, while our approach has been to help Australians with the cost-of-living pressures they are facing at the moment, that doesn't seem to have been the approach of those opposite. What's become clear is that they're not focused on supporting Australians who need support the most. In fact, they're focused on the politics. We've had members on the other side, on the opposition benches, who reportedly told the Leader of the Opposition: 'Don't do it. Don't support the changes.' They wanted the Liberals to not support tax cuts for every single Australian taxpayer. They wanted the Liberals to say no to what, in some cases, is a doubling of tax cuts for workers who need that support the most.

When the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was asked if the opposition would roll back Labor's tax cuts, she said: 'Well, this is our position. This is absolutely our position.' The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer have taken similarly confused approaches to what should have been a simple decision for them. Within a single day the shadow Treasurer had gone from calling the government's fairer tax cuts 'Marxism'—I think that was in the morning—to saying on radio in the afternoon that he might vote for them. The Leader of the Opposition originally called for an early election on a policy that he has now said he and his party will support. I do think it must hurt those opposite for the 'no-alition' to ultimately have to say yes to something. While the opposition may get there in the end, it's clear that their heart isn't in it and it's clear their loyalty and their support aren't with middle Australians looking for support with cost-of-living pressures. They have once again revealed their priorities, which are not about supporting those nurses, electricians, apprentices and childcare workers in my community—who I've talked about—or in communities right around Australia.

Some of the opposition from those opposite has been framed around aspiration—this idea that, because our government supports middle Australia, we're somehow not supporting aspiration. I find that concept quite offensive, to be honest. Those opposite seem to want to live in a country that doesn't recognise that aspiration is something that Australians right across the board hold. Australians of all kinds, in all sorts of positions, are aspirational. They want a better life for themselves, for their kids and for their communities. That's what they work hard for. Aspiration isn't just for Gina Rinehart or Clive Palmer. Aspiration isn't just for those opposite watching Nemesis tonight and contemplating what their own future leadership pathway might be. Aspiration is something for every single Australian, and that is something that our government is recognising through these tax cuts. We are recognising that, for those feeling the cost of living the most at the moment, the extra money they will get in their pockets will be a great relief as they—as aspirational Australians—continue to work hard to pay their bills and their mortgages,, to put food on the table and to make all those decisions about what their family can afford. They will be aspirational and they will be supported by this government with tax cuts that are targeting people who need that support the most. I know that for some households that will mean they will be able to do things that they may previously have thought were out of reach. I'm really pleased to have heard from some people in my community that that is the case as a result of these tax cuts.

I acknowledge that I've heard from many constituents right across my local community who have taken the time to share with me their thoughts on the previous stage 3 tax cuts and the changes our government has made. Many people in my community have been contacting me for some time now, asking for changes similar to what our government has outlined and asking for us to make these tax changes fairer for Australians on middle and lower incomes who need support the most. I've had positive feedback from those people and from others since we have announced these changed tax cuts.

I have also heard from people in my community who wanted the coalition's version of the tax cuts maintained, and I respect the opinion of those people. In politics, our decisions can never please or satisfy everyone. It is the job of a good government to think about what is best and fairest for the country and to act accordingly, and that's what this government has done. From the Prime Minister taking these changes to the National Press Club and explaining to the nation why the government felt the need to do this work to support Australians feeling the cost-of-living crisis the most, this government has behaved responsibly. It looked at the situation that we find ourselves in. It looked at the tax system that is going to best set our country up to be a country that is fair into the future, a country that supports aspiration right across the board, not just for Gina and Clive. That is what this government is doing here. It has done so in a responsible manner.

We have been clear and upfront about the changes we are making and how those changes will benefit all Australian taxpayers. I am pleased that from 1 July our government's decision means every taxpayer will benefit from a tax cut. I'm pleased and proud to be in here supporting these changes. I know that in my community these changes will mean more money back into the pockets of more people. They will provide that cost-of-living relief to the people who need it the most at the moment. They will provide more support to low- and middle-income earners, those people who are feeling the most pressure from the cost of living. These, together with the work our government is doing in so many other areas, such as bringing down the cost of seeing a GP, making medicines cheaper and making it more affordable for families to send their children to child care, are tangible things that this government has done and will continue to do to support Australian families, support working Australians and make sure that the country we live in, the country that we all work hard in, is one that is fair now and into the future.

Henry Pike (Bowman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it's important to remind the House about the core, the nucleus, of these two bills, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living—Medicare Levy) Bill 2024, and that is a broken promise by this government. Unfortunately, these tax changes will barely touch the sides of the struggle for people under the current cost-of-living crisis, a crisis that has been made worse by the actions of this government. These changes will lock in long-term bracket creep, which is something that I'll touch on a bit later in this speech. I think it's important to recognise the impact that these changes will have over the long term, not just the immediate sugar hit that the government is hoping to achieve.

The coalition will not stand in the way of this bill. We will support it in order to support struggling Australians, not to support the Prime Minister's broken promise. We acknowledge that Labor's decisions in government have made life much harder for Australian families, and this bandaid solution will do little to fix the mess that they have made.

On Saturday, when I returned to my electorate, I had a mobile office at a local shopping centre at Mount Cotton. A number of my constituents came up to my little table and talked to me about the impact of the cost-of-living crisis on their purchasing ability in the local IGA there. They were talking about what they used to buy at this time last year that they couldn't afford to put in their trolleys this year. They talked about how these tax changes will do little to make an impact upon their household budgets, and they certainly talked about the lack of faith that they have in the current Prime Minister and the current government to deal with the economic challenges facing our country.

The Treasurer and the Prime Minister repeated their commitment to the stage 3 tax cuts over 100 times. The attitude within this chamber when members of the opposition or even members of the Greens party were asking questions regarding stage 3 was dismissive of any questions that were asked. Of course they were going to honour this commitment; it was madness to suggest that they wouldn't. Well, here we are, changing the promise that they committed to. The Prime Minister said that his word was his bond in relation to this commitment. Well, here we are, having suddenly discovered how much the Prime Minister's word actually means. The Treasurer now admits that the work to make this change has been underway since late last year.

Of course, this is only the latest in a series of broken promises from this government. We had the promise before the election of a $275 reduction in energy prices. This is something that they have not dared speak about within this chamber or within any media outlet since the election, but the Australian people remember that promise, and we're certainly going to hold the government to account on that. They promised there would be no changes to super taxes—another broken promise. They promised an increase to real wages, no changes to franking credits and cheaper mortgages. A lot of people at Mount Cotton on Saturday were telling me about the impact of increased interest rates on their mortgages and the challenges they're facing in just keeping their heads above water. And, of course, they promised no changes to the stage 3 tax cuts, but here we are this evening discussing those very changes. The Prime Minister has broken all of these promises I have listed. If the Prime Minister can make such promises to the Australian people so blatantly and then walk away from them, you have to ask the question: Can you ever believe anything that he says ever again?

Australians are struggling to pay their mortgages, their power bills and for their groceries, yet this government sees as a solution these tax changes that will save some Australians only $15 a week. Since the 2022 election campaign, Labor have promised to deliver cost-of-living relief yet, since then, prices have continued to rise. In the 18 months of Labor from June 2022 until December last year, we have seen food prices increase by nine per cent; the cost of housing, 12 per cent; electricity, 20 per cent; gas, 27 per cent increase; and insurance costs up 22 per cent over that period of time. This is at a time when the purchasing power of an Australian earning a gross salary of $85,000 has fallen by more than $7,600 since Labor came to office. So these tax changes will only return 10 cents to every dollar that individuals have lost due to Labor's failed management in this cost-of-living crisis.

We can also note that during this period the intake from personal income tax by the federal government has risen by a record 27 per cent. This government has added $209 billion in spending since they came to government and that's over $20,000 of extra spending for every Australian household. They should, of course, be reining in spending in order to help tackle inflation, and we know that Australia's inflation rate is significantly higher than a lot of the advanced economies around the globe. The Prime Minister has, unfortunately, ignored the cost-of-living crisis and is distracted by nearly every other issue under the sun, including spending so many months on the Voice campaign trail last year.

The Prime Minister has brought down two budgets and has failed to take any action to truly assist families, and this is just the latest in a rather meagre response to the cost-of-living crisis. I will give you an example. I asked a question of the Prime Minister late last week in relation to food bank lines within my electorate. Champion Support Services in Thornlands do a terrific job providing a whole range of services to locals in need. They are finding that over the course of 2023 the lineups for their food bank have tripled. They're telling me it's not just pensioners, it is not just people who are unemployed, it's not just the usual people they have experienced over recent years but, more and more, it is people who are struggling to pay a mortgage, it's people who are earning a good wage, or it is families who are finding it just impossible due to the circumstances that we are currently in to actually make a dent and make ends meet.

The coalition, of course, will always deliver lower, simpler and fairer taxes, and Australians can trust us to deliver this because we have in the past. Of course, we saw stages 1 and 2 of these tax reforms deliver significantly more dollars back in people's pockets than what the Prime Minister's new stage 3 tweaks will ever deliver. The Prime Minister's failed promises mean that delivering the stage 3 tax reforms is now impossible. However, the coalition is committed to going to the next election with a tax reform package that is in keeping with the stage 3 tax reforms. We remain committed to fighting bracket creep and enshrining aspiration within our tax system. Of course, that is so important. We will bring a tax package to the Australian people that will reward hard work and support a strong economy where every Australian has the ability to get ahead and we want to unite Australians rather than pick them against each other. A lot of the rhetoric, unfortunately, we have seen around these changes is pitting one group of Australians against another and it's not the Australian way. I don't think it is a narrative that will run well over the long-term.

Our package will be delivered while providing for Australia's future security and guaranteeing the essential services that Australians rely on. This package will be fully costed and ready to implement when and if we are elected and, most importantly, we will keep our promises. I think the Australian people have noticed through the tax reforms that we delivered in the last term of government how we can be trusted to deliver. The previous coalition government implemented this tax cut plan, with stage 3 to kick in on 1 July this year, to help Australians with the cost of living and to encourage aspiration. Stage 1 and stage 2 of the tax reforms of course delivered $40 billion in tax relief to low- and middle-income earners. The coalition also delivered tax relief to 10.1 million Aussies earning under $120,000, through the low- and middle-income tax offset.

In Bowman, my electorate, 8,900 constituents of mine will be worse off under the changes. These are hardworking Australians who of course deserve the tax break that parliament had legislated and that the government had promised to honour. Unfortunately, these people have been let down. It is also important to remember that if you consider Labor's decision to end the low-income tax offset in conjunction with these changes, there's a significant number of my constituents who are actually worse off. In fact everyone earning up to $120,000 is worse off when you consider the totality of Labor's tax changes in this term of parliament.

Of course we can't forget the impact of long-term bracket creep that this change in policy is embedding into our tax system. It was a fundamental feature of what stage 3 was supposed deliver. It was supposed to flatten out the tax brackets and avoid the impacts of rising wages and inflation on the tax intake over the course of the coming decades. Bracket creep is famously the thief in the night that steals the extra income that people are earning, particularly as wages naturally increase over time. Labor's broken promise entrenches bracket creep in our tax system, and it will in fact increase taxes by $28 billion for over four million Australians over the course of this decade.

Only those earning between $120,000 and $140,000 are truly better off under these changes, and even then, only modestly so. A lot of Australians, a lot of Redlanders, mentioned to me over the weekend as I set up mobile offices over the electorate, that they want to know what's next on the table. What else is this government going to be considering in terms of tax changes, now that they've made such a significant U-turn on this front?

The Prime Minister promised that under no circumstances would he touch the stage 3 tax cuts, in the lead up to the last election. My question is: what else is the Prime Minister promising not to touch that may well form part of their current considerations for this year's budget, or even heading further afield? Are we going to see changes to negative gearing? There was a question on that today. Are we going to see changes to CGT on the family home? These are questions Australians are asking, and we're not getting many answers from the government.

The Prime Minister has broken his promise on this front, and I fear that further promise breaking is certain to come. I certainly think the Prime Minister has failed to give a straight answer when asked very simply over the course of question time so far this week and last week to rule out breaking his promises in relation to negative gearing. The Treasurer was asked on 29 January about a plan to make changes to negative gearing, and he said that Labor wasn't considering it. That of course famously mirrors the lines that the Treasurer used in relation to the stage 3 tax cuts just a few weeks ago. The finance minister on the Today Show was asked the same question and said, 'We have no plans to do that.' That very closely mirrors some lines that the finance minister used in relation to stage 3 tax cuts as well.

They clearly haven't learnt the lessons from the 2019 election. Unfortunately, I fear that any changes that may be coming to negative gearing are actually going to be further killers of aspirations, particularly if the government is considering grandfathering existing provisions. People who currently have negatively geared properties benefit from that arrangement. My question would be: what about the next generation of Australians, the next generation of aspirants—the young people who I talked to over the course of the weekend—who aspire to one day own an investment property? Is the government proposing to kill off their aspiration to do so?

Ultimately this boils down to the fact that you cannot trust this government. I don't believe you can trust this Prime Minister either. No promise that they can make can ever be taken in good faith again. Every single policy commitment needs to be second-guessed. This Labor government has made life more difficult for Australian households over its course so far, and this relief will barely touch the sides when it comes to making a meaningful difference to household budgets.

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very proud to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024. We hear members from the opposition saying that you can't trust this government because of the changes we've made, but all I can say is that you can trust this Albanese government to put more in your pocket than you would have got under the former Liberal government. There's no doubting that when you look at the figures. As members of parliament, we speak to our constituents regularly. My constituents in the seat of Adelaide are very pleased with the changes that we've made. Yes, we did make a promise: we promised that we would be making tax cuts. We made that promise in the run-up to the election. We've changed it. We're now saying: 'Sorry, we're not going to give you the amount that we said. We're actually going to put more in your pocket. We're going to give you more.' That's the change that's been made. The majority of Australians will be getting more of a tax cut than they would have under the previous government.

This Labor government is putting more money back into the pockets of Australians, especially of hardworking Australians—those that need it the most. This isn't just a concept; it's a practical move to build a solid base for the financial future. It's also a readiness to prepare for a substantial, straightforward change that underscores our commitment to a resilient and financially secure future. At the same time that we're doing that, we're assisting those that are doing it the toughest—those low- and middle-income earners and those aspirational Australians. We know that people are doing it tough. We hear them. That's why these changes are being made, and that's why these tax cuts will put more into Australians' pockets.

The government is here to deliver. It's a good government, and good government isn't about doing what's easy for yourself. It's about doing the right thing for your constituents and for the nation, as well as doing it for the right reasons. It's about putting people ahead of politics. All we've seen from the opposition is politics on this particular measure that's taking place, yet they're voting for it. They're attacking it and condemning it, but they are voting for it because they know in their hearts that this is a better policy and a better change for Australian workers. It's about putting people ahead of politics, as I said. When I go around my electorate, as I'm sure you and other members of parliament do, Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou, we hear how people are doing it tough. We hear about the circumstances that a lot of people are in.

When economic circumstances change, the right thing to do is change your economic policy. We know that since five years ago, when the Morrison government was in, the economic realities have changed, and this government is making those changes because it recognises that. Australians are under pressure; there's no doubt about that. They're under pressure right now and deserve a tax plan that responds to the challenges that they are facing. When the coalition's planned stage 3 was legislated—five years ago, mind you—the world was a very different place. It was before a once-in-100 -year pandemic, persistent inflation, higher interest rates, two conflicts and global uncertainty put Australia under a more sustained cost-of-living pressure. When the circumstances change, as they have in the last five years, changing policy is the responsibility of a good government. It's the thing to do, and that's what we've done.

Cutting taxes for middle Australia is a central part of the economic plan, along with getting wages moving again, and you saw at the beginning of this government how they opposed that minor increase for the lowest-paid workers in this country. Every time there's more money to go into Australians' pockets, they oppose it, especially when it's for lower-income and middle-income workers. We hear nothing but opposition from them. As I said, when circumstances change, the responsible thing to do is to change and to do things to adapt to the current present day. This government is providing meaningful cost-of-living relief with this policy and these tax changes. It's doing it in a responsible way that doesn't add to inflationary pressures while laying the foundation for a stronger and more resilient economy, and at the same time putting more money into people's pockets. That's what we're doing. We're doing the right thing for the right reasons.

From 1 July, every Australian taxpayer will witness a substantial tax cut. We're doing this because we believe in not just increasing earnings but ensuring individuals keep more of what they earn. Cost-of-living pressures are this government's top priority, and we've seen that with cheaper medicines, with cheaper child care and with changes to Medicare. All of those things assist people in this current climate. Our tax cuts are not isolated, as I said. They're part of a robust economic plan addressing wage boosts, inflation control and fairer prices for consumers. That's what it's all about. Australians are under unprecedented pressure in 2024—right now—and they deserve a meaningful tax cut right now, not next year or in three years or five years. The need is right now, and we're delivering on that and delivering one that makes a tangible difference for 13.6 million hardworking Australians. I'll go back to what I was saying—this is not about populism. It's strategic, and it's the right thing to do under the current economic climate.

I'll give you some examples. A nurse earning $76,000 will get a tax cut of $1,579. A primary school teacher earning $80,000 receives $1,679. A truck driver earning $77,000 benefits from a $1,604 tax cut. Those who keep us safe—police officers, for example, earning $110,000—will see a tax cut of $2,429. This is real money going into their pockets. This is money that will help them during these cost-of-living pressures. Supporting those who tirelessly work on those front lines to keep Australia running is not just a financial decision; it's an acknowledgement of their invaluable contribution to our society and our economic strength. It gives us strength and resilience.

It's not just about numbers; it's about equity. All 6.5 million women taxpayers get a tax cut averaging $1,649. In fact, 90 per cent of women taxpayers, 5.8 million strong, receive a more substantial tax cut than under the former government's 2019 plan, with an average of $707. What we're currently giving them is well over double what they would have got under the previous government's proposals. The median taxable income of around $68,000 gets a tax cut of $1,379. That's $804 more than the former government's 2019 plan.

It's as I said earlier. We promised to give people tax cuts, and we're saying, 'Sorry; what we're doing now is we're going to give you more.' So I don't think the argument from the other side is quite correct. Labor's tax cuts are not letting anyone down. We want to ensure that no-one is let down, and that's what we're doing. We've delivered intergenerational benefits. For example, younger Australians who are aged 18 to 24 get an average tax cut of $1,007. That's the average across the board. Those aged 25 to 29 experience an average tax cut of $1,573. Older Australians, who have been the backbone of this economy for many, many years and who have worked hard and are going towards those twilight years of retirement, get an average tax cut of $1,731 for those aged between 65 and 69, $1,685 for those aged 70 to 74 and $1,726 for those over the age of 75.

In my own home state and in my seat, around 89 per cent of taxpayers will receive a more substantial tax cut than that offered by the opposition and former government. In Adelaide, in my electorate, 93,000 taxpayers—that's more than the majority of the taxpayers in my electorate—will experience an average tax cut of $1,540. Importantly, 79,000 taxpayers in my electorate will get a more substantial tax cut than under the previous tax cut, representing 85 per cent of taxpayers.

So, the Labor government's tax cut strategy is strategic, equitable and focused on the prosperity of every Australian. Even those at the high end, at the top end, in the $200,000s and over, will get a tax cut of around $4½ thousand. So, no-one's been left behind. No-one will be without a tax cut. And the majority of Australians—I know the majority of people in my electorate—will be receiving a higher tax cut than that proposed earlier.

On this side of the House we stand for a nation where hard-earned money is kept. We know it is tough out there, and we know that times are tough. I see this when I talk to my food banks and to the different charitable groups around the place. We're seeing people lining up for charity because they're doing it tough. Hopefully this will help. And it's not just those who are, for whatever reason, homeless or have found themselves in dire straits. The food banks are telling me that working people are fronting up on a regular basis—working people who can't make ends meet.

I know that what we're doing is not a panacea for everything, but it certainly will go a long way in putting a few extra dollars in people's pockets. That's why I support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024, and I hope everyone on the other side supports it as well. It is a very important bill that will put extra money into the pockets of the people who need it the most.

Keith Wolahan (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've listened with interest to the debates on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024, and you can understand why Australians will despair. We've heard the government speakers, speaker after speaker, stand up and give a long list of the great gift they are giving Australians in a tax cut, and then they'll single out aspects of the community that are getting more with the changes. Of course Australians are doing it tough. Of course there is a cost-of-living crisis. And of course if there is an opportunity to put more money in the pockets of Australians then we will take it. But let's not forget the circumstances of how this happened, because the motive and the timing of the change matters. It doesn't just matter in the day-to-day Punch and Judy show of politics. It matters to whether we can address serious challenges that this country faces.

When a debate comes before the parliament I usually pull out the Intergenerational report and see if that has something to say on the particular issue we're talking about. And when you look at one aspect that we can control in this place more than any other, it's government spending, because all the effort is being put on two places. First, the Reserve Bank addresses inflation by lifting interest rates—the only blunt instrument it has, and it punishes a particular cohort of Australians more than any other: those paying off a mortgage. And we seek to punish those who are trying to aspire to a better life, to earn more income and to produce more, to lift this country up. On page 144 of the Intergenerational report there's a chapter on government spending, and it's quite alarming. Using 2022-23 prices, at the turn of the century government spending per person was about $15,000. So, in real terms, the projections for that, on the same prices—so, this isn't inflation; this is in on those prices—is projected to be $40,000 per person by 2062.

We know that productivity has fallen off a cliff, so we know that that difference is not going to be made up by this country lifting the tide. We've heard the JFK quote, 'A rising tide lifts all boats.' That's not just a cute line; that is an important expression of where the growth in this country comes from. Australia is a prosperous, free country in spite of this place, not because of it. It is a prosperous and free country because of the hard work and free enterprise of Australians who have taken risks, worked hard and studied hard. And this place has said to them, 'If you do that, there is not only a place here for you; you will be rewarded for it.'

This isn't a new debate—the debate about democratising power and prosperity to your country or centralising it in a place like this. That debate has been had. It has been won. It's one sided. To the credit of the Labor Party, there have been times when many Labor Party senior figures have understood that and fought for that. They certainly did in the 1980s under Bob Hawke and Paul Keating. They did that with the support of the Liberal opposition. Our history—our DNA—is that, whenever there is a chance to lean into giving more to and supporting Australians, we will take it, and we will support you. The idea that our decision is driven by politics is ridiculous. It's nonsense. The timing and the motive of this change show that this is entirely driven by politics on the government's side. For 20 months, we have been telling you in speech after speech that Australians are hurting. Food bank queues are through the roof. People are wondering whether they can keep their homes, and businesses don't know whether they will survive. And the government was focused on other things.

But something happened over summer, and it wasn't that in the summer break the government members accepted our claim that Australians are doing it tough. There was a concern about an upcoming by-election, and it's in my home state of Victoria in the seat of Dunkley on 2 March—weeks away. We know that timing and motive matter, because the Treasurer told us so. The Treasurer went on ABC. The government has liked to quote ABC throughout the last week, but, on 7.30, the Treasurer said that the timing was about Dunkley. That's why we've rushed this along here. Australians have been hurting for 20 months, but there's a by-election, so let's hurry up and get it done.

Many speakers have also spoken about how, if we isolate just the money that you will get back compared to one proposal for another, we're missing the reality of how people live their lives. There are multiple sides to this ledger. Of course more money at home is needed. But let's not forget what's going out. The average house is going to get about $1,000 more for this change, and we welcome that. But the average house on the average income has seen a real loss in real wages of $8,000. You're giving 10 per cent with one hand, and you're taking 10 times that with the other. For those who are paying off a mortgage, the average mortgage of $750,000—and, in seats like mine, that is a fraction of what's needed to buy a modest house or a unit—has seen a $24,000 per year increase. Many young Australians who aspire to owning their own home, particularly those in metropolitan Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide, where house prices are at record levels, are giving up. What are we saying to them? This was the pathway back. 'If you study hard, you work hard and you aspire to earn more, you too can own your own bit of Australia.'

Last Friday, I spoke to the Governor of the Reserve Bank. We noted how the average income earner on $93,000 can only afford a median house in three of Melbourne's suburbs. Some correctly observed that most people purchase a house as a couple or a household. Others noted that the median salary is more relevant than the average salary. So let me outline each. For those watching, I ask you to imagine a table full of M&Ms. If you focus on metropolitan Melbourne, where I am from, there are only 354 suburbs. You can expand the definition and make it more or less, but let's focus on metropolitan Melbourne—354 suburbs, 354 M&Ms on a table. Let's start with the assumption that everyone has managed to save a deposit of 20 per cent. That's a big assumption. The median property value in Melbourne is $900,000. It's $1.2 million in Sydney. That assumes a deposit of $180,000 in Melbourne and $240,000 in Sydney. Then add stamp duty for both—$42,000 for each. So, if you're looking for a median house, you require a total of $222,000 in Melbourne and $282,000 in Sydney.

Assuming that has been saved, a couple who both earn the average Victorian wage of about $95,000 can afford to buy a home in just 49 out of 354 suburbs—out of all of those M&Ms, 49. But not every partnership is made up of full-time workers. Some are part time. Some are on parental leave. So the average household is often a more useful measure. And the average household can only afford 26 out of 354. If we are to use the more accurate and relevant measure of average wage being median wage—because average wage is skewed by those who are earning significant incomes, the billionaires of Australia—a couple earning the median wage in Australia can afford a total, out of 354 suburbs, of zero. Zero houses are affordable for a couple on the median wage in Australia—out of a table of 354 M&Ms, not one. You might say: 'Well, temper your aspirations. What about a unit?' Well, out of 354 suburbs, they can afford 15 suburbs for a unit.

But let's go back to the assumption I made at the start about deposits. It gets significantly worse if we remove that assumption, which is the reality for most Australians, given after-tax income is required to save that, unless you are in the fortunate position of a family being able to help you. So how long would it take to save 20 per cent of the price of a median house in Melbourne? How long would it take you to save $222,000? For a couple on an average wage, it would take them nine years. For the average household, it would take 13 years. For the median couple—with two people earning, and, if you take 10 Australians, they are both halfway—as a couple, it would take them 17 years to save the median deposit and stamp duty for a house in Melbourne. And all of those figures are much longer for Sydney. It's similar in Brisbane and similar in Adelaide.

And all of this assumes there's no relationship breakdown, illness or loss of income—and we know those statistics are too high for so many families. This is for people who do everything right—they study and work hard; they stay together; they're healthy. And yet still this Australian dream is out of reach. It is no wonder the bank of mum and dad is now the ninth-largest lender. It is no wonder those who are not in landowning families are losing faith.

Migrants move heaven and earth to come to this nation, as my family did, for a dream of a better life. The Australian dream puts a premium on study and hard work over the lottery of birth. It's what distinguishes us from any other country on earth. People speak of the American dream, but the Australian dream is far more powerful and leans towards aspiration and opportunity more than the talking points of US presidential candidates. But the Australian dream is now under threat. Solving a problem starts with recognising that you have one. So when we see speakers stand up and read out the talking points about the great gifts that people are getting from this place while their real incomes are 10 times worse, at the same time government spending is out of control. You're asking people to save money in their households, but we won't save money in our household here.

When people despair that the one legislated bit of tax reform we've had in recent memory has been torn up, they can also despair at the capacity of this place to move beyond the Punch and Judy show that is the political cycle. It's not good enough when Australians, particularly young Australians, have given up on the idea of owning their own home, and that's what's happened. And I'm not pretending that that is the cause of this particular government; that's been building for a while. But you can do something about it. This government can do something about it. We can all do something about it. That is so much more important than the talking points of this particular debate.

When we change the 37 per cent bracket, when we increase the comparative income that's paid at the top end, we're saying to those young Australians who didn't have parents who could help them, who did everything right—they studied hard, they worked hard, they aren't in those brackets now, but they want to be and we know they're talented enough to get there. They're not just thinking about their pay packet today; they're thinking about what they can aspire to. And let's not forget the true inequity here: there are those who can afford to create structures and trusts that minimise their tax anyway, and the people who will be impacted by this can't afford those arrangements. How this happened matters. The timing matters. We should all do better in turning our minds to proper tax reform and helping young Australians buy their own homes.

Cassandra Fernando (Holt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today with pride to support the passage of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024. In Melbourne's outer south-east, where families are grappling with steep housing costs, soaring energy bills and rising childcare expenses, the cost-of-living crisis is deeply felt. Working Australians have shouldered the burden of these issues, struggling to make ends meet despite their tireless efforts. This bill represents a leap forward in our nation's journey towards economic fairness and social equity. It is a testament to the Albanese Labor government's unwavering commitment to the welfare and prosperity of all Australians.

This bill implements the Labor government's cost-of-living tax cut for middle Australia. It means every single Australian taxpayer will now get a tax cut, no matter their income. It means that 90 per cent of taxpayers in my electorate of Holt will get a bigger tax cut than they would have under the coalition. This means more tax relief for more workers to help with cost-of-living increases.

When the Prime Minister spoke during question time last week, his words echoed the sentiments of every resident in the south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne. They reminded us of the fundamental truth that aspiration knows no bounds. They remind us that the concept of aspiration is not confined to a select few who have enjoyed privilege or come from an elite background. Instead, it is evident in every corner of our nation, touching the lives of every hardworking individual.

As I engage with my constituents from all walks of life in Holt, I see the profound aspirations that drive each and every one of them. From fast-food workers to IT professionals, from the dedicated staff at Woolworths to the migrants who have journeyed to our shores through our skilled migration programs, the desire for a better future resonates deeply within the hearts of every Australian. I understand this aspiration better than many because this is also the story of my family, who migrated to Australia to ensure a better life for their children. Under a Labor government, these aspirations are not only acknowledged but championed. We understand that the foundation of a fairer and more prosperous society lies in ensuring that every individual has the support they need to pursue their dreams regardless of their current income. That's why our government is committed to implementing policies that empower middle Australia and to providing them with the support they need to thrive.

Our plan will give all 13.6 million taxpayers a tax cut. It will mean that, compared to Scott Morrison's plan from five years ago, 2.9 million more people will receive a tax cut. It will mean 11.5 million taxpayers will receive a bigger tax cut than under the coalition. The biggest beneficiaries of these tax cuts will be the nurses, teachers and truckies. When I went to vote in my first election, I asked my mum who I should vote for. She told me that I should vote for Kevin Rudd because the Labor Party is the party that represents working-class Australia. Only the Labor Party stands up for Australians who are doing it tough, and this legislation is proof of that.

From 1 July this year, the Albanese Labor government will reduce the 19 per cent tax rate to 16 per cent. The decrease in the 19 per cent tax rate will ensure that minimum-wage and part-time workers, like many of our nation's youth, will be better off. These workers, of whom I used to be one, received zero support under the coalition's plan. This is the difference between Labor and the coalition. The Labor Party is here to support everyone. The coalition is only here to support those in the top percentile of society. On top of this, the government will also increase the threshold for the Medicare levy by 7.1 per cent. These changes will support low-income households, as households with taxable incomes below $32,500 will not be liable for the full Medicare levy. These changes will give back money to an estimated 1.2 million low-income earners, in addition to the lower tax rate.

From 1 July this year, the Albanese Labor government will also reduce the 32.5 per cent tax rate to 30 per cent, increase the threshold above which the 37 per cent tax rate applies from $122,000 to $135,000 and increase the threshold above which the 45 per cent tax rate applies from $180,000 to $190,000. The increase in threshold above which the 37 per cent and 45 per cent tax rates apply will ensure that the middle-income earners in my electorate of Holt will receive a fairer share of tax relief. In Holt, the average tax cut will amount to a substantial $1,321 a year, offering significant relief to families grappling with the rising cost of living. A minimum wage worker on $45,000 will save $800 under Labor's plan. A nurse or a primary school teacher on $76,000 a year will save $1,600. The average truck driver on $80,000 a year will save nearly $1,700. A welder who earns $110,000 will save nearly $2,500. Those who earn $180,000 and above will still get a tax cut. In fact, those who earn over $180,000 will receive the biggest tax cut of all, 4½ thousand dollars.

By putting more money back into the pockets of hardworking families, Labor is empowering them to better navigate the challenges they face daily. The decision to amend the old stage 3 tax cuts was not taken lightly by the government. We understood the political sensitivity and the potential challenges involved in altering tax legislation that had been in place for five years. However, we recognised the significant changes in the economic landscape since then, including the once-in-a-century pandemic, persistent inflation, higher interest rates and global uncertainty. These factors have placed greater pressure on the cost of living for individuals and families across the nation.

Over the summer as I engaged with my community in Holt it became increasingly evident that more comprehensive cost-of-living relief was necessary. As responsible managers of the economy, Labor understands the importance of adapting economic policy to changing circumstances. The tax changes outlined in this bill reflect Labor's commitment to addressing the evolving needs of Australians. In the words of ANU Associate Professor Ben Phillips, 'These are the right measures to implement driven by reasons and timed appropriately to provide relief when it is most needed.'

However, it is important to acknowledge the tax cuts alone are not enough to address the root causes of the cost-of-living crisis. In Melbourne's outer south-east, where families are grappling with steep housing costs, soaring energy bills and rising childcare expenses, a holistic approach is needed to tackle these issues. The Albanese Labor government understands the daily struggles faced by families in Holt and across the nation. That's why our comprehensive approach goes beyond mere tax relief.

We have delivered electricity bill relief, with $1.5 billion in power savings to Australian households. We are delivering cheaper child care, benefiting 1.2 million families. We have delivered the largest increase in rent assistance and income support payments in history. We have strengthened the beating heart of Medicare by tripling the bulk-billing incentive. We have delivered cheaper medicines, with the 60-day prescriptions saving patients $1.6 billion over the next four years. We are delivering 300,000 fee-free TAFE positions, upskilling Australians in the jobs of the future. We are investing over $10 billion to build more affordable homes, we are expanding paid parental leave to 26 weeks and we are creating jobs and getting wages moving again after a decade of stagnation.

While these tax cuts will undoubtably provide much needed financial breathing room for hardworking Australians, we recognise that they are just one piece of the puzzle. That's why Labor is committed to investing over $23 billion in a range of initiatives to ease the burden on working families. From investing in affordable housing and renewable energy and providing greater support for child care and education, we are taking decisive action to address the underlining factors driving the cost-of-living crisis.

In Holt and across the nation, working people can rest assured that we will be better off under a Labor government. We will continue to fight tirelessly to ensure that every individual has the opportunity to fulfil their aspirations and achieve their full potential, because in Australia aspiration belongs to every single person, and it is our duty to ensure that it remains within reach for all. Whether it's a part-time worker striving for financial security or a supermarket worker dreaming of home ownership, only the Labor Party's policies are designed to uplift and empower all Australians. We understand that true prosperity is more than just financial gain. It's about having the opportunity to build a better life for oneself and one's family. That's the promise we make to the people of Holt and to all Australians. Under a Labor government, everyone will be better off.

In closing, I would like to express my gratitude to Treasurer Jim Chalmers for his tireless work on this bill. His dedication to the welfare and prosperity of all Australians is evident in the thoughtful measures outlined within this legislation. I commend this bill to the House, confident that it represents a significant step forward in our ongoing efforts to create a fairer and more equitable society for all.

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just as the schoolchildren of the 19th century chanted, the collective pants of this Labor government are on fire. From the first time Mr Albanese and his Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, used the weasel words, 'We have not changed our position,' when pressed on tax cuts, we can assume they had already decided they would. Otherwise, why repeat such an odd phrase in such a stiff, formal way, as we heard it on more than 100 occasions? Since at least 9 October 2022, just 4½ months after they were elected to office, the Prime Minister has studiously repeated the phrase, 'We have not changed our position.' Now, of course, he has. He said, 'We have not changed our position,' but he didn't say, 'We will not change our position.' He didn't say, 'Absolutely we'll be delivering the full package.' He just said, 'We have not changed our position.' And you guessed it—the public guessed it—what he should have added to that phrase was 'yet'. The Prime Minister should have said 'We have not changed our position yet.' Then it would have been much more honest. This means they have been lying to the Australian public from at least that day, if not before. After telling us that his word was his bond and promising to bring back integrity and honesty to Australian politics, Mr Albanese has proved that he is bereft of both those virtues.

It's worth noting now that even the Treasurer is using a similar form of weasel words in connection to negative gearing and capital gains. Last week in this place, Dr Chalmers said in question time, 'I have dealt with these issues previously,' and then quickly went on to bashing the opposition and not making any commitment to leave negative gearing as it is. On the weekend, he was quoted—in the Guardian, no less—as saying that the government is not considering changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax. He said:

That's not something that we're proposing, not something that we are considering, not something that we are working up.

Come on, Mr Treasurer, spit it out. 'The government will not make any alterations to negative gearing and capital gains tax.' It's simple; just spit it out. No, it's not exactly the same phrase as, 'We've not changed our position,' but it's loaded up with all the same ambiguity. For the record, the Treasurer has said multiple times in the past that you can't have genuine tax reform without attacking negative gearing. The Labor Party, the Prime Minister and Dr Chalmers went to the last election promising to leave the stage 3 tax cuts alone, but we know that their word is worth nothing, and clearly they are not to be trusted.

To the legislation, it will be welcomed by some, probably most, who are getting a bigger tax cut than they would have. In an electoral sense, it would be impossible to remove once granted. The government's posturing on this point is no more than a cheap diversion from the duping of the public. It is disingenuous for them to say, 'Put up or shut up. Remove the legislation if you are elected,' because they know full well that no-one would be elected on that basis. As an opposition, it is imperative we focus on the things we can change, not the impossible, regardless of the moral merit. Of course, going to the next election promising to increase taxes as a commitment to reverse Labor's tar-baby tax cuts would ensure failure. To not recognise this reality would be to fail Australia. We always need oppositions to be within reach of government, with the alternative leading to hubris and overreach, and there's every sign that this government has succumbed to those urges already. The most important thing for Australia is that the coalition go to the next election putting pressure on the government.

The Labor Party has chosen to take the path of higher taxes by stealth. It's called bracket creep, and it will slug taxpayers an extra $28 billion over the next 10 years. The government says that 11.5 million workers earning about $146,486 or less will be better off under this plan, but it's only for the first year. Over a decade, a worker earning $130,000 will pay almost $3½ thousand more tax annually under the government's plan, as compared to the original stage 3 tax package, while a worker on $140,000 will pay $12,723 more. It's all short-term benefit and long-term pain, with no courage.

The underlying truth of the legislation is that it leaves the prospect of long-term reform of our taxation system in very dire shape indeed. It has signalled that at least this government has a complete focus on short-termism—whatever it takes for a vote tomorrow, or clearly, in this case, whatever it takes it for a vote in the Dunkley by-election on 2 March. The Treasurer even admitted it on 7.30, saying:

… we didn't want to wait, frankly, until after the Dunkley by-election …

After all, Mr Deputy Speaker, if the tax cut is due in five months, why on earth are we sitting late tonight? How shallow and obvious is that? The government are totally focused on the short-term sugar fix to get them through the month and continue to attack entrepreneurism, endeavour, initiative and enterprise. They are the enemy of aspiration and are focused on rekindling the class war.

When John Howard was in office, personal income tax as a share of tax receipts was just over 40 per cent. The 2023 Intergenerational report tells us that without structural reform personal income tax is set to soar from 50.5 per cent of total tax receipts in 2022-23 to 58.4 per cent in 2062-63, on the back of bracket creep. The stage 3 cuts would have removed the 37 per cent rate and lifted the 47 per cent threshold to $200,000. Mr Albanese's crab walk delivers short-term benefit and long-term strangulation.

Another fact: in the two years from September 2021 the quarterly tax paid by households rose by 40 per cent, or from $65.1 billion to $91 billion, mostly due to bracket creep. And here's the news: because the government has squibbed it for short-term game there is worse to come. The government told us they would be reformist in the mould of the Hawke-Keating governments. Really? What a joke! They could barely be less reformist on this issue if they tried.

We've had a tax system that's far too reliant on income tax and loaded with disincentives to innovation, expansion and success. Far from the abusive rhetoric of the political Left, we have one of the most extravagantly progressive tax systems in the world. High-profile economist Chris Richardson calculates that the top one per cent of income earners pay the equivalent tax contribution of the bottom 77 per cent of adults. That is about as progressive as you can get, you would have to say, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The three tranches of tax cuts which commenced in 2018 were designed to deliver a 31 per cent decrease in tax to those earning $45,000 per year and a 20 per cent decrease to those earning $60,000. For those earning around $200,000 it was 11 per cent. To those who think that favours the top end, I can only say that it becomes increasingly difficult to give a tax cut to someone who pays little or no tax. Also worth considering—and we need to listen to the government's rhetoric on this—is that someone earning $45,000 a year will receive just $804, or 15 bucks a week. I don't know how long it's been since either the Prime Minister or the Treasurer did the family shopping, but if they did they'd find that 15 bucks doesn't go so far, particularly not when you consider that this government, in the last budget, cancelled the low-income tax offset for exactly this group. That was worth $700 a year. So get this: you take $700, give $804 back 12 months later and expect $104 to cover the rising cost of power—remember the $275 promise on electricity?—fuel, food, council rates or insurance. You can take your pick. To those on $45,000 a year: enjoy your extra $104. Mr Albanese has not only broken his word, betrayed the trust of electors who took him at his word and provided a new disincentive to innovation and enterprise but he has made the task for all future tax reform that much more difficult.

This is not sound policy. It lacks any concept of a plan for the future. As a decision in isolation, it is not reversible. Australians need to elect a government with a comprehensive understanding of the taxation system, an understanding of international competition for finance and how other jurisdictions are fashioning their tax systems to respond in a changing world. The current government is demonstrating it is not capable of gauging that far into the future. The last Treasurer to offer relief from bracket creep was Peter Costello, and since that time bracket creep has vacuumed billions of dollars out of taxpayers' pockets. We in the coalition are focused on offering real reform of the taxation system. We are the only team likely to deliver in this area. We will continue to prosecute the case over the next 18 months in the lead up to the next election.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Much has been said about our government's revised tax cut policy, with media commentators, a variety of politicians, financial gurus, financial advisers, stockbrokers, bankers, everyone having a say on this. I know that much has been said about whether it is a broken promise or whether the government has moved with the times and decided to do the right thing by the majority of the Australian population. I have been arguing for support for the cost-of-living crisis in my electorate for years. The previous government was happy to see some of the most vulnerable people in our communities suffer under this cost-of-living crisis with very little being done.

I am proud to be part of a government that is offering relief for cost-of-living difficulties that we are all facing to over 90 per cent of the Australian taxpaying population. What we're hearing from those opposite is sophistry; it is a desperate message from a desperate opposition, who have now, after much grandstanding, finally agreed not to get in the way of these tax cuts. It is really quite ridiculous to see the behaviour from the opposition. They are tying themselves in knots trying to criticise a policy that they are going to vote for. It would be amusing if it wasn't so tragic that they are trying to weaponise a policy that will give some relief to the many families, particularly in electorates like mine, Macarthur, from what is a cost-of-living crisis.

I will tell you what the cost-of-living crisis means in my electorate. For young families, it means they can't afford their rent. It means maybe getting evicted. We have families in my electorate living in their cars because they cannot afford the rent. It means that you may not be able to pay for your child's school excursion because you can't afford the costs. It may mean you can't afford decent food to feed your family. We have working families going to support groups in my electorate like St Vincent DePaul, Lifeline et cetera trying to get money to put food on their tables. In a country like Australia, a wealthy country like Australia, that is a living tragedy. We need to recognise that and that is why it has been so urgent to offer these tax cuts and relief to some of those most vulnerable. My office hears this and sees it every day. I have been to the Lifeline credit support centre in my electorate, in Macarthur, and have seen what some families are going through. To me, it is a tragedy. The pressure that this puts on young families who are trying to get ahead in a very difficult world is terrible. We are seeing increased stress on mums and dads and increased mental health difficulties in young people that relate to this cost-of-living crisis.

These are challenging times. We have to remember, when the Morrison government rolled out the stage 3 tax cuts, in 2019, the world and the economic situation was very, very different. No-one had heard of COVID-19. We were yet to experience the horrors of the pandemic, the bushfires in 2019-20, Russia invading Ukraine and the present difficulties in the Middle East. These and many other difficulties have had significant economic impacts on the federal budget, on the world and, in particular, on Australian households.

That's why it's very sensible for us to introduce these overhauled tax cuts, to try to give support to young families who are just trying to get ahead. It was very sensible for us to do this and very important that it was done urgently. These tax cuts are fairer for Australians who are trying to get ahead and they ensure that everyone gets a tax cut, with a bigger cut going to low- and middle-income Australian households, who are often hit the hardest by the effects of global conflicts and resource constraints.

I'm proud of our government's changes. They benefit my electorate greatly, with 90 per cent of Macarthur taxpayers better off under our proposal. That is really important. It means people can afford to go to a doctor and it means people can afford to buy medicines, together with the other important cost-of-living measures that our government has done. It means young mothers can eat properly and have their kids eat properly. It means people can provide school clothes for their kids. Every suburb in my electorate of Macarthur will be better off. It means real relief to some of the households doing it the toughest.

It's even more important for the 28 per cent of Macarthur residents who are on very low incomes, under $45,000 a year, because under the coalition's original stage 3 plans they would have received a tax cut of nothing—zero. Can you imagine trying to live on $45,000 a year? Every cent counts. For them to get nothing in these stage 3 cuts, in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, would be terrible. These are individuals, often single parents, students or elderly workers, who would have received nothing under the original plans that those opposite fought so hard for us to retain. Thankfully we didn't take their advice and instead have now rolled out our own overhauls, providing tax cuts to more Australians. For the group I just mentioned, this ranges from cuts of up to $804 for those earning $45,000 per year or less.

Across the nation there will be more Australians—2.9 million, to be specific—who will now receive a tax cut. After all the uproar from those opposite when we announced our overhaul, I ask them: could you tell those taxpayers, all 2.9 million of them, that they are worse off under Labor? You can't do that. They are doing better under Labor and will always do better under us, particularly in this time of cost-of-living difficulties. Should they forget about their tax cuts and focus on a broken promise? I don't think so. I'm sure these individuals are looking forward to receiving their tax cut and putting it into their children's sport or their energy bill or buying some fresh food, because that is what these tax cuts mean. They are fairer and more beneficial for more Australians than those the coalition wanted under their original plans. They are part of Labor's program to provide cost-of-living relief for all Australians. They come together with things like the cheaper medicines policies, the tripling of the Medicare bulk-billing rebate for some of the most disadvantaged, improvements in funding for education, and improved funding for our overall health care and our hospital system.

Of course, women are some of the biggest beneficiaries of our policy, with 90 per cent of female taxpayers getting a bigger tax cut now, which is so important, given that many women, unfortunately, earn less in terms of both salary and superannuation than men do. These things are really important, particularly for young families. They're the ones that I want to support the most. It's not particularly meaningful for taxpayers on very high incomes to get the tax cuts that were originally planned by the coalition. What is meaningful is to be in the low- to middle-income bracket and get these tax cuts from us on 1 July. I thank the Treasurer and the Prime Minister very much for their hard work in this space. They know what it means for families to struggle, and they know how important it is that we provide support for those struggling families.

I'd like to thank all those in our government for their work in addressing the cost of health care and medicines and thank the Minister for Health and Aged Care for his work in advocating for more patient friendly and cost-efficient changes. We are trying to undo some of the pressure that the previous coalition government put on young families. Unfortunately, the coalition defunded Services Australia, so often young families are tying themselves in knots trying to get maternity leave payments or childcare rebates because of the lack of funding for Services Australia. The coalition government damaged young families in Australia, and we are trying to undo some of the mess that they've left them with. We're giving young families extra help. Lifting the low-income Medicare thresholds, which are part of those plans as well, means that more very low income earners get additional tax relief on top of the tax cuts we're providing. This is crucial for my electorate of Macarthur. Not only do we have significant demand for healthcare access and affordability; health care is the largest industry for employment in Macarthur, with over 13,000 people, or just over 15 per cent of the electorate, working in the health sector. They will all get tax cuts. Thank you very much to the health minister for his work in this space.

We've not yet been in government for two years, but our policies are already having very positive effects, with our cheaper medicines, 60-day dispensing and lower PBS co-payment providing over $1.6 million in savings to all Macarthur residents by the end of last year. On top of this, our increase to the bulk-billing incentive has benefited nearly 104,000 Macarthur residents, resulting in better access to GPs and medications. Our urgent care centre is making a significant difference already for access to health care. Just last week I received a letter from someone at a local GP clinic, who wrote to thank our government for taking what they call 'a brave and correct policy decision to triple the Medicare rebate'. They went on to outline in their letter how the 'outlook and engagement of general practitioners has improved significantly as a direct result of this funding increase'. Best of all, may I say, they went on to say:

The objection by GPs to bulk-billing has fallen away, and the focus is back on delivering care to patients—

sometimes the most vulnerable—

rather than seeking to implement private charging.

That is an incredible result and yet another sign of a government that understands cost-of-living pressures, that understands which families and which people are most at risk and that is trying its very best in really difficult times to provide support for those people. The letter closes by saying that the Medicare bulk-billing incentive increase 'is the single biggest lockstep change that I have seen in my time running general practices'. How wonderful it is to hear that our policies are providing real benefit to patients, practitioners and residents in my electorate.

I'm proud of these schemes. I'm proud of these tax-cut changes. They are really important for my constituents. These are policies from a government that listens, understands and is willing to move with the times. More people are getting access to support. More people are getting support with rent and mortgage payments and are benefiting from the changes in health care that this government is providing. Our cheaper childcare policy is benefiting 10,000 Macarthur families. It is vital for the education and social development of our children and is a wise investment in our nation's future. We also have the fee-free TAFE provisions, which have made a huge difference to Macarthur residents.

We know that much more needs to be done. We're not saying that our support for these people and these families has stopped. We need to look at what more can be done to provide cost-of-living relief to households as well as economic and social opportunities for our nation.

I look forward to a bright future with a Labor government providing support for some of our most vulnerable, including many of my patients. We have a proud record that we are keeping up in helping these people. I'm proud that our government is aware of the difficulties facing young families and is acting now, not tomorrow. We will continue to advocate for all Australians, not just some. I again thank the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the Minister for Health and Aged Care, and the wider cabinet for their work on these very important issues. There is much more to be done, and I think we need to recognise that our population is increasing. We need to encourage young families to have aspirational ideas, and these tax cuts will help in that. I thank the government for their support for my electorate, and I look forward to further improvements in cost-of-living relief for all Australians.

David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak about this Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024 and a related bill, addressing the cost-of-living tax cuts. There are very mixed feelings about this. It's like the old chestnut with the two nuts under three half shells. There's a lot of moving around here, and I think the government benches are hoping that no-one has realised.

If you recall, this is more like giving back some of the tax offsets that you removed at the last budget, rather than a tax cut. The actual tax rate has been reduced from 19 per cent down to 16 per cent in the $18,200 to $45,000 bracket. The flat $45,000 to $200,000 threshold that was to be taxed at 30c in the dollar has been abandoned, and that bracket has been split in two. The 30c rate will only go from $45,000 to $135,000, and then from $135,000 to 190,000 the 37 per cent tax bracket still applies. In our original tax plan stage 3, that whole 37c-in-the-dollar tax rate was going to be abolished until a person's income went up above $200,000.

One of the other features in our last budget was the low and middle income tax offset, which had been there for three years at $1,052 for earnings up to $37,000. It was significantly greater than what these tax cuts are now. Obviously, when we lost the election—and because we didn't announce that that was being increased from $1,052 up to $1,500 for people earning up to $90,000—we lost government, so of course we couldn't introduce that increase. But those opposite had the opportunity to help people at the last budget and continue that low and middle income tax offset. People have been worse off for a year. Lots of people came to my office when they did their tax returns and all of a sudden they weren't getting the refund that they had gotten for the two years before that.

These Dunkley tax cuts are not really as good as they were made out to be. No-one is ever going to object to a tax cut. I like lower taxes, like everyone. But you were getting a better deal out of the coalition's tax plan. There are people who, when this comes through, will be stuck on the 37c in the dollar rate. We had a holistic plan rolled out over several years so that the issue of bracket creep was addressed, so that people who are working hard, wanting to do overtime or getting promoted, would—

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It being 7.30, we're going to do adjournment, and then we're going to come back and resume the debate, in which you'll be given the call in continuation, Member for Lyne.